# Is "Shield" too powerful?



## doctorhook (Aug 14, 2008)

_Shield_ (Wizard Utility 2; Encounter; as an immediate interrupt, gain +4 to AC and Reflex until the end of your next turn) is a really good utility spell.

My party has two wizards, and both prepare _Shield_ every day. To be sure, _Expeditious Retreat_ is good (Daily; shift twice your speed as a move action), and _Jump_ is kinda cool, especially after the recent errata, while _Feather Fall_ is a little difficult to compare to the others. Since they're Wizards, both learned two utilities at 2nd level, and both selected _Shield_ as one of their choices. As I said, since then, neither has ever chosen to prepare a utility other than _Shield_. If I was to make and play a Wizard character, (instead of DM), I'd probably choose _Shield_ and _Expeditious Retreat_ as my level 2 utilities.

It used to be said that "If an ability is too good to be without, it's probably too good." Is that the case here? What are everyone else's experiences with _Shield_? Should I, as a DM, try to make more Fortitude and Will attacks against my party's Wizards in order to illustrate _Shield_'s vulnerability?

In short, is _Shield _too powerful?


----------



## Zaran (Aug 14, 2008)

No, people get it because wizards don't have much AC.  It's a good CYA power.


----------



## s-dub (Aug 14, 2008)

It has the most obvious uses and is very likely to be useful every encounter.  Fewer people will pick the less obvious powers (such as ex. retreat) even if they are as useful.

In terms of power, shield is arguably no better than expeditious retreat.  Sure, shield helps to block AC/reflex attacks, but it's no guarantee.  The target can still smack at the wizard next turn as well.  Ex. retreat doesn't provoke OA's and the wizard still has a standard and a minor action to attack, plus he's now 2 move actions away and hopefully in a safe spot.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Aug 14, 2008)

I dunno. It's a great spell for sure, but it's not the end-all. Ever since my wizard got his Arcane Gyrocopter he's prepared Feather Fall daily, just in case.


----------



## Dooks Dizzo (Aug 14, 2008)

It's not too powerful by any means and at higher level after a Wizard has gotten better armor and some gear it will drop off in utility.

Considering how bad a Wizards armor class blows, they certainly need something.  It's not like 3rd where they just got a +4 all the time from mage armor.

My brother just picked up hide armor for his mage giving him a badass 17 AC.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 15, 2008)

Wizard's with a crappy AC? Hardly...one feat (leather armor proficiency) and they are right with everyone else for their AC, and they have a great reflex defense.

I think shield is the best of the 2nd level utilities mainly because its an encounter power. Ex. Retreat is a fun power, but what would I rather have, something I may use 4 or 5 times in a day or something I will only use once?

Jump and Feather fall I consider too situational to be a good utility power...however, if they were combined into one power then it might be worth my time. ITs just like in 3rd edition...most wizards didn't waste their precious spell slots on feather fall, they used scrolls of it. In 4e the same holds true, very situational powers are worthless as standalone powers.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Aug 15, 2008)

Stalker0 said:


> I think shield is the best of the 2nd level utilities mainly because its an encounter power. Ex. Retreat is a fun power, but what would I rather have, something I may use 4 or 5 times in a day or something I will only use once?




I have to agree.  Shield isn't terribly strong, and it doesn't always help.  However, the benefit of being able to use it every round makes it _far_ more attractive than ER or FF.  Jump is kind of neat, and I may swap it for Shield simply because it'll be highly useful outside of combat.  That's why FF is so worthless, in my opinion - being a daily power just kills its utility, especially since it is so situational.  If FF were an encounter power it would be a little more useful.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 15, 2008)

Zaran said:


> No, people get it because wizards don't have much AC.



 Mine does! Same AC as the Fighter, and he'll have the best AC in the party by 11th level.



Stalker0 said:


> Wizard's with a crappy AC? Hardly...one feat (leather armor proficiency) and they are right with everyone else for their AC, and they have a great reflex defense.
> 
> I think shield is the best of the 2nd level utilities mainly because its an encounter power.



 Agree, and agree. I prep Shield every day, even if I don't end up using it every encounter. There's just something awesome about being able to tell the DM: "Actually, no."

Of course, my Wizard is a bit non-standard. After our Paladin of Kord saved his butt one too many times, he put a point into Strength and took Hide proficiency. Now he's got a 21 AC (same as the Fighter who uses a heavy shield), and can have a 25 AC for a round thanks to Shield (plus, add in Staff of Defense, and he's able to say "actually, no" twice per encounter).

His good AC allows him to make good use of Thunderwave, since he's not afraid of getting into melee range.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Ahglock (Aug 15, 2008)

Echoing the encounter power aspect of it being the real selling point.

FF seems totally weak sauce mainly due to it being a daily, heck I don't think it would be overpowered at level 2 as an at will.    As a daily it just sucks.


----------



## KarinsDad (Aug 15, 2008)

doctorhook said:
			
		

> What are everyone else's experiences with _Shield_? Should I, as a DM, try to make more Fortitude and Will attacks against my party's Wizards in order to illustrate _Shield_'s vulnerability?
> 
> In short, is _Shield _too powerful?




It's not too powerful. It is useful.

It is less useful in campaigns where combat does not occur on a daily basis.

From my experience, it hardly ever works. It blocks a successful attack about one time in three (unless the DM somehow lets the player know how effective the NPC attack is and also the roll on the D20).

So one combat day in three, it helps. Even at this limited utility level, it is more helpful than Feather Fall. But, Expeditious Retreat could be helpful one combat day in one with a good player.


----------



## Ravingdork (Aug 15, 2008)

KarinsDad said:


> It's not too powerful. It is useful.
> 
> It is less useful in campaigns where combat does not occur on a daily basis.
> 
> ...




It's been my experience that most GMs say something to the effect of "Does a 23 hit your AC?" In such a situation, it is easily a powerful utility spell.


----------



## Ahglock (Aug 15, 2008)

raven_dark64 said:


> It's been my experience that most GMs say something to the effect of "Does a 23 hit your AC?" In such a situation, it is easily a powerful utility spell.




I guess I'm weird but I keep my players stats around and I don't have to ask what will hit them.  I like to keep track of things like AC and HP.


----------



## Rechan (Aug 15, 2008)

The _real_ power of Shield comes when another class takes Acolyte power. 

Granted, you have to take two feats to get it. But slap that puppy on the fighter, it makes a fat difference.


----------



## unan oranis (Aug 15, 2008)

Shield rocks... but feather fall is better, so far in my experience anyway.

Feather fall has saved the lives of two characters in my 4ecampaign to date, although once they can handle higher acrobatics/climb dc's and survive brutal drops my local wizard will probably switch to shield.


----------



## Fedifensor (Aug 15, 2008)

raven_dark64 said:


> It's been my experience that most GMs say something to the effect of "Does a 23 hit your AC?" In such a situation, it is easily a powerful utility spell.



Well, let's look at the rules...



			
				PHB page 268 said:
			
		

> *Interrupt:* An immediate interrupt lets you jump in when a certain trigger condition arises, acting before the trigger resolves. If an interrupt invalidates a triggering action, that action is lost.





			
				PHB page 161 said:
			
		

> *Trigger:* You are hit by an attack





			
				DMG page 26 said:
			
		

> *Informing Players*
> All the information the players need to make their choices comes from you. Therefore, within the rules of the game and the limits of PC knowledge, Insight, and Perception, tell players everything they need to know. You don’t have to reveal all aspects of a situation or hazard in one go. You should, however, give enough information that the players know what’s up and have an idea what to do—and what not to do.



Sounds to me like you should tell the players enough so they have an idea whether Shield would be wasted if they use it.  Maybe you don't want to say specific numbers, but "that attack just barely hit you" or "the orc delivers an extremely accurate blow to your shoulder" should give a clue as to whether using the interrupt power of Shield would let the character deflect the blow.


----------



## Otterscrubber (Aug 15, 2008)

Shield is nice for sure, but hardly broken.  It's not like it makes you immune to any attacks, just increases the likelihood that you'll not get hit for a round.  Expeditious Retreat can guarantee you don't get hit for a round, more if you move into really good position.  I don't think it's a must have, I honestly had a hard time choosing the lvl 2 utilities for my wizard.  I did go with Shield though as one of them.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Aug 15, 2008)

Definitely. Otherwise, you're taking a spell that's useful about every other combat and making it almost totally worthless.


----------



## KarinsDad (Aug 15, 2008)

Fedifensor said:
			
		

> Sounds to me like you should tell the players enough so they have an idea whether Shield would be wasted if they use it.  Maybe you don't want to say specific numbers, but "that attack just barely hit you" or "the orc delivers an extremely accurate blow to your shoulder" should give a clue as to whether using the interrupt power of Shield would let the character deflect the blow.




What happens if it is a Fort or Will attack? Do you tell the player that Shield won't work on this attack?

As to the "barely hit" syndrome, that is not information that the PCs have.

There are no "hits" in 4E until the very last attack. That one either kills or knocks a PC unconscious.

Any hit point reducing attack before that can be overcome with Second Wind. Using your "let's look at the rules" philosophy:



> Second Wind
> 
> You can dig into your resolve and endurance to find an extra burst of vitality.
> 
> ...




Hit points are not real damage. Hence, the PC is not "hit". Hence, he does not know that he is barely hit.

The DM knows, but the PC does not know. If the PC does not know, the player should not know either.

The player knows that the PC was hit, but the PC really does not know that he ran out of a little luck or skill or resolve.



> Therefore, within the rules of the game and *the limits of PC knowledge, Insight, and Perception*, tell players everything they need to know.


----------



## FadedC (Aug 15, 2008)

KarinsDad said:


> What happens if it is a Fort or Will attack? Do you tell the player that Shield won't work on this attack?
> 
> As to the "barely hit" syndrome, that is not information that the PCs have.
> 
> ...




Well I disagree that hits don't reflect real damage (what they actually reflect is not remotely something that players of D&D have ever been able to completely agree on). But I agree with your overall point that you shouldn't tell players any more then if the attack hit or missed them. Shield is a perfectly powerful spell as it is without needing that knowledge, and I'd argue it becomes way too good if you tell people that.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 15, 2008)

I will close my thoughts on this that saying I believe shield is the strongest of the wizard utility 2's, but its not out of bounds when compared to other classes.

Clerics get shield of faith, fighters boundless endurance, warlocks beguiling tongue. Compared to those, shield is a solid benefit, but hardly earth shattering.


----------



## Felon (Aug 15, 2008)

doctorhook said:


> It used to be said that "If an ability is too good to be without, it's probably too good."



Well, there's a difference between an ability being "too good to do without" and simply being "the best of four available options". Most folks aren't going to pick jumping or falling utilities over a defensive one.  If expeditious retreat were an encounter power, it would be a tougher choice, but as-is shield just hedges out the others.


----------



## Felon (Aug 15, 2008)

Stalker0 said:


> Clerics get shield of faith, fighters boundless endurance, warlocks beguiling tongue. Compared to those, shield is a solid benefit, but hardly earth shattering.



Beguiling tongue? Adding a +5 to one Cha skill check is your big impressive warlock utility?


----------



## FadedC (Aug 15, 2008)

Felon said:


> Beguiling tongue? Adding a +5 to one Cha skill check is your big impressive warlock utility?




I'm a bit mystified by boundless endurance as well. But at least we can all agree about shield of faith.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 15, 2008)

Felon said:


> Beguiling tongue? Adding a +5 to one Cha skill check is your big impressive warlock utility?




Maybe I play in more social games then you do, but I consider a +5 to a social check in pretty much every social encounter I participate in (and in 4e a +5 is a BIG BIG bonus) to be a really good power. And heck its also great for skill challenges. 

But hey if that doesn't float your boat, ethereal stride is also quite good.


----------



## fissionessence (Aug 15, 2008)

From the replies I'm reading, it looks like Shield's real power comes from a lack of alternate utility powers that are equally useful. If there were a couple other just as useful level 2 utilities, we might see some more variety there.

~


----------



## Nifft (Aug 15, 2008)

Fedifensor said:


> Sounds to me like you should tell the players enough so they have an idea whether Shield would be wasted if they use it.



 Agreed. 4e is an "above the board" kind of game. Gotchas should be minimized.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Caliber (Aug 15, 2008)

My DM generally asks me for the appropriate defense score and then informs me whether I was hit or missed. He does roll in the open though, so if I see a particularly high number sitting on his d20, I know Shield probably won't save my bacon. Just throwing that out there.


----------



## doctorhook (Aug 15, 2008)

So, it seems the jury is still out on what the problem is, exactly, and whether or not it even exists.

Hypothetically, what if the Wizard's level 2 Utility choices looked like this:

*Expeditious Retreat*: (Daily, move action) Shift up to twice your speed.
*Feather Fall*: (Encounter, free action, range 10) Use when a creature (EDIT: Including yourself) in range falls. That creature takes no damage and doesn't fall prone.
*Jump*: (Encounter, move action, range 10) One creature (EDIT: Including yourself) makes an Athletics check to jump as a free action, with a +10 power bonus. Target can move as many squares as the check allows and is considered to have a running start.
*Phantasmal Terrain*: (Daily, standard action, area burst 2 within 10) Against your enemies, until the end of the encounter, difficult terrain in the zone costs an extra additional point of movement, and traps and hazards within the zone gain a bonus to attack rolls equal to your Intelligence modifier.
*Shield*: (Daily, immediate interrupt) Use when you are hit by an attack. You gain a +4 power bonus to AC and Reflex until the end of your next turn.
Which powers would you choose if these were the choices?

EDIT: Some other options to consider:


What if *Feather Fall* was an At-Will?
What if *Shield* gave +3 AC and Reflex until the end of your next turn, as an encounter power?
What if *Shield* gave +4 AC and Reflex until the end of the encounter, as a daily?
 These are subtle, hypothetical changes, that I'm not currently suggesting anyone make. (Consider this to have been an experiment of sorts.) Expeditious Retreat is the same, Feather Fall is now an encounter power, Jump is the same as its newest errata, Phantasmal Terrain is the same as it appears in Dragon 364, and Shield is now a daily.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 15, 2008)

doctorhook said:


> Which powers would you choose if these were the choices?



 Feather Fall & Shield, until I could take the multi-class feat to get something that sucked less. They're still the only two that fit well with my defensive character.

If Shield had a lower bonus but lasted for the whole encounter, it'd be a fine Daily.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 15, 2008)

doctorhook said:


> Which powers would you choose if these were the choices?




Phantasmal Terrain I wouldn't pick up early on, but I would definitely consider retraining to it later. The wizard doesn't have any area control spells at low level to make PT worth it (unless your DM just loves difficult terrain). But at higher levels once I have a few of those powers under my belt PT looks a lot better.

Even as a daily I would consider shield, though I would think about it a lot more. Ex. Retreat starts looking a lot better when shield is a daily.

For Feather Fall, I would have to play with a DM that just loves pits and tons of higher ground to consider it. Under these conditions, the power is worth it. So I guess Feather Fall is just weak under my type of game, but not in someone else. In that case its alright.

Jump: Skill bonuses are deceptive. A +10 to a skill is a godsend for a skill challenge, that's pretty much an autosuccess. If we assume shield is a daily, then I would consider picking this up. Its one of those if I had it, I would find ways to use it. My biggest problem with shield is the wizard can't use it in combination with his own movement. Normally I'm jumping as part of a move to get somewhere. You can't do that with the power as written. If I could that, I would seriously consider adding this one to my arsenal.


----------



## doctorhook (Aug 15, 2008)

*NOTE: *I've updated my "hypothetical suggestions" post above.



Stalker0 said:


> Jump: Skill bonuses are deceptive. A +10 to a skill is a godsend for a skill challenge, that's pretty much an autosuccess. If we assume shield is a daily, then I would consider picking this up. Its one of those if I had it, I would find ways to use it. My biggest problem with shield is the wizard can't use it in combination with his own movement. *Normally I'm jumping as part of a move to get somewhere. You can't do that with the power as written. If I could that, I would seriously consider adding this one to my arsenal.*



Sorry Stalk, but I'm not sure I understand. Could you explain? (I've corrected my post to explain that you can use _Jump_ on yourself, if that was the problem.)


----------



## WhatGravitas (Aug 15, 2008)

Nifft said:


> If Shield had a lower bonus but lasted for the whole encounter, it'd be a fine Daily.



That's an important point. In 4E, the general trend is: At-Wills are affecting the current turn. Encounter powers are worth about two turns (either by lasting effects with "until the end of your next turn" or by dealing more damage). Dailies however, have an effect for several turns (stuff with save ends and big damage powers) or even the entire encounter (powers with sustain or "until end of the encounter").

Not all powers are fitting into the scheme, but the good ones do (Flaming Sphere can turn an encounter around, Shield basically negates an enemy's turn).

Expeditious Retreat fits this scheme, it's two turn movement in one turn (if you still attack stuff) AND allows you to ignore OAs. If you want to get out of melee, you have to shift two or three times, even with not so persistent pursuers. But since it's "only" movement, it doesn't feel like a daily and more like an encounter power.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 16, 2008)

doctorhook said:


> *NOTE: *I've updated my "hypothetical suggestions" post above.
> 
> Sorry Stalk, but I'm not sure I understand. Could you explain? (I've corrected my post to explain that you can use _Jump_ on yourself, if that was the problem.)




Let's say I'm a rogue jumping over a pit. Often I would move to the pit, jump the pit, and continue my move. As a wizard, I could ready an action to give the rogue a bonus on his jump.

But if I use the power, that's my move action. I would have to move up to the pit as my first move, and my second move would be to use the jump power. I would move as far as I jumped, and then would have to stop. When I use the power on myself I can't combine the jump with regular movement.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 16, 2008)

Stalker0 said:


> Jump: Skill bonuses are deceptive. A +10 to a skill is a godsend for a skill challenge, that's pretty much an autosuccess. If we assume shield is a daily, then I would consider picking this up. Its one of those if I had it, I would find ways to use it. My biggest problem with shield is the wizard can't use it in combination with his own movement. Normally I'm jumping as part of a move to get somewhere. You can't do that with the power as written. If I could that, I would seriously consider adding this one to my arsenal.




Current wording of jump:

*Encounter*




*Arcane*
*Move Action**Ranged* 10*Target*: You or one creature
*Effect*: The target makes an Athletics check as a free action to jump with a +10 power bonus. The target can move as many squares as the check allows and is considered to have a running start.

So it gives them a free move on your turn, basicly giving them a minimum 2 squares they can clear, more at higher levels.  If only for the free move, it's not a bad power.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Aug 16, 2008)

That's what you get for not checking the errata every 5 minutes...


----------



## Henry (Aug 16, 2008)

I don't see shield as a problem. In fact, our party wizard (admittedly, a disliker of 4e overall) saw it as pretty useless the first time he read it. It saved his bacon this last game. 

However, if I start seeing 22nd level wizards still prepping shield, I'm going to start wondering if it's too good, because there are some pretty awesome utilities between 2nd and 22nd.


----------



## Fedifensor (Aug 16, 2008)

KarinsDad said:


> What happens if it is a Fort or Will attack? Do you tell the player that Shield won't work on this attack?



Definitely.  Per the DMG, I'm obligated to do so - doing otherwise is a "gotcha" tactic.  Besides, why would I want to make a player waste a power?  It's less fun for him, and the goal is to have fun.



> As to the "barely hit" syndrome, that is not information that the PCs have.
> 
> There are no "hits" in 4E until the very last attack. That one either kills or knocks a PC unconscious.



Hit points are an abstraction, but players always know their own HP score.  Thus, you can tell whether an attack is going to miss, or get close enough to wear you down further.  Also remember that Shield is an interrupt with a condition of "You are hit by an attack", so you can use it after you're hit to raise your AC and change that hit into a miss.



> Hit points are not real damage. Hence, the PC is not "hit". Hence, he does not know that he is barely hit.



See above.  Also, that attitude is not one that makes the game enjoyable to play.  You seem to be rules-lawyering because you think the power is too effective.  If it was a +1 bonus instead of +4, would you do the same thing?



> The DM knows, but the PC does not know. If the PC does not know, the player should not know either.
> 
> The player knows that the PC was hit, but the PC really does not know that he ran out of a little luck or skill or resolve.



If someone swings a bat at me, and they miss, I'm pretty sure I'd know if I was lucky, or skillful, or resolute enough to avoid the blow.  How many fantasy novels have you read where the main character is thinking, "I dodged that attack, but my luck is running out.  It's only a matter of time until he gets me?"  It's a pretty common facet of the genre.


----------



## Fedifensor (Aug 16, 2008)

Henry said:


> However, if I start seeing 22nd level wizards still prepping shield, I'm going to start wondering if it's too good, because there are some pretty awesome utilities between 2nd and 22nd.



Er, you don't trade out utility powers like you do with encounter or daily powers.  At 22nd level, I'm pretty sure I'll still prepare shield, along with the utility powers gained at 6th, 10th, 12th, 16th, and 22nd level.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 16, 2008)

Fedifensor said:


> Er, you don't trade out utility powers like you do with encounter or daily powers.  At 22nd level, I'm pretty sure I'll still prepare shield, along with the utility powers gained at 6th, 10th, 12th, 16th, and 22nd level.



 This gentleman has the right of it.

Every PC of every class will have a level 2 utility power, and each one ought to remain useful at 22nd level.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 16, 2008)

Fedifensor said:


> Er, you don't trade out utility powers like you do with encounter or daily powers.  At 22nd level, I'm pretty sure I'll still prepare shield, along with the utility powers gained at 6th, 10th, 12th, 16th, and 22nd level.




Yeah, that's one of the things that bugs some of my fellow players about 4e, having to stick with the same power until the end of time bothers them a lot.


----------



## KarinsDad (Aug 16, 2008)

Stalker0 said:


> Yeah, that's one of the things that bugs some of my fellow players about 4e, having to stick with the same power until the end of time bothers them a lot.




Except that they can retrain them. They are not forced to stick with the same utility power until the end of time. Only the same level of a power.

With the exception of Warlocks, there are often 3 to 5 (although 2 in the case of 16th Paladin and 6 in the case of 6th Wizard) utility powers of the same level for each class, so that's quite a bit of flexibility.


----------



## Henry (Aug 16, 2008)

Fedifensor said:


> Er, you don't trade out utility powers like you do with encounter or daily powers.  At 22nd level, I'm pretty sure I'll still prepare shield, along with the utility powers gained at 6th, 10th, 12th, 16th, and 22nd level.




Ah, I missed that -- however, it can still be retrained for another level 2 utility, and for a wizard's money, feather fall and exped. retreat for higher level play are far more worth it. At lower levels, the bigger threat in my opinion is the big bad that can smack you silly - for higher levels, the big threat is the 100-foot falls the DM threatens the whole party with when the Rocs snatch you.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 16, 2008)

KarinsDad said:


> Except that they can retrain them. They are not forced to stick with the same utility power until the end of time. Only the same level of a power.




But usually the utility I pick is the one I want from that list, so its not really a new choice. I mean if some utility powers started failing at high levels and others started picking up, the sure that would be useful. But if I pick shield from the list, it means I want shield more than the other utilities, so the ability to change is just the ability for me to have the option to choose something I don't want.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 16, 2008)

Stalker0 said:


> Yeah, that's one of the things that bugs some of my fellow players about 4e, having to stick with the same power until the end of time bothers them a lot.






Stalker0 said:


> But usually the utility I pick is the one I want from that list, so its not really a new choice. I mean if some utility powers started failing at high levels and others started picking up, the sure that would be useful. But if I pick shield from the list, it means I want shield more than the other utilities, so the ability to change is just the ability for me to have the option to choose something I don't want.



 Color me confused. Is it annoying that you have Shield at 22nd level, or are you getting what you want?

Personally, my Wizard is always going to find Shield useful, but that's my concept. He's also going to be swinging a longsword, so I expect he's not like most other Wizards.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## KarinsDad (Aug 16, 2008)

Fedifensor said:
			
		

> Definitely.  Per the DMG, I'm obligated to do so - doing otherwise is a "gotcha" tactic.  Besides, why would I want to make a player waste a power?  It's less fun for him, and the goal is to have fun.




Nonsense.

As a player, I like to be challenged. I want new and unusual circumstances. That's FUN.

Being spoon fed the answer by the DM all of the time is not fun. If I make a mistake as a player, that's ok. It's not "less fun".

And, the DMG did not state what you claim it states. It limits information to PC knowledge, not player knowledge.

They are two different sets of knowledge.


Are you claiming that the PC KNOWS every single time which defense enemy attacks use before the affects of the power are applied? Where is this in the rules? Where is it in the rules that PCs know what defenses even are?

Sure they know after the fact (PHB page 57) how the power affects them, but they only know once the power affects them. This says nothing about before the power affects them or which defense the power affects.



			
				Fedifensor said:
			
		

> Hit points are an abstraction, but players always know their own HP score.  Thus, you can tell whether an attack is going to miss, or get close enough to wear you down further.  Also remember that Shield is an interrupt with a condition of "You are hit by an attack", so you can use it after you're hit to raise your AC and change that hit into a miss.




Yes, players know their HP scores. PCs do not.

The DMG limits the knowledge to PC knowledge, not player knowledge.



			
				Fedifensor said:
			
		

> See above.  Also, that attitude is not one that makes the game enjoyable to play.  You seem to be rules-lawyering because you think the power is too effective.  If it was a +1 bonus instead of +4, would you do the same thing?




Again, nonsense. The game does not need to be played your way to be fun. And, you are the one who pulled out the DMG rule and then start saying "rules-lawyering" when somebody disagrees with your interpretation.

I do agree that spoon feeding your players and telling them:

DM: "Bob, Shield will not work this time because he hit you by 5"

or

DM: "Bob, he hit you for 40 points of damage and only made the roll by 3, so Shield will stop it"

does make Shield too effective. 100% effective as a matter of fact.



			
				Fedifensor said:
			
		

> If someone swings a bat at me, and they miss, I'm pretty sure I'd know if I was lucky, or skillful, or resolute enough to avoid the blow.  How many fantasy novels have you read where the main character is thinking, "I dodged that attack, but my luck is running out.  It's only a matter of time until he gets me?"  It's a pretty common facet of the genre.




But, this does not apply to the Shield mechanics.

Knowing that one is lucky to be missed says nothing about how unlucky one was to "just barely be hit". Apples and oranges comparison and has nothing to do with the rules discussion here on how Shield works.


----------



## KarinsDad (Aug 16, 2008)

Stalker0 said:


> But usually the utility I pick is the one I want from that list, so its not really a new choice. I mean if some utility powers started failing at high levels and others started picking up, the sure that would be useful. But if I pick shield from the list, it means I want shield more than the other utilities, so the ability to change is just the ability for me to have the option to choose something I don't want.




In the case of Wizard utility spells, players have two choices. Two spells to know and one to prepare. Three to know in the case of Expanded Spellbook.

Although Shield is better most of the time, there are definitely times where the player knows that Feather Fall will be more useful.

Ditto for spells like Fly at higher level, but Levitate at lower level (or some Wizard might take both every time).

At low levels, Dispel Magic is probably not very useful and might not be taken as a known spell. At high level, it might become very useful.

As a PC gains magic items that have certain Daily or Property powers, it might be more useful to swap out Daily utility powers that are less useful. For example, if a Wizard has Mantle of the Seventh Wind, does he really need Levitate and Fly?

I'm sure some players tend to stick with whatever powers they picked early on, but there are also players who switch it up, even if just to see how effective some power is in the game.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 16, 2008)

KarinsDad said:


> In the case of Wizard utility spells, players have two choices. Two spells to know and one to prepare. Three to know in the case of Expanded Spellbook.




Just as a note, expanded spellbook doesn't give you more utilities, only more daily attack powers.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 16, 2008)

I feel that as a 4e DM it is appropriate to let the wizard know whether his shield spell is usable or useless against a particular strike if he asks me.

Cheers


----------



## Nifft (Aug 16, 2008)

KarinsDad said:


> I do agree that spoon feeding your players and telling them:
> 
> DM: "Bob, Shield will not work this time because he hit you by 5"
> 
> ...



 You're lumping two things together that ought not be so lumped: attack and damage.

Staff of Defense is the only power I've seen that allows you to declare its use after hearing damage. Other interrupt powers may only allow you to know the attack roll.

This is the difference between: 
 "Does a 25 hit?"
 ... and ... 
 "Does a 25 hit? Because if it does, that's 80 hit points, I'm going to push your whole family into a pit, and ice weasels will have their way with your daughter."
 Smidgen of a difference there.

In your example, where the DM rolls attack and damage and doesn't need to ask the player his AC, at what point is the player expected to decide whether to use Shield or not? Asking the AC makes this decision very natural, since the DM is waiting for a response from the player anyway. In your game, does the player literally have to interrupt the DM's monologue?

Cheers, -- N


----------



## doctorhook (Aug 17, 2008)

Stalker0 said:


> Let's say I'm a rogue jumping over a pit. Often I would move to the pit, jump the pit, and continue my move. As a wizard, I could ready an action to give the rogue a bonus on his jump.
> 
> But if I use the power, that's my move action. I would have to move up to the pit as my first move, and my second move would be to use the jump power. I would move as far as I jumped, and then would have to stop. When I use the power on myself I can't combine the jump with regular movement.



Thanks for the explanation, Stalker0. I see what you're saying now.

Perhaps _Jump_ ought to be a minor action spell that grants a free move action in the form of a jump? (As opposed to a move action spell that does the same, if I understand you.)


Plane Sailing said:


> I feel that as a 4e DM it is appropriate to let the wizard know whether his shield spell is usable or useless against a particular strike if he asks me.
> 
> Cheers



Agreed. YMMV, KD, but I find it too antagonistic, as a DM, not to give my players the information they need to use their powers properly. Any "ineffectiveness" by _Shield_ ought to come from the spell being ineffective against Fortitude and Will attacks, and not from the DM saying "Gotcha!", IMO.

This brings us back to the main topic; assuming disclosure of attack rolls by the DM, is _Shield_ too effective? I'm beginning to learn towards "No".


----------



## FadedC (Aug 17, 2008)

doctorhook said:


> Thanks for the explanation, Stalker0. I see what you're saying now.
> 
> Perhaps _Jump_ ought to be a minor action spell that grants a free move action in the form of a jump? (As opposed to a move action spell that does the same, if I understand you.)
> Agreed. YMMV, KD, but I find it too antagonistic, as a DM, not to give my players the information they need to use their powers properly. Any "ineffectiveness" by _Shield_ ought to come from the spell being ineffective against Fortitude and Will attacks, and not from the DM saying "Gotcha!", IMO.
> ...




Actually if you do disclose attack rolls I think shield is a bit too effective. Then it's pretty much guaranteed to turn one hit into a miss (because there will always be an attack that hits by 4 or less), once per encounter as well as giving you a large ac bonus for the rest of the round and that's a bit too good. Certainly way better then say the halfling reroll ability or any reactive defense a fighter gets.

Given that there is absolutely nothing to support disclosing attack rolls though I think shield is fine. Sure there is a risk you will use it and it won't help, but that's true of every power that boosts your ac for a round or forces an enemy to reroll an attack. That's what balances it against other abilities. It will work about half the time, same as the halflings reroll or other similar powers.

Though I guess it still better then a lot of those other powers because it gives you a 50%-ish chance to avoid an attack AND it gives you a huge defence boost for the rest of the round.


----------



## Henry (Aug 17, 2008)

Stalker0 said:


> But usually the utility I pick is the one I want from that list, so its not really a new choice. I mean if some utility powers started failing at high levels and others started picking up, the sure that would be useful. But if I pick shield from the list, it means I want shield more than the other utilities, so the ability to change is just the ability for me to have the option to choose something I don't want.




However, there's one other situation -- new powers entering the game. Many groups add Dragon mags & splatbooks, so if Rary's Lesser Mnemonic Enhancer becomes available, the retraining lets you take care of that quickly without retooling the character too much.


----------



## brehobit (Aug 17, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:


> I feel that as a 4e DM it is appropriate to let the wizard know whether his shield spell is usable or useless against a particular strike if he asks me.
> 
> Cheers



And I didn't.  I roll the dice in the open, so they have an idea.  But that's it.  I think that makes it too powerful (same with the staff power).


----------



## Fedifensor (Aug 17, 2008)

KarinsDad said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> Being spoon fed the answer by the DM all of the time is not fun. If I make a mistake as a player, that's ok. It's not "less fun".



How is giving a PC the info of whether a power will be useful "spoon-feeding"?  There will be several attacks against a PC's defenses over an encounter.  Even if a PC knows that shield will make the difference against an attack, it may be better to wait and use it later (perhaps when the dragon's breath weapon recharges).



> And, the DMG did not state what you claim it states. It limits information to PC knowledge, not player knowledge.
> 
> They are two different sets of knowledge.



Yes, they are.  But all PCs are experienced with battle, and the only way to show that experience is for the DM to pass along information.  If someone swings a weapon at me, I can generally tell if it's going to hit or miss as the blow is coming in...and I have nothing close to the combat experience of even a novice adventurer.



> Are you claiming that the PC KNOWS every single time which defense enemy attacks use before the affects of the power are applied? Where is this in the rules? Where is it in the rules that PCs know what defenses even are?




Again, look at the power:


			
				PHB page 161 said:
			
		

> _*Trigger:* You are hit by an attack_



Once an attack hits, yes, you know which defense was attacked...because that defense was hit.  And since Shield is an interrupt, it can change that hit to a miss before damage is applied.

Furthermore, I've cited where the DMG states that players should be informed.  It's your turn - tell me where it is in the rules that PCs *don't* know which defense is attacked or what defenses are.



> Yes, players know their HP scores. PCs do not.



Prove it.  You keep staying that the rules don't say X...which regardless of whether you are correct, doesn't prove the statement that X is false.  A character may not know HP scores by that name, but to say an experienced fighter doesn't know their combat capabilities and when they're reaching abilities is (to use a term you have been using frequently) nonsense.



> Again, nonsense.



There's that word again.  I do not think it means what you think it means... 



> The game does not need to be played your way to be fun.



You mean the way where I empower players instead of restrict them?  Hey, if your group is happy with your method, more power to you.  But if I run a 4E game (especially if it is in a shared game environment like Living Forgotten Realms), I'm going to go by my interpretation of what the rulebook says, unless I have an agreement with the players to use house rules.  The DMG says to inform players, and that's what I'm going to do.



> And, you are the one who pulled out the DMG rule and then start saying "rules-lawyering" when somebody disagrees with your interpretation.



People kept debating about whether you should tell people what AC was hit.  I pointed to the relevant rule to help people decide how to resolve the situation in a game.  The lawyering part comes in when a person points to an ambiguous section of the rules and states that it only has one interpretation - theirs.



> But, this does not apply to the Shield mechanics.
> 
> Knowing that one is lucky to be missed says nothing about how unlucky one was to "just barely be hit". Apples and oranges comparison and has nothing to do with the rules discussion here on how Shield works.



The base rules for Shield are clear - it's an interrupt that works on a hit, that can adjust AC and Reflex up by 4 to turn that hit into a miss.  You brought up luck and unluck, and complained that PCs shouldn't have information about their own condition despite that very condition being an abstraction designed to promote a good gaming experience.

Regardless, we're not getting anywhere here.  You're not going to convince me, and I'm not going to convince you.  So, we'll see how the players react when each of us has our turn behind the DM screen...that's the true test of whether we're right or wrong.


----------



## KarinsDad (Aug 17, 2008)

Stalker0 said:


> Just as a note, expanded spellbook doesn't give you more utilities, only more daily attack powers.




Thanks for the correction. I was going to take it at 10th level, but now I won't.

I could care less about attack spells. It's utility spells that I want more of. I must have gotten confused by the short table description.


----------



## Fedifensor (Aug 17, 2008)

brehobit said:


> And I didn't.  I roll the dice in the open, so they have an idea.  But that's it.  I think that makes it too powerful (same with the staff power).



Wow.  You think the staff power can be too powerful?  Usually it's the orb power that everyone looks to as an example of being too tough...

One final point on this topic.  For those that listened to the Penny Arcade/PvP game podcasts, what do you think about how James Wyatt (one of the 3 members of the 4E design team, and the primary writer for the DMG) handled attack rolls by monsters?  For the benefit of those who haven't heard the podcasts - he told the players what the attack roll was, and asked if the attack hit their AC (or whatever other defense was being attacked).


----------



## KarinsDad (Aug 17, 2008)

Fedifensor said:
			
		

> How is giving a PC the info of whether a power will be useful "spoon-feeding"?




Because it is not information that PCs should have. A black bolt coming from an enemy caster could be anything. Without a successful arcana check, how exactly does the PC know what it is?



			
				Fedifensor said:
			
		

> Once an attack hits, yes, you know which defense was attacked...because that defense was hit.




Rules quote? Sounds like a house rule to me.



			
				Fedifensor said:
			
		

> And since Shield is an interrupt, it can change that hit to  miss before damage is applied.




These are metagaming rules. There is no "go back in time" for the PC. There is "go back in time and change a hit to a miss" for players.



			
				Fedifensor said:
			
		

> Furthermore, I've cited where the DMG states that players should be informed.  It's your turn - tell me where it is in the rules that PCs *don't* know which defense is attacked or what defenses are.






> Therefore, within the rules of the game and the *limits of PC knowledge*, Insight, and Perception, tell the players everything they need to know.




Are you claiming that PCs know what Will Defense is? What hit points are? What AC is? What to hit rolls are?

These are game mechanics terms. How do the PCs know that they are PCs in a game?



			
				Fedifensor said:
			
		

> You mean the way where I empower players instead of restrict them?  Hey, if your group is happy with your method, more power to you.  But if I run a 4E game (especially if it is in a shared game environment like Living Forgotten Realms), I'm going to go by my interpretation of what the rulebook says, unless I have an agreement with the players to use house rules.  The DMG says to inform players, and that's what I'm going to do.




Again, within limitations of PC knowledge. I'm glad that for your game that you house rule expand that to game mechanics rules, but that is not what that the DMG states.



			
				Fedifensor said:
			
		

> People kept debating about whether you should tell people what AC was hit.  I pointed to the relevant rule to help people decide how to resolve the situation in a game.  The lawyering part comes in when a person points to an ambiguous section of the rules and states that it only has one interpretation - theirs.




Like you are doing. Quit lawyering. 

 for tat.



			
				Fedifensor said:
			
		

> The base rules for Shield are clear - it's an interrupt that works on a hit, that can adjust AC and Reflex up by 4 to turn that hit into a miss.




Yes, they are crystal clear. An interrupt on any attack with a to hit roll, regardless of whether the Shield spell affects that attack or not.



> Trigger: You are hit by an attack.




The Shield spell does NOT state that it triggers on any AC or Reflex based attack, hence, it is not limited to triggering only on those types of attacks.

That is a house rule you are adding.

The trigger can be *ANY* attack that hits. Limiting the trigger by telling the player that the attack is not the proper type of attack is making the spell more useful than written.

By definition of the spell.

This is not rules lawyering, this is RAW.


----------



## FadedC (Aug 17, 2008)

Fedifensor said:


> How is giving a PC the info of whether a power will be useful "spoon-feeding"? There will be several attacks against a PC's defenses over an encounter. Even if a PC knows that shield will make the difference against an attack, it may be better to wait and use it later (perhaps when the dragon's breath weapon recharges).




So if your ensuring the wizard only uses shield when it's useful, then you should do that with every spell or ability.

Halflings and elves who use their reroll power and fail to fail to improve their situation should get their power back. Casters should be warned when they are about to attack an enemy with a power their foe is resistant to. Classes who use a power that gives them a defense buff for a round should be warned by the DM if the mosnters aren't planning to attack him. And of course any class that ever missses with a daily or encounter power should just get it back.

Or you could just accept that powers will sometimes be used when they are not useful and that this is a part of the game.


----------



## brehobit (Aug 17, 2008)

Fedifensor said:


> Wow.  You think the staff power can be too powerful?  Usually it's the orb power that everyone looks to as an example of being too tough...




Yeah, the orb can be twinked to a silly point.  No argument.  But _just_ the orb power isn't too bad.  It just shouldn't stack with anything else.

Minus that, the staff power is easily the best.  +1 AC just for showing up and an implement that doubles as a weapon.  Both sweet.  Taking two hands can be a significant disadvantage for some builds.  And played with 'full information' you get to have one attack miss per day most days (random set of choices, usually around 20-40% of all attacks that hit).  That's a bit much to me.  

We've had two wizards and both jumped at the staff (+1 to AC at all times= AC 18 at first level).





> One final point on this topic.  For those that listened to the Penny Arcade/PvP game podcasts, what do you think about how James Wyatt (one of the 3 members of the 4E design team, and the primary writer for the DMG) handled attack rolls by monsters?  For the benefit of those who haven't heard the podcasts - he told the players what the attack roll was, and asked if the attack hit their AC (or whatever other defense was being attacked).



I like that, other than things like staff/shield (which frankly i think was a bad idea and one they will regret including when moving to a computer version of the game).


----------



## doctorhook (Aug 17, 2008)

Fedifensor said:


> ...
> 
> One final point on this topic.  For those that listened to the Penny Arcade/PvP game podcasts, what do you think about how James Wyatt (one of the 3 members of the 4E design team, and the primary writer for the DMG) handled attack rolls by monsters?  For the benefit of those who haven't heard the podcasts - he told the players what the attack roll was, and asked if the attack hit their AC (or whatever other defense was being attacked).



That's exactly how I do it, and I don't see any reason not to continue doing it. When I attack my players, I say, "19 vs. AC; does it hit?" 

I haven't read anywhere that says I shouldn't do this (aside from in this thread).


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Aug 17, 2008)

KarinsDad said:

"Yes, players know their HP scores. PCs do not."


So don't tell the PC how close the roll was to missing -- tell the player.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Aug 17, 2008)

doctorhook said:


> Perhaps _Jump_ ought to be a minor action spell that grants a free move action in the form of a jump? (As opposed to a move action spell that does the same, if I understand you.)




It is. Check out the new errata. =)



> Agreed. YMMV, KD, but I find it too antagonistic, as a DM, not to give my players the information they need to use their powers properly. Any "ineffectiveness" by _Shield_ ought to come from the spell being ineffective against Fortitude and Will attacks, and not from the DM saying "Gotcha!", IMO.
> 
> This brings us back to the main topic; assuming disclosure of attack rolls by the DM, is _Shield_ too effective? I'm beginning to learn towards "No".




Pretty much. 



KarinsDad said:


> A lot of stuff over several posts




I disagree with, well, basically all of this. I don't see what is "too good" about a wizard turning an AC or Reflex hit that was a near miss into a miss _once per encounter_. The way to get around Shield is to attack Fort and Will, not to say "HA! I really got you good! You wasted your power!" It doesn't say anywhere in the rules that one of the requirements for Shield is that you guess whether or not it's going to be applicable. That's up to the DM, not the player. 

If you were running the game and I was playing in it, I'd never in ten million years take Shield. Why? No, it's not because I want spoon feeding, it's because I want a power that _does something_. I'll just take Expeditious Retreat instead and _shift two moves' worth of squares_. Do I have to declare my movement before I can see the battle grid?



doctorhook said:


> That's exactly how I do it, and I don't see any reason not to continue doing it. When I attack my players, I say, "19 vs. AC; does it hit?"
> 
> I haven't read anywhere that says I shouldn't do this (aside from in this thread).




This is how I started doing it, as well. It's also how the DMs on the PvP/PA podcast did it (you know, the guys that wrote 4e). I'm done with 2e and having a stack of PC stats behind my screen. I don't care what your AC is. If it hits, it hits, and if it misses, it misses. Otherwise, why bother rolling dice?


----------



## KarinsDad (Aug 17, 2008)

Old Gumphrey said:
			
		

> If you were running the game and I was playing in it, I'd never in ten million years take Shield. Why? No, it's not because I want spoon feeding, it's because I want a power that _does something_.




Yesterday in our game, I used the Shield spell.

It stopped the attack.

A moment later, I got attacked again.

It stopped that attack too (Shield lasts until the end of the Wizard's next turn and I know this happened because the DM forgot that my AC was still boosted and had to be reminded).

Based on the amount of damage being done by those opponents, my Wizard was at full health instead of being 2/3rds damaged.

It does do something with the DM not telling the player if it will work or not, it just does not guarantee that like some people want it to.


Entitlement is not part of DND unless the rules state so (in a rules forum discussion). It's part of some player's expectations of DND though.

There are hundreds of powers in the game system that do not guarantee success. Why should Shield be an exception to that?


----------



## doctorhook (Aug 17, 2008)

Old Gumphrey said:


> doctorhook said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not as a minor action, Gumph. In essence, the Wizard spends one move action casting the utility, then gets a move action to jump for free from the spell, then has a standard and minor action left. If the Wizard casts the spell on someone else, they get the free move action from the spell, plus all of their own actions.

Stalker0's point was that _Jump_ is substantially less useful when the caster uses it on himself, because he doesn't has one fewer move action than if someone else had cast it on him. Hence the suggestion that _Jump_ should be a minor action to cast.


----------



## FadedC (Aug 17, 2008)

Old Gumphrey said:


> If you were running the game and I was playing in it, I'd never in ten million years take Shield. Why? No, it's not because I want spoon feeding, it's because I want a power that _does something_. I'll just take Expeditious Retreat instead and _shift two moves' worth of squares_. Do I have to declare my movement before I can see the battle grid?




So you never take powers that sometimes fail to work? I'm guessing then that you must also hate the halfling and elf reroll power (you might still miss or be hit), every power that gives you a bonus on a roll (you might still fail), and every attack power in the game (since those often miss).

I personally would be more annoyed if the DM showed favortisim towards the wizard and let him know when his power would fail, when nobody else can do that.


----------



## doctorhook (Aug 17, 2008)

FadedC said:


> I personally would be more annoyed if the DM showed favortisim towards the wizard and let him know when his power would fail, when nobody else can do that.



I don't understand. What do you mean, "Nobody else can do that?"


----------



## KarinsDad (Aug 17, 2008)

doctorhook said:


> I don't understand. What do you mean, "Nobody else can do that?"




He means that this is something that is not done for players of other PCs.

Take the Bluff power. It explicitly states that the player rerolls before the DM announces the result. But, the reason it explicitly states this is because otherwise, people would be having the same questions on Bluff that they have on Shield.

Most of the time, the designers caught these little rules foo bars. In the case of Shield, they did not.

So, we have to determine whether Shield is an exception to the general situation where players do not know certain metagaming information shy of a skill roll or other rule.

Since Shield states "Trigger: You are hit by an attack." and does not state "Trigger: You are hit by an attack against AC or Reflex.", there is an implication here that it is any attack, not just AC or Reflex ones. There is no such limit specified. The rule as written does not prevent the trigger from firing on a Fort defense attack.

Since Shield does not state "Trigger: You are hit by an attack by 3 or less", there is an implication here that the player does not know how much the roll was made by. There is no such limit specified. In both cases, specifying the additional limitation on the trigger of the power increases the effectiveness of the Shield spell. The rule as written does not prevent the trigger from firing when the to hit was made by 6.

These possibilities of the power are not explicitly stated, but one can make the inference based on how the rest of the game is played.

Nor are their rules telling the DM to give the players metagaming information unless it is information that the PCs should have (which is rare since PCs do not know about metagaming information).

Players know some metagaming information, but as a general rule of thumb, the DM should not be handing out metagaming information for free.

As per FadedC's point, the DM does not do that for players of other PCs, why should he do it for the player of the Wizard PC?

The times that players need metagaming information, the rules should explicitly call it out.

The rules do this for bloodied. The rules do this for Marked. The rules do this for affects of powers once the power affects the PC. The rules do not do this for "how much did a roll to hit, hit by".


----------



## Leatherhead (Aug 17, 2008)

I find the Ranger exploit Disruptive Strike to be more powerful than Shield.

But then again, it can miss, and it is higher level.


----------



## Regicide (Aug 17, 2008)

Old Gumphrey said:


> Do I have to declare my movement before I can see the battle grid?




  Depends on if your character can see or not.

  With regards to shield, a lot of attacks the character may not even be able to see.  He hears a bow shot from behind him and dives for cover, but doesn't know if the next thing will be the sound of an arrow clattering on stone or the sharp pain of the metal biting into his leg.

  The common sense answer says no, therefore the way to rule for 4E would be yes.


----------



## FadedC (Aug 17, 2008)

doctorhook said:


> I don't understand. What do you mean, "Nobody else can do that?"




Well to add to what Karinsdad said, every class has a multitude of powers that you will frequently use and they will not turn out to help. Every attack power, every reroll power, every power that adds X to the next roll, every power that says save ends. The whole game is built around powers being unreliable.

If my priest uses his encounter power to grant an ally an extra save, he doesn't get to find out if this will result in his friend succeeding or not. He spends his power and hopes for the best. Why should shield be any different?


----------



## Nifft (Aug 17, 2008)

Prestidigitalis said:


> "Yes, players know their HP scores. PCs do not."
> 
> So don't tell the PC how close the roll was to missing -- tell the player.



 This.

It would be annoying if players were required to tell the DM what AC they hit, while the DM was allowed to keep such information secret. This would give a monster with the Wizard template an advantage over a PC of the Wizard class.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Fedifensor (Aug 17, 2008)

KarinsDad said:


> There are hundreds of powers in the game system that do not guarantee success. Why should Shield be an exception to that?



There are lots of utility powers in the game system that *do* guarantee success.  Cure Light Wounds will always heal.  No Opening always cancels combat advantage.  Unbalancing Parry always slides an attacker and provides combat advantage.  Your statement sounds nice, but proves nothing.

Feel free to take a listen to one of the Penny Arcane/PvP podcasts, and then tell me that James Wyatt is running the game wrong.  That example of play speaks louder than anything you (or I, for that matter) have said.


----------



## KarinsDad (Aug 17, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> It would be annoying if players were required to tell the DM what AC they hit, while the DM was allowed to keep such information secret.




Annoying to who exactly? And why annoying?



			
				Nifft said:
			
		

> This would give a monster with the Wizard template an advantage over a PC of the Wizard class.




A monster with the Wizard template already has advantages. +6 hit points per level instead of +4.

Plus, the monster gets to use the Shield power once, maybe twice if it survives the first encounter.

The player gets to use it many times.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 17, 2008)

FadedC said:


> He spends his power and hopes for the best. Why should shield be any different?



 So the Ranger has to declare his use of Roll With It before he learns the area of an attack? That seems crazy to me. (And if he gets to know the area, it seems asymmetrical punishment for the Wizard.)

Some powers say you must use them when you are attacked: then you must declare use before you know if you're hit.

Some powers allow you to react to a hit (not interrupt it).

When a rare power allows you to interrupt a hit, you ought to get use out of it. To do otherwise is just to discourage your players from using those Interrupt powers.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Nifft (Aug 17, 2008)

KarinsDad said:


> Annoying to who exactly? And why annoying?



 Because unnecessary information asymmetry is annoying. Your way of playing means the DM can't query the player to determine if an attack hits. It also means you must insert a "dead step" (where no response is expected) between attack and damage rolling to allow your player to decide if he wants to use his interrupt power.

It's annoying to the DM, whose job has gotten bigger.
It's annoying to the player, who must work with less information.



KarinsDad said:


> A monster with the Wizard template already has advantages. +6 hit points per level instead of +4.
> 
> Plus, the monster gets to use the Shield power once, maybe twice if it survives the first encounter.



 Player vs. Monster, the monster gets to use it the exact same number of times -- if the player fights the monster twice, the player gets two uses, the monster gets two uses.

The monster gets *better* use out of the same power due to an artificially created information asymmetry.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## KarinsDad (Aug 17, 2008)

Fedifensor said:


> There are lots of utility powers in the game system that *do* guarantee success.




But, Shield is not explicitly one of them. In fact, it falls into the bonus or penalty type utility power which for the rest of them, do not guarantee results. Again, what is so special about Shield?

If you actually look at utility powers, about 1/4 (more or less) guarantee results, 1/4 guarantee partial results, and 1/2 do not guarantee anything (because they give bonuses or penalities or some other ability that may or may not affect the current in game situation).



			
				Fedifensor said:
			
		

> Feel free to take a listen to one of the Penny Arcane/PvP podcasts, and then tell me that James Wyatt is running the game wrong.  That example of play speaks louder than anything you (or I, for that matter) have said.




He is entitled to run it anyway he wants. Personally, I prefer to follow the rules and not add in sly little hidden house rules.

Argumentum Ad Verecundiam means nothing in a rules discussion outside of what is officially written.


----------



## KarinsDad (Aug 17, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Because unnecessary information asymmetry is annoying. Your way of playing means the DM can't query the player to determine if an attack hits.




This is important why? Why is slowing up the game to ask the PC's defense a lot a GOOD way to play?

And, my way does not preclude the DM asking the player his defense. It precludes the player asking the DM "How much was I hit by?".



			
				Nifft said:
			
		

> It also means you must insert a "dead step" (where no response is expected) between attack and damage rolling to allow your player to decide if he wants to use his interrupt power.




This happens anyway, even with your preferred set of rules. The player has to take out the time to make the decision anyway (a minor attack early in the encounter might or might not be important to block).



			
				Nifft said:
			
		

> It's annoying to the DM, whose job has gotten bigger.




Funny. That is not annoying to my DM who keeps track of PC defenses all of the time and has since day one. I could see where a given DM does not want to know the defenses of his players, but that wastes game time asking.

Which is annoying. 



			
				Nifft said:
			
		

> It's annoying to the player, who must work with less information.




A matter of opinion. The poor entitled player does not know everything. boo hoo 



			
				Nifft said:
			
		

> Player vs. Monster, the monster gets to use it the exact same number of times -- if the player fights the monster twice, the player gets two uses, the monster gets two uses.
> 
> The monster gets *better* use out of the same power due to an artificially created information asymmetry.




This corner case is mostly irrelevent to the conversation. The number of Wizard template monsters is extremely low in most campaigns. The Wizard gets to use Shield hundreds of times. The monsters in most campaigns hardly get to use it at all.

This is hardly a serious advantage for the monsters (who btw don't care anyway). And, it assumes that the DM takes advantage of this metagaming information for his monsters.

You seem to be picking at very small straws here.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 17, 2008)

KarinsDad said:


> This is important why? Why is slowing up the game to ask the PC's defense a lot a GOOD way to play?
> 
> And, my way does not preclude the DM asking the player his defense. It precludes the player asking the DM "How much was I hit by?".
> 
> ...



 Make up your mind: is it "slowing up the game" or does it "happen anyway"? The fact that you think both at the same time makes me question whether you understand the process. Would you mind running down what you think happens in the normal (not your) style of play?



KarinsDad said:


> Funny. That is not annoying to my DM who keeps track of PC defenses all of the time and has since day one. I could see where a given DM does not want to know the defenses of his players, but that wastes game time asking.
> 
> Which is annoying.



 I refer you to your earlier assertion that the time waste happens anyway, and once more question your grasp on game flow.



KarinsDad said:


> This corner case is mostly irrelevent to the conversation. (...) You seem to be picking at very small straws here.



 You think that an exact parallel is a corner case? Or are you trying to assert that Shield is the ONLY Interrupt power that a monster might use which relies on knowing something that you wouldn't give PCs comparable access to?

In either case, you're quite blatantly wrong.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Fedifensor (Aug 18, 2008)

KarinsDad said:


> He is entitled to run it anyway he wants. Personally, I prefer to follow the rules and not add in sly little hidden house rules.



That's absolutely hilarious.  The DMG specifically talks about informing players, and now you infer that its primary writer is a sly little cheat when he's DMing a game designed to showcase the rules (which is one of the reasons they did a podcast).  Classy.



> Argumentum Ad Verecundiam means nothing in a rules discussion outside of what is officially written.



It is written - you just refuse to read it that way.


----------



## KarinsDad (Aug 18, 2008)

Fedifensor said:


> It is written - you just refuse to read it that way.




It says nothing of the sort that players get metagaming information.

That is your inference.


----------



## KarinsDad (Aug 18, 2008)

Nifft said:


> So the Ranger has to declare his use of Roll With It before he learns the area of an attack? That seems crazy to me. (And if he gets to know the area, it seems asymmetrical punishment for the Wizard.)




Are you talking about Hit the Dirt?

Comparing the utility of a 22nd level Utility power with a 2nd level Utility power?

Don't you think that a 22nd level Utility SHOULD have a lot more utility than a 2nd level Utility power?

And of course, where exactly does it state that the Ranger knows the area of an area effect power used against him?


----------



## Fedifensor (Aug 18, 2008)

KarinsDad said:


> It says nothing of the sort that players get metagaming information.
> 
> That is your inference.



You're still ignoring the fact that the lead DMG designer showcased this in a podcast on the official site as an example of how to play.  Really, if you can't accept that, I don't see why we're continuing this conversation.  But, if you want quotes:



			
				DMG page 26 said:
			
		

> Instead, use such statistics, along with your knowledge of the scene, to help your narration. If 26 is barely a hit, but the 31 points of damage is a bad wound for the enemy, say: “You swing wildly, and the dragonborn brings his shield up just a second too late. Arrgh! Your blade catches him along the jaw, drawing a deep gash. He staggers!”



Presto!  You say no numbers, but the player still get the idea that his 26 versus AC barely hits.  If the situation is reversed, he knows enough to use his Shield utility power.

As for examples of metagaming knowledge:


			
				DMG page 27 said:
			
		

> *Magic Items:* Speaking of magic items, when the characters get over their fear of the lightning-charged magic sword and pick it up, tell them what it is and what it does after they’ve examined it over the course of a short rest (see page 263 of the Player’s Handbook).  It’s not fun to make characters guess what a magic item is or try to use a magic item without knowing its capabilities.



I think that's about as clear-cut as you can get that players are being given metagaming knowledge.

Finally, one last quote, with the relevant portion underlined:


			
				DMG page 26 said:
			
		

> *Game States, Conditions, and Effects:* Since PC abilities can sometimes hinge on a game state, condition, or effect that affects their opponent, make it clear to the players how their enemies are doing. Be descriptive, considering the source of the condition, but also be explicit.


----------



## FadedC (Aug 18, 2008)

Nifft said:


> So the Ranger has to declare his use of Roll With It before he learns the area of an attack? That seems crazy to me. (And if he gets to know the area, it seems asymmetrical punishment for the Wizard.)




You know I kept looking for the Roll with it power and I can't find it. How is it worded? If it's a response to an attack or a hit then presumably you'd get to see the area of the spell that was hitting you. Not sure how this realated to what we are talking about.



Nifft said:


> Some powers say you must use them when you are attacked: then you must declare use before you know if you're hit.




Yep these, powers are much weaker because you might use them on an attack that would miss you anyway.




Nifft said:


> When a rare power allows you to interrupt a hit, you ought to get use out of it. To do otherwise is just to discourage your players from using those Interrupt powers.




These powers are already much stronger because you don't have to worry about wasting them on attacks that would have missed anyway. Why do you feel the need to make them even stronger then they already are? When the halfling wants to use his halfling reroll power do you roll ahead the 2nd attack ahead of time and tell him if it would miss or not? Because both of these react to powers that hit you.


----------



## FadedC (Aug 18, 2008)

"Originally Posted by *DMG page 26* 
_*Game States, Conditions, and Effects:* Since PC abilities can sometimes hinge on a game state, condition, or effect that affects their opponent, make it clear to the players how their enemies are doing. Be descriptive, considering the source of the condition, but also be explicit."_

_How much you hit by is not a game state, effect, or condition. These are things like being slowed, being bloodied, or taking 2d6 damage if you leave your space._


----------



## Fedifensor (Aug 18, 2008)

FadedC - You missed the first quote of my previous post, under narration.


----------



## FadedC (Aug 18, 2008)

Fedifensor said:


> FadedC - You missed the first quote of my previous post, under narration.




To be honest I did miss that, but it doesn't change my opinion. First off it's hard to imagine that a section on narration is intended to effect game balance or rules arbitration. That would seem to be purely related to game flavor, much like the flavor text of powers (which wizards has already ruled should not be taken to effect rules at all). Secondly, IMO narration is something that occurs once the final attack has been resolved and as long as the wizard still has the option to cast shield, he has not in fact been hit at all. He is simply "about to be hit" from a narrative perspective.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Aug 18, 2008)

Whenever I see a thread, post or webpage that runs along the theme of "laugh at players who screwed up", it constantly amazes me how often the player's "screw ups" are clearly caused by the DM failing to communicate important information about how the world the players are in works.

The world works how the rules say it works. If your narration deviates from the mechanics significantly, then it destroys any sort of immersion you're trying to build.

If your players have to ask you what your descriptive text means in rules terms, then I would be forced to say that your description was inadequate at best.

FadedC - you made a point that narration shouldn't effect rules at all: aren't you making the case that 'logically, the character couldn't know until the attack is resolved". That sounds awfully like the narrative is interfering with the mechanic.

For a wizard with shield, I'd be perfectly happy to tell him when an attack hits reflex or ac, and I'd be perfectly happy telling him how many points it hits by. In my opinion, that is no more powerful than him being able to move to anywhere on the battlefield that he chooses (which is effectively what expeditious retreat does).


----------



## Nifft (Aug 18, 2008)

KarinsDad said:


> Are you talking about Hit the Dirt?
> 
> Comparing the utility of a 22nd level Utility power with a 2nd level Utility power?
> 
> ...



 Yes, Hit the Dirt. Thanks.

Are you now claiming that the basic flow of the game -- like telling a player what an attack roll was -- should *vary with level*? That would be insane.

If you work to conceal information from one PC, are you also going to work to conceal similarly useful information from every other PC?



FadedC said:


> You know I kept looking for the Roll with it power and I can't find it. How is it worded? If it's a response to an attack or a hit then presumably you'd get to see the area of the spell that was hitting you. Not sure how this realated to what we are talking about.



 It's actually Hit the Dirt, and it's related because you get a fixed movement in response to being hit by an attack. If you're going to go out of your way to keep information from the Wizard, will you do the same for the Ranger, to ensure he sometimes wastes his powers?



FadedC said:


> These powers are already much stronger because you don't have to worry about wasting them on attacks that would have missed anyway. Why do you feel the need to make them even stronger then they already are? When the halfling wants to use his halfling reroll power do you roll ahead the 2nd attack ahead of time and tell him if it would miss or not? Because both of these react to powers that hit you.



 The Halfling racial ability has its own strengths and weaknesses, and it compares quite favorably to Shield. There are some situations where Shield is better (i.e. you've been hit by exactly 1-3 more than your AC), but usually more situations where the Halfling ability is better. Remember: *Halflings can negate a crit*. The Wizard power can't do anything about a natural 20.

All the Wizard can do is negate a normal hit. IMHO it's not too strong to let him do exactly that.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Aug 18, 2008)

KarinsDad said:


> Yesterday in our game, I used the Shield spell.
> 
> It stopped the attack.
> 
> A moment later, I got attacked again.




That sounds a bit too convenient for me, especially coming from the guy who asserts he doesn't know what he's being attacked with or how good the roll is. Your entitlement speech fell on deaf ears, too. 



doctorhook said:


> Not as a minor action, Gumph. In essence, the Wizard spends one move action casting the utility, then gets a move action to jump for free from the spell, then has a standard and minor action left. If the Wizard casts the spell on someone else, they get the free move action from the spell, plus all of their own actions.
> 
> Stalker0's point was that _Jump_ is substantially less useful when the caster uses it on himself, because he doesn't has one fewer move action than if someone else had cast it on him. Hence the suggestion that _Jump_ should be a minor action to cast.




Ah, ok. You can still move with your own move action, though. So I don't really see where it's being wasted. 



FadedC said:


> So you never take powers that sometimes fail to work? I'm guessing then that you must also hate the halfling and elf reroll power (you might still miss or be hit), every power that gives you a bonus on a roll (you might still fail), and every attack power in the game (since those often miss).
> 
> I personally would be more annoyed if the DM showed favortisim towards the wizard and let him know when his power would fail, when nobody else can do that.




Ugh. "Sometimes fail to work" isn't the same thing as "has absolutely zero chance of success". If I miss an attack, it's because I rolled badly, it's not because I didn't correctly guess which of my four defenses was being targeted by an enemy. 

If an attack isn't going after my armor (AC), and it's not going after my dodging ability (Reflex), that leaves two things: my body itself (Fort) and my mind (Will). I think it's pretty darn reasonable to assume a person (specifically, an adventurer) can tell how an attack affects them. 



KarinsDad said:


> Since Shield states "Trigger: You are hit by an attack." and does not state "Trigger: You are hit by an attack against AC or Reflex.", there is an implication here that it is any attack, not just AC or Reflex ones. There is no such limit specified. The rule as written does not prevent the trigger from firing on a Fort defense attack.




That's so you can activate the power any time you're attacked and you want that +4 AC and Reflex until the end of your next turn. Not so the DM can say "I got you good, you jerk! HA!"



Fedifensor said:


> That's absolutely hilarious.  The DMG specifically talks about informing players, and now you infer that its primary writer is a sly little cheat when he's DMing a game designed to showcase the rules (which is one of the reasons they did a podcast).  Classy.




Yeah...that was really great. Arguing a stance at this point is utterly futile, so I'm in it for the lulz now. Carry on.


----------



## KarinsDad (Aug 18, 2008)

Fedifensor said:
			
		

> You're still ignoring the fact that the lead DMG designer showcased this in a podcast on the official site as an example of how to play.  Really, if you can't accept that, I don't see why we're continuing this conversation.




I kept ignoring it because it is irrelevant. If I must prove it to you, ...

1) The June 2008 podcast where David Noonan DMs, he never does what you claim. He asks players what the AC is of their PCs are and even says that he will be asking this question every 10 seconds or so.

2) In the Wyatt podcasts, the players do not appear to know anything about how to play 4E. So, that cannot be used as standard game play (like you claim). He also states that he misses or he hits on occassion without stating what AC or defense he achieved.

3) On the Chris Perkins podcasts, he does what David Noonan does and what James Wyatt does. He appears to change around. This is also a session with players that do not know 4E.

Different DM strokes for different WotC designers. It also seems that the DMs are doing it this way because they are training and because they are not familiar with the PCs defenses.

Your point is here is not rules and is basically irrelevant to the rules discussion. It's DM preference. Even WotC designers DM differently and they sometimes even DM differently based on what they roll on the dice.


You can take a poll to ask how many DMs have PCs defenses written down, how many ask their players what their defenses are, and how many call out their to hit total and ask if it hits. I suspect the latter will be a very small percentage.


----------



## KarinsDad (Aug 18, 2008)

Old Gumphrey said:
			
		

> That sounds a bit too convenient for me, especially coming from the guy who asserts he doesn't know what he's being attacked with or how good the roll is.




Actually, that is the only time in 3 levels that this has happened (maybe 24 or so encounters, I use it at least half of encounters). Probably because my Wizard tends to stay away from melee.

Typically, it works about 1 time in 3 for my PC like I mentioned earlier in the thread.

And, I did not state that I do not know what the PC is being attacked with. I stated that the DM does not tell me what defense it goes against. But, it's not too tough to figure out that a Greataxe typically goes against AC.



			
				Old Gumphrey said:
			
		

> Your entitlement speech fell on deaf ears, too.




Of course it did.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Aug 18, 2008)

In the game I'm in the DM announces what the attack result was before I have to decide, and I've yet to use Shield at all. The party has a lot of melee types so I'm rarely in the front row, and the times I have been hit the result has been more than 4 points higher than my defences. I'm starting to think I should carry Expeditious Retreat instead.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Aug 19, 2008)

And after last night's game I've come to the conclusion that Shield is totally useless! Expeditious Retreat would have saved my bacon, Shield had me extra crispy.


----------



## Fedifensor (Aug 19, 2008)

KarensDad said:
			
		

> 2) In the Wyatt podcasts, the players do not appear to know anything about how to play 4E.



You mean, like EVERYONE?  The game wasn't released yet.  That actually makes it *more* important to show the 'official' way to play, especially on a podcast that people will be listening to in order to find out how the game plays.  

----------
(For those following along, KarensDad is a master of the Straw Man argument, which is summarized below.  This appears to be a classic 2.1 example.)

1. Person A has position X.

2. Person B ignores X and instead presents position Y.
Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:

1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.[1]
   2. Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e., choosing quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).[2]
   3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender and then refuting that person's arguments, thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.[1]
   4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, such that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
   5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking the simplified version.​
3. Person B attacks position Y.

4. Person B draws a conclusion that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself.
----------

Furthermore, even if we take your statement at face value, it undercuts your own argument.  You state that "Even WotC designers DM differently and they sometimes even DM differently based on what they roll on the dice."  Thus, the argument that you should not tell players what AC is hit is undercut - how can it only be one way if it is DM preference?

Really, when you want to engage in a discussion, instead of straw man arguments for the sole purpose of 'winning', it may be worth responding to your posts.  Arguing with someone who can't even accept the possibility there are other ways to interpret the rules besides his own viewpoint is an exercise in futility.  So, if you feel that posting last in a subject is a win, enjoy your victory.


----------



## FadedC (Aug 19, 2008)

Saeviomagy said:


> FadedC - you made a point that narration shouldn't effect rules at all: aren't you making the case that 'logically, the character couldn't know until the attack is resolved". That sounds awfully like the narrative is interfering with the mechanic.
> 
> For a wizard with shield, I'd be perfectly happy to tell him when an attack hits reflex or ac, and I'd be perfectly happy telling him how many points it hits by. In my opinion, that is no more powerful than him being able to move to anywhere on the battlefield that he chooses (which is effectively what expeditious retreat does).




Well I'm just saying I wouldn't even attempt to narrate a hit before it was clear that it actually was a hit. It's kind of poor narration to say "the minotaur cuts a bloody slash across you with his battle axe causing you to stagger back in pain and collapse on the floor" only to have to say oh wait....no he doesn't really do that, he instead bounces off your shield. None of this has any effect on rules though and is just a personal style thing, much like I'd say the whole narration section of the DMG is.

Anyway I just feel that there are powers with automatic effects , and powers that sometimes fail and that this is a design decision. Taking a non automatic power and making it automatic makes it much stronger then it probably should be, and I have not seen anything that I would personaly consider remote evidence for shield being intended to be an automatic power. 

But this is all just my take on it, if wizards ever posted a clarification on it, I'm not 100% sure they would necesarily support my view (though I obviously I feel it's more likely then not). If after all our discussion you still feel that shield is meant to always work and never be wasted then we just view things differently. Perhaps you will turn out to be correct in the long run.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Aug 19, 2008)

FadedC said:


> Anyway I just feel that there are powers with automatic effects , and powers that sometimes fail and that this is a design decision. Taking a non automatic power and making it automatic makes it much stronger then it probably should be, and I have not seen anything that I would personaly consider remote evidence for shield being intended to be an automatic power.




Even if the player does know the exact terms of a hit or miss, it's not making the power automatic - it's just preventing it from being wasted.


----------



## FadedC (Aug 19, 2008)

Saeviomagy said:


> Even if the player does know the exact terms of a hit or miss, it's not making the power automatic - it's just preventing it from being wasted.




Well that's kind of semantics really. If it can't be wasted it will always be useful for something meaning it's essentially automatic. Quite a few powers in the game can easily be wasted (in fact the vast majority if we include attack powers). Quite a few others cannot. My opinion is just that shield is intended to be in the can be wasted category rather then the cannot be wasted category. Your mileage may vary.


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Aug 19, 2008)

FadedC said:


> Well that's kind of semantics really. If it can't be wasted it will always be useful for something meaning it's essentially automatic. Quite a few powers in the game can easily be wasted (in fact the vast majority if we include attack powers). Quite a few others cannot. My opinion is just that shield is intended to be in the can be wasted category rather then the cannot be wasted category. Your mileage may vary.




Well, there is one way it can be wasted.  If the Wizard is not attacked in a particular encounter or all of the attacks either a) miss or b) hit by a large margin, then the power will be wasted.

Of course, something analogous could be said about every power, so you may feel this is just a statement of the obvious.  But I think it deserves to be stated, as so many of these conversations (including this one) make it sound as though the power in question is a big Win button.  It isn't.

Sure there are powers that are a little too good.  But a party with a Wizard with Shield can still be TPK'd, and a party with a Wizard without Shield can sail through a session unscathed.  The decisions a DM makes concerning monsters, environment, pacing, etc. will play a much larger role than one stinking little Level 2 Utility power: a power that just might, maybe, possibly give a player a chance to feel that his/her character did something magical.


----------



## FadedC (Aug 19, 2008)

Prestidigitalis said:


> Well, there is one way it can be wasted. If the Wizard is not attacked in a particular encounter or all of the attacks either a) miss or b) hit by a large margin, then the power will be wasted.
> 
> Of course, something analogous could be said about every power, so you may feel this is just a statement of the obvious. But I think it deserves to be stated, as so many of these conversations (including this one) make it sound as though the power in question is a big Win button. It isn't.
> 
> Sure there are powers that are a little too good. But a party with a Wizard with Shield can still be TPK'd, and a party with a Wizard without Shield can sail through a session unscathed. The decisions a DM makes concerning monsters, environment, pacing, etc. will play a much larger role than one stinking little Level 2 Utility power: a power that just might, maybe, possibly give a player a chance to feel that his/her character did something magical.




Well I can agree with you on that playing shield one way or another may not have a huge effect on the game. But I don't think the argument "a party with this spell can still be TPK'd" is an excuse to completely ignore both game balance and intent of the rules when adjudicating that spell.

But of course you probably disagree with me about at the very least the intent of the rules, and that's one of those things that unlikely to be resolved. At least not until we got an official ruling.


----------



## Patlin (Aug 19, 2008)

Felon said:


> Beguiling tongue? Adding a +5 to one Cha skill check is your big impressive warlock utility?




So far I've used it to bluff a dragon out of the way of the exit, allowing the party to flee and survive; I've used it to intimidate an elite oponent into surrendering, and I've used it (less dramatically) to breeze through a skill challenge.

I've been satisfied with Beguiling Tongue.


----------



## Oni (Aug 20, 2008)

Mostly I'm just curious what the designer's intent was when they wrote the power as it appears now.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 20, 2008)

Fedifensor said:


> ...



 Hey, no kill-stealing!

"_I still get XP, right?_", -- N


----------



## KarinsDad (Aug 20, 2008)

Fedifensor said:


> The game wasn't released yet.  That actually makes it *more* important to show the 'official' way to play, especially on a podcast that people will be listening to in order to find out how the game plays.




Except that:

1) Wyatt did not claim that was the official way to play, only you did.

2) Noonan does not play that way.

3) The rules do not state that your way is the official way to play. The rules never once suggest mentioning the "to hit total" out loud for NPC attacks.

You just made it up as that being the official way to play and refuse to admit it. When I refuted your weak claim, you went off into the twilight zone. Whatever dude. 

Believe whatever nonsense you want to believe. But, your claims here are not rules nor are they official.

Like I suggested, take a poll here. Or, are you afraid that the majority will disagree with you?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Aug 20, 2008)

KD, your position seems to be that the DM should not tell the player the attack roll or the defense targeted.  Is this correct?

If so, where in the rules does it say that the DM should keep this information secret from the player?


----------



## Nifft (Aug 20, 2008)

KarinsDad said:


> Or, are you afraid that the majority will disagree with you?



 Why are you afraid to respond to my posts?

Closing your eyes just grants me combat advantage.

, -- N


----------



## ilmoin (Aug 20, 2008)

Comparative material:

Belt of Fiends, L15 magic item

Power (Daily): Immediate Interrupt. You can use this 
power when you are hit by an attack. Gain a +3 
power bonus to defense against that attack; you can 
decide to use the power after the DM tells you the 
attack die total. 

(From "Rose Keep," _Dragon_ 366, p. 43)

Draw your own conclusions.


----------



## infocynic (Aug 20, 2008)

ilmoin said:


> Comparative material:
> 
> Belt of Fiends, L15 magic item
> 
> ...



Belt: Usable by anyone, once per day
Shield: Only wizards, once per encounter
Advantage: Shield

Belt: +3 any defense
Shield: +4 AC AND Reflex
Advantage: Belt if you only consider the single attack; shield may be more useful when multiple hits are involved.

Belt: One hit only
Shield: Until end of next turn
Advantage: Shield by a landslide

Belt: Usable after being told what the attack value is
Shield: Heavily debated
Advantage: Well now that certainly depends...

It seems that in order to remotely justify Shield at level 2 vs Belt at Level 15, you'd have to read Shield without adding "you can decide to use the power after knowing what the attack value is."


----------



## infocynic (Aug 20, 2008)

double post


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Aug 20, 2008)

infocynic said:


> It seems that in order to remotely justify Shield at level 2 vs Belt at Level 15, you'd have to read Shield without adding "you can decide to use the power after knowing what the attack value is."




Except item powers are notably weaker than class powers as a rule.


----------



## infocynic (Aug 21, 2008)

But 13 levels different? I could see the belt as a Level 8 or 9 if Shield is correctly placed and doesn't require DM to announce the result first. The belt is very good throughout the game if you figure it shuts down a major attack every day if you're taking fire on a regular basis and you save it for a solo or elite, figuring at some point during that fight they'll hit you by just enough that the belt works.


----------



## KarinsDad (Aug 21, 2008)

Nifft said:


> Closing your eyes just grants me combat advantage.




Actually, when you post something silly, yes, I do tend to ignore it because I know about your hyperbole snowball effect.


With regard to Hit the Dirt and Shield.

Hit the Dirt:

1) Is 22nd level.

2) It affects all defenses.

3) It only affects area and close attacks.

4) It only works if the PC can get far enough away. Nothing in the rules indicates that the PC knows what the area of an enemy effect actually is. According to the rules, the DM can run it either way (the player knowing the area or the player not knowing the area) since the rules are silent on this issue.


Shield:

1) Is 2nd level.

2) It affects AC and Reflex.

3) It affects any type of attack (area, range, close, melee).

4) It only works if the attack is within 4.

#2 is advantage HtD, #3 is advantage Shield. So, the only thing balance-wise to offset #1 is #4. One could run HtD where the player knows the area of the attack and run Shield where the player does not know the die total and it would be totally balanced since HtD is 20 levels higher than Shield.

Hence, your conclusion is faulty, regardless of your over the top hyperbole of insanity (and your hyperbole is one of the reasons I sometimes ignore your posts). This example illustrates nothing with regard to whether the DM should state out loud attack totals. In other words, your example here is a red herring to the actual rules discussion about Shield.


Let's take a rules quote instead:



> You resolve an attack by comparing the total of your attack roll (1d20 + base attack bonus + attack modifiers) to the appropriate defense score. If your roll is higher than or equal to the defense score, you hit. Otherwise, you miss.




This quote supports my POV. It does not support the "pro-DM states attack roll out loud" POV. Why? Because "you" refers to the DM when the DM is having an NPC attack, hence, the DM compares the total, not the player (with a literal reading of this rule).

The problem with such a literal reading is that the player might then be entitled to know the defenses of any opponent he attacks. He does the attack comparison, not the DM.

Quid Pro Quo.

However, the solution to this is that one can take this interpretation literally for the DM attacking and not literally for the players attacking since the DM is not forced to run the game in a specific way (unless the rules say so). YMMV.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Aug 21, 2008)

God, I hate buzzwords.


----------



## Leatherhead (Aug 21, 2008)

Assuming that monsters follow the rules in the PHB unless the rule is specifically listed as being different for monsters, or that particular monster, and because I can find no general rule in the DMG or MM that contradicts this, I would like to present this rule for consideration:



			
				PHB said:
			
		

> Whenever you affect a creature with a power, that creature knows exactly what you've done to it, and what conditions you've imposed.




It also seems to me that in order to run smoothly, 4E requires characters to posses a higher level of metagame information than they did in previous editions.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Aug 21, 2008)

KarinsDad said:


> However, the solution to this is that one can take this interpretation literally for the DM attacking and not literally for the players attacking since the DM is not forced to run the game in a specific way (unless the rules say so). YMMV.




Doesn't that one just boil down to "Rule 0 says I can"?


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 21, 2008)

ilmoin said:


> Comparative material:
> 
> Belt of Fiends, L15 magic item
> 
> ...




Heh, I like how everyone seemed to miss the point of what you put up and blindly compared it to shield, as opposed to the part that you probably -meant- to showcase.



ilmoin's fundamental point said:


> you can
> decide to use the power after the DM tells you the
> attack die total.


----------



## Ginnel (Aug 21, 2008)

DracoSuave said:


> Heh, I like how everyone seemed to miss the point of what you put up and blindly compared it to shield, as opposed to the part that you probably -meant- to showcase.




Originally Posted by *ilmoin's fundamental point* 

 
_you can decide to use the power after the DM tells you the 
attack die total._

[/quote]
got it in one, this sentance assumes the DM is always telling you the attack die total, the only sticking point we get now is does the DM tell you the attack roll after you decide to use the power or not.

1. DM roles monsters attack
2. DM says I rolled a 15
3. Player says hmm I have AC 13 I'll use my belt/shield/whatever to give me AC in response
4. DM says attack total is 19 haha chump now mark that power off

or case 2

1 DM rolls monster's attack
2. DM says I got a 19 total
3. Player says hmm I have 13 AC and shield only gives +4, player decides not to use power this time. 
4. DM goes take 40 Gabillion damage fool!

Personally I think case 2 makes 100% more sense and its how all our current games are run, our 4th edition game the wizard hasn't used his shield even though he has been hit in several combats, the rolls either seem to miss completely or hit overwhelmingly (over +4).


----------



## KarinsDad (Aug 21, 2008)

Saeviomagy said:


> Doesn't that one just boil down to "Rule 0 says I can"?




Yup. Hence the reason I said YYMV. The literal reading of those rules support one POV, but at the cost of something that most DMs do not allow if it is always read literally (both for players and DMs).


----------



## KarinsDad (Aug 21, 2008)

DracoSuave said:


> Heh, I like how everyone seemed to miss the point of what you put up and blindly compared it to shield, as opposed to the part that you probably -meant- to showcase.




I took it to mean that an item from Dragon can fundamentally change how players play the game (and have for over 30 years now).


----------



## Shabe (Aug 21, 2008)

KarinsDad said:


> 2) In the Wyatt podcasts, the players do not appear to know anything about how to play 4E. So, that cannot be used as standard game play (like you claim). He also states that he misses or he hits on occassion without stating what AC or defense he achieved.




You mean like his total was below 10 or over 20, for 1st level players it kinda makes sense. 
There is no point in asking if AC 8 hits or if a natural 20 hits, it really grates on a player if you do, trust me I have a DM who keeps saying does AC 30+ hit, I look at my AC 19 and go er yes. If anyone has a problem with whether it hits they just pipe and say are you sure my blargh AC is X (whether the dm said it would miss when it wouldn't or would hit when it wouldn't).



> You can take a poll to ask how many DMs have PCs defenses written down, how many ask their players what their defenses are, and how many call out their to hit total and ask if it hits. I suspect the latter will be a very small percentage.




Cool i'll make the poll, all the DMs i know including me ask does X hit Y defence, like previously in 3e where we all said does X hit AC/touch AC/flat footed AC/incorporial touch AC.


----------



## PHGraves (Aug 21, 2008)

Patlin said:


> I've been satisfied with Beguiling Tongue.




Now _there's_ a use for it I overlooked.


----------



## infocynic (Aug 21, 2008)

I think the argument can be made that since shield doesn't include the text and the other item does, that shield wasn't meant to. I also think the argument can be made that WoTC is getting better at templating and anticipating questions and is spelling things out more in the powers, so in a vacuum, the presence of absence of the "after the DM tells you the roll" doesn't really change anything. To me it's the high level of the belt vs. the Shield power.

And RAW, I would saw the DM tells you the roll, not the total attack with modifiers, although you can certainly make an educated guess.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 21, 2008)

KarinsDad said:


> 4) It only works if the PC can get far enough away. Nothing in the rules indicates that the PC knows what the area of an enemy effect actually is. According to the rules, the DM can run it either way (the player knowing the area or the player not knowing the area) since the rules are silent on this issue.



 Drrrrr, that's my whole point. The DM has to attack the PCs in a specific order, else he might let slip that some are outside the effect's area, which implicitly gives the effect's area.

This is about the DM actively hiding information. He has to jump through an additional hoop to screw the Ranger, which is why it's relevant: do you require the screwing of PCs even when it's mildly inconvenient?



KarinsDad said:


> 1) Is 2nd level.



 Since we're discussing information flow, why is level relevant? You've brought it up twice, and you still haven't provided any justification.



KarinsDad said:


> it would be totally balanced since HtD is 20 levels higher than Shield.



 Again, level has nothing to do with information flow, particularly not for Utilities (which you keep for your whole career).



KarinsDad said:


> This quote supports my POV. It does not support the "pro-DM states attack roll out loud" POV. Why? Because "you" refers to the DM when the DM is having an NPC attack, hence, the DM compares the total, not the player (with a literal reading of this rule).
> 
> The problem with such a literal reading is that the player might then be entitled to know the defenses of any opponent he attacks. He does the attack comparison, not the DM.
> 
> ...



 Looking at your discussion of your interpretation, it's almost like you know it's untenable. Your way would give the players significantly more information. But then, you suggest not actually doing it your way. Now I'm not convinced you know what "your way" really is, except that it requires Wizards be screwed.

- - -

@ *infocynic*: IMHO it just suggests that WotC's technical editors are getting better (which is a good thing). It doesn't imply anything about previous rules.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## WhatGravitas (Aug 21, 2008)

Nifft said:


> Now I'm not convinced you know what "your way" really is, except that it requires Wizards be screwed.



The litmus test is how NPCs and monsters react to PCs:


If your NPC/Monster has a power giving it a bonus as immediate interrupt, would you expend it uselessly?

If yes: Then proceed with "screwing" wizards.
If no: Let the wizard know whether it has an effect or not.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## infocynic (Aug 21, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:


> The litmus test is how NPCs and monsters react to PCs:
> 
> 
> If your NPC/Monster has a power giving it a bonus as immediate interrupt, would you expend it uselessly?
> ...



One of my players has pointed out that rules don't necessarily work the same way for monsters and PCs: consider encounter powers vs recharge powers, and the use of multiple action points for two examples where they diverge.


----------



## KarinsDad (Aug 21, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Drrrrr, that's my whole point. The DM has to attack the PCs in a specific order, else he might let slip that some are outside the effect's area, which implicitly gives the effect's area.
> 
> This is about the DM actively hiding information. He has to jump through an additional hoop to screw the Ranger, which is why it's relevant: do you require the screwing of PCs even when it's mildly inconvenient?




That's one of the problems of "Magic The Gathering"-type abilities in DND.

If X, then Y.

It's computer programming for a game system that is not run on a computer. Hence, when these types of things come up, it forces DMs who have never in the past had to handle these special types of rules to come up with solutions.


Personally as a DM, I do not want my players to know exactly what my total on the attack roll is. And, I am not forced to (via rules), hence, I do not. I also do not want my players to know the exact defenses of their opponents. If they total a 21 and it hits, they know that particular defense is 21 or less. But, they do not know exactly what it is unless a 20 misses (and even then, they might not know if there were other modifiers that they were unaware of).

I also do not want my players to know exactly how large an area of effect is, just so that they can "auto-escape" an attack. In such a situation, the player will usually (90%+) succeed. But, I don't want to be handcuffed as a DM to say that the player is ENTITLED to know exactly every single safe square on the grid. That turns the game into a computer game. I'm not playing DND to play a computer game.

It's totally NOT about screwing players. It's about limiting players to information that they acquire via in game experience as opposed to auto-handing out information BECAUSE we are playing a game.

In fact when I DM, I roll all D20 attack rolls in front of my players. If they see a 12 on the die, it may or may not hit (situation depending). If it hits, they have a good idea that Shield will stop it. When a 17 is rolled, they have a good idea that Shield will not stop it. But, it is not guaranteed. In fact, my DM rolled a 17 where Shield would have stopped it because my Wizard has a high AC and the foe was a real mook when it came to an OA, but I let it slide because he rolled so high. My DM did not try to screw me here. He didn't chuckle gleefully because I could have stopped the attack. The argument that DMs are trying to screw players because the DM is not allowing a certain interpretation of the rules is invalid. It could happen, but typically, DMs are more mature than that.



			
				Nifft said:
			
		

> Since we're discussing information flow, why is level relevant? You've brought it up twice, and you still haven't provided any justification.




Level is relevant to game balance. You brought up a case of "information flow" of type one at level x and "information flow" of type two at level y and I merely pointed out that since the levels are different and the information flow type is different and the utility of the two powers is similar, it's possible for a DM to balance the level difference of the two powers out by balancing one information flow type against the other.

I'm not trying to justify that a DM has to do this, I just said that he could. If he doesn't do this, it does not mean that he is trying to screw the player with the higher level ability.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Aug 21, 2008)

infocynic said:


> One of my players has pointed out that rules don't necessarily work the same way for monsters and PCs: consider encounter powers vs recharge powers, and the use of multiple action points for two examples where they diverge.



While true, this is for me a somewhat different issue.

The Encounter <-> Recharge and PC APs <-> Monster APs have more to do with the mechanics itself.

How you act as DM (with full information) and as player (limited information) is an information flow issue. In one case the monsters are "better" because they're mechanically constructed that way, in the second case, the monsters get a lot better/the PCs got worse not due to the underlying mechanical effect, but rather due to the way information is handled.

If you say it works differently, then the monsters use the information asymmetry to their advantage. By extending this reasoning, you could also say the DM can play monsters with all hidden information PCs don't get, but the DM gets - like knowing what powers the PCs have left, tailoring the strategies to the PCs (i.e. knowing their weaknesses and using it), and so on. Because monsters use different rules.

Which is sounds somewhat silly - i.e. that's not really a "use different mechanics" issue, but mainly a metagaming/DM behaviour-driven issue.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## AngryPurpleCyclops (Mar 2, 2009)

FadedC said:


> These powers are already much stronger because you don't have to worry about wasting them on attacks that would have missed anyway. Why do you feel the need to make them even stronger then they already are? When the halfling wants to use his halfling reroll power do you roll ahead the 2nd attack ahead of time and tell him if it would miss or not? Because both of these react to powers that hit you.



I normally just read enworld but after reading this thread I felt compelled/annoyed enough to join and reply.  First there's a lot of logical fallacies being applied in this thread some even by the people referencing logical fallacies as part of their argument.  

This example above is just one example of some really questionable parallels being drawn.

First the halflings power can impact ANY attack.  Even remove a critical hit 95% of the time.  The re-roll makes it roughly 50% likely to turn any hit into a miss.  The shield power can only block 50% of the attack types (though reflex and AC seem much more prevalent at lower levels so it will frequently be more useful than 50%) but it also is restricted to impacting EXACTLY 20% of attacks.  Which means the shield spell is useful 20% of the time against 50% of the attack types.  This works out to blocking 10% of attacks (once per encounter) with a residual effect of +4 to those defenses for another round.  If you skew the results based upon reflex and AC attacks being ~75% of all attacks that percentage goes to 15%.  Now compare this to the halflings power.  Roughly 50% of all attacks hit.  The halfling can therefore impact 50% of 50% of attacks.  This is a 25% overall effectiveness for the halfling power.  That's 10% more effective than shield for the math challenged.  The shield has a residual effect that it might save you from another attack in the next round.  The halfling power has a bonus effect that 95% of the time it blocks a critical hit.  We could argue all day about the residual or the critical block being more important but for my purposes I'll call it a wash so we can compare the math heads up.  If you make the shield spell into a "guess" by not informing your players, you basically cut it's effectiveness by more than half.  If you also make the pc guess if it's even an attack that can be blocked (i.e. vs reflex/ac) you're reducing it by nearly half again.  Even skewing the numbers in favor of making better than average choices as to what attacks "are of a type that shield an impact" you're basically reducing shield to in the neighborhood of 5% effective compared to ~25% the halflings power.


----------



## AngryPurpleCyclops (Mar 3, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Your point is here is not rules and is basically irrelevant to the rules discussion. It's DM preference. Even WotC designers DM differently and they sometimes even DM differently based on what they roll on the dice.
> 
> You can take a poll to ask how many DMs have PCs defenses written down, how many ask their players what their defenses are, and how many call out their to hit total and ask if it hits. I suspect the latter will be a very small percentage.



Well, there's a couple problems with this.  
First can you cite an example where someone attacks a player who has an interrupt that could be used and doesn't give him a chance to use it?  Doesn't give him the information needed to use it effectively?  I would say a better parallel would be to force the halfling to use his power before he knew if he was hit.  (I'm aware that it's triggered by a hit but it's always effective even if you're hit again you forced the creature to reroll which is the effect that was intended).

More importantly, the line "I suspect" is TOTALLY irrelevant.  I suspect you're wrong since it's much faster for the players to track their defenses (and MUCH more likely to be accurate) since it moves some of the bookkeeping off the DM who is already the most overloaded with record keeping.  



KarinsDad said:


> That's one of the problems of "Magic The Gathering"-type abilities in DND.
> 
> If X, then Y.
> 
> It's computer programming for a game system that is not run on a computer. Hence, when these types of things come up, it forces DMs who have never in the past had to handle these special types of rules to come up with solutions.



Talk about irrelevant.  



KarinsDad said:


> I also do not want my players to know exactly how large an area of effect is, just so that they can "auto-escape" an attack. In such a situation, the player will usually (90%+) succeed. But, I don't want to be handcuffed as a DM to say that the player is ENTITLED to know exactly every single safe square on the grid.



 can you give an example of an area attack that the players are not entitled to get area?  If I cast a fireball burst 3 range 20 on a square, do I not pick the origin square and then a blast goes off?  Should the pc's get no visual clue where the origin was?  

This is just opinion, but you seem exceedingly intent on dominating the game.  


KarinsDad said:


> It's totally NOT about screwing players. It's about limiting players to information that they acquire via in game experience as opposed to auto-handing out information BECAUSE we are playing a game.



 this is semantics.  The pc's are already inherently disadvantaged in combat by the fact that the monsters are being run by one brain.  Movements and actions by the monsters are OVERWHELMINGLY more coordinated than the pc's.  This is a game, it has weaknesses and strengths based upon it's rules and conventions.  One of them being the omnipotent information advantage of the monsters.  I served 6 years in the special forces and training to act in a coordinated manner was something we spent endless hours and yet the average goblin war party can easily demonstrate a level of coordination that would make a SEAL team commander drool.  



KarinsDad said:


> In fact when I DM, I roll all D20 attack rolls in front of my players. If they see a 12 on the die, it may or may not hit (situation depending). If it hits, they have a good idea that Shield will stop it. When a 17 is rolled, they have a good idea that Shield will not stop it. But, it is not guaranteed. In fact, my DM rolled a 17 where Shield would have stopped it because my Wizard has a high AC and the foe was a real mook when it came to an OA, but I let it slide because he rolled so high. My DM did not try to screw me here. He didn't chuckle gleefully because I could have stopped the attack. The argument that DMs are trying to screw players because the DM is not allowing a certain interpretation of the rules is invalid. It could happen, but typically, DMs are more mature than that.



This is the first time in your roughly dozen posts on this thread where you indicate that you let the pc's see the roll but not the modifier. It also belies much of what you have been arguing... what possible justification can you make based upon your previous assertions of spoon feeding for showing the pc's the roll?



KarinsDad said:


> Level is relevant to game balance. You brought up a case of "information flow" of type one at level x and "information flow" of type two at level y and I merely pointed out that since the levels are different and the information flow type is different and the utility of the two powers is similar, it's possible for a DM to balance the level difference of the two powers out by balancing one information flow type against the other.



this is tantamount to admitting you have no basis for your position.  Where in the rules does it ever imply or state that the information flow should change with level in order to balance the game.  This is just fluff.  Wildly off target, and somewhat incredible considering your previous posts on rules lawyering, RAW and literal translation.  I'm not even going to get into shredding your position on "interpreting" when the rules are literal for the DM but not for the players.  You do certainly appear to be a massive rules lawyer when it suits you and I "suspect" you are slightly overbearing at the gaming table.


----------



## AngryPurpleCyclops (Mar 3, 2009)

FadedC said:


> Well I'm just saying I wouldn't even attempt to narrate a hit before it was clear that it actually was a hit. It's kind of poor narration to say "the minotaur cuts a bloody slash across you with his battle axe causing you to stagger back in pain and collapse on the floor" only to have to say oh wait....no he doesn't really do that, he instead bounces off your shield. None of this has any effect on rules though and is just a personal style thing, much like I'd say the whole narration section of the DMG is.



This makes pretty good sense to me.  Narration in a game with interrupts is a little problematic to begin with.



FadedC said:


> Anyway I just feel that there are powers with automatic effects , and powers that sometimes fail and that this is a design decision. Taking a non automatic power and making it automatic makes it much stronger then it probably should be, and I have not seen anything that I would personaly consider remote evidence for shield being intended to be an automatic power.



Well I would point you to my earlier post citing the math involved comparing halfling reroll and shield.  I would say halfling reroll is slightly more powerful than shield if you assume that the pc's know when shield would or would not be effective.  If you take away that knowledge shields comparative value to the halfling power is completely negligible.  



FadedC said:


> But this is all just my take on it, if wizards ever posted a clarification on it, I'm not 100% sure they would necesarily support my view (though I obviously I feel it's more likely then not). If after all our discussion you still feel that shield is meant to always work and never be wasted then we just view things differently. Perhaps you will turn out to be correct in the long run.



This is at least a respectable position.  It obviously could be adjudicated either way by the powers that be in some future errata release.  My perception is that shield would be next to worthless without the information.  I think the math supports this.

As a side note, compare shield to cleric utility powers at 2nd level.  Shield of faith, bless and cure light wounds are all equally or more impressive than shield (shield with full disclosure).   Assuming a party will face 2-3 encounters in an average day allows shield 3 "chances" to be effective.  Even if it comes into play all 3 times, I would argue that shield of faith will easily block more damage in one encounter (likely to be a critical encounter since you wouldn't use the daily unless the situation is particularly dangerous).

As an example, a serious combat probably lasts in the area of 7-14 rounds and a party of 4-5 pc's might likely face 8-13 enemies.  If you took a low level party (2-3) and put them up against "hard encounter" (dmg page 56 defines a hard encounter as 2-4 levels above the party) so I'm going to look at a level 5 encounter for 5 level 2 pc's.  1000 exp points from the dmg page 57.

that would be 10 goblin warriors, or perhaps 5 goblin warriors, a goblin hexer, 2 goblin sharpshooters and 4 goblin cutters.  I think the second instance is a more likely mix (and more threatening to the party in many ways), I'm going to briefly talk about how affective shield of faith would be in the first instance only because it's easier math wise.

10 enemies.  10 potential attacks per round to start.  Obviously as the party impacts the goblins (through death and conditions) the number of attacks per round goes down.  Just because I have to pick some numbers I'm going to be conservative and reduce the goblins faster than I think likely.  Something like this occurs: (10, 10, 9, 8, 7, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2) 10 rounds of combat, the party put out 290 damage (not counting the damage lost to overkill) or 29+ damage per round (I would call this 320+ damage by factoring an average 3 overkill per bad guy) for 5 2nd level pc's which is pretty generous in my estimation and discounts the idea that the 10 goblins might actually take some pc's down during the combat and thus lower the parties damage output.

The point of all this is the goblins get 71 attacks in my example.  Shield of faith is a level 2 utility.  It has a 10% chance of blocking each attack vs AC.  In this example it's pretty likely that it would block 6-8 attacks about 90% of the time.  Even if half the attacks were not vs AC (goblins not being a good example for this) you can expect shield of faith to block 3-4 attacks per day.  Pretty comparative to a best case shield spell with "full disclosure".  Take away "full disclosure" and shield is probably likely to block about 1 attack every 10-15 encounters.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 3, 2009)

AngryPurpleCyclops said:


> I normally just read enworld but after reading this thread I felt compelled/annoyed enough to join and reply.  First there's a lot of logical fallacies being applied in this thread some even by the people referencing logical fallacies as part of their argument.
> 
> This example above is just one example of some really questionable parallels being drawn.
> 
> First the halflings power can impact ANY attack.  Even remove a critical hit 95% of the time.  The re-roll makes it roughly 50% likely to turn any hit into a miss.  The shield power can only block 50% of the attack types (though reflex and AC seem much more prevalent at lower levels so it will frequently be more useful than 50%) but it also is restricted to impacting EXACTLY 20% of attacks.  Which means the shield spell is useful 20% of the time against 50% of the attack types.  This works out to blocking 10% of attacks (once per encounter) with a residual effect of +4 to those defenses for another round.  If you skew the results based upon reflex and AC attacks being ~75% of all attacks that percentage goes to 15%.  Now compare this to the halflings power.  Roughly 50% of all attacks hit.  The halfling can therefore impact 50% of 50% of attacks.  This is a 25% overall effectiveness for the halfling power.  That's 10% more effective than shield for the math challenged.  The shield has a residual effect that it might save you from another attack in the next round.  The halfling power has a bonus effect that 95% of the time it blocks a critical hit.  We could argue all day about the residual or the critical block being more important but for my purposes I'll call it a wash so we can compare the math heads up.  If you make the shield spell into a "guess" by not informing your players, you basically cut it's effectiveness by more than half.  If you also make the pc guess if it's even an attack that can be blocked (i.e. vs reflex/ac) you're reducing it by nearly half again.  Even skewing the numbers in favor of making better than average choices as to what attacks "are of a type that shield an impact" you're basically reducing shield to in the neighborhood of 5% effective compared to ~25% the halflings power.




Talk about "logical fallacies".

1) Shield works until the end of the Wizard's next turn. That has the potential to attempt to stop one attack or five attacks. Second Chance only has the potential to stop one attack per encounter. So, Shield is not quite as lame as you are making it out to be. When a Wizard is surrounded, Shield usually kicks butt on Second Chance.

2) Your math is off. AC and Reflex attacks make up ~73% of the attacks in the Monster Manual. It might be 50% of the attack types, but Shield can affect a solid majority of the attacks in the game.

3) Nothing in the game indicates that a Class power has to have the same utility as a Racial power. Halflings get screwed in several ways (especially in combat), so having a Racial power that is more effective in many circumstances than a Class power is fair and balanced.

4) Your math has another flaw. If the DM asks a player "Does a 23 hit your AC?", the DM is allowing Shield to work 100% of the time when it can on the first attack. 100% is a lot better than your 25% Second Chance math.

5) Wizards can easily have the highest AC and Reflex defense in the game system. Using a better version of arguably the best defensive utility spell (or at least one taken and used a significant majority of the time for those who can) for a class that is already strong in those areas is questionable. Even non-Wizards can get this power. Each DM can do what he wants, but you getting "annoyed" over someone else's opinion on it is silly. Guess your name here is well suited.

Balance is a major part of the game system. If you want to run Shield as an auto-success when applicable defense in your game, fine. I consider that unfair to the other players whose powers are not automatic, but you can do what you want in your game.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 3, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> 4) Your math has another flaw. If the DM asks a player "Does a 23 hit your AC?", the DM is allowing Shield to work 100% of the time when it can on the first attack. 100% is a lot better than your 25% Second Chance math.




Those numbers are still measuring different things, though.  Second Chance has the potential to make _any_ hit a miss.  Shield, with transparent attack rolls, is guaranteed to work... but only on certain hits.

25% of 100%, vs 100% of X%, means that there's a missing number if we want to seriously compare them...

-Hyp.


----------



## Mal Malenkirk (Mar 3, 2009)

The PCs know how to fight but the players don't.   What they do know is how to interpret game stats.  Therefore for the heroes to behave as competently as possible, the players needs as much information as possible.  The less the players know, the more the heroes behave like red shirts.

Typically in my games, the PCs learn what a monster does one trick at a time.  The first time the monster attack them, they learn the defense that the attacks targets, the exact bonus and the damage.  Then the wizard shoots him with scorching burst and immediately learns the reflex defense.  Before long, they learn the HP.  They better, I always task one of the player with keeping track of the bad guys HP!  Even the first time they meet a monster, learning when he becomes bloodied (which of course I state or the tiefling gets annoyed!) gives a fair approximation.  When a monster of a type dies, I finnally state the exact HP so they take that into account for the next monsters of the same type.  After a few round, they know pretty much everything there is to know and start acting, unsurprisingly, like very competent heroes!  This further pays off because in any themed adventures, the same type of monsters will show up a bit over the day so that knowledge carries over.  From that point on, they do cool things like focus on the weak defense or avoid making a direct attack against a monster they know has 4 hp left and let splash damage from another attack kill him (i.e cleave). 

The end result is they tend to punch above their weight class, so to speak.  And as a result I run tougher fights, I expect, than in a game where players are kept mostly in the dark about game stats.


----------



## Mal Malenkirk (Mar 3, 2009)

Hypersmurf said:


> Those numbers are still measuring different things, though.  Second Chance has the potential to make _any_ hit a miss.  Shield, with transparent attack rolls, is guaranteed to work... but only on certain hits.
> 
> 25% of 100%, vs 100% of X%, means that there's a missing number if we want to seriously compare them...
> 
> -Hyp.




More importantly, that power is 95% likely to cancel a critical hit.  That's pretty damn good.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 3, 2009)

Hypersmurf said:


> 25% of 100%, vs 100% of X%, means that there's a missing number if we want to seriously compare them...




Agreed.

1) Second Chance is only used on a successful hit. So, 100% to start with. If the attack missed, Second Chance would not be used. It also works against all attack rolls, regardless of defense, so another 100%. With a 50% chance to hit, we have an original 90% chance of a normal hit (11 to 19) and a 10% chance of a critical (20). So the average amount it protects is calculated by:

100% * 100% * (90% normal damage * (50% of a miss - 5% chance of a critical) + 10% critical damage * (50% of a miss + 45% of normal damage))

This works out to an improvement 54.5% of the time and a worsening of the situation 4.5% of the time. 41% of the time, no change. Ironically, one could distill this down to a 50% chance of improvement (for a 50% chance to hit).

These percentages are higher if the player mostly uses the power to minimize a critical, but if he does that, there are times when he won't use it in an encounter at all. Pros and Cons.

2) Shield also is only used on a successful hit. So, 100% to start with. However, Shield works differently from game to game depending on the DM's adjudication:

2a) The DM rules that the PCs do not know anything about the attack.

73% of the time, a monster will use an AC or Reflex attack (on average in the MM).

If an attack occurs with a 50% chance to hit, Shield will nullify the attack 40% of the time (4 numbers out of the 10 possible to hit numbers).

So, 100% * 73% * 40% = 29.2%

2b) The DM rules that the PCs know the type of attack (e.g. Fort or Reflex), but they nothing about the die result or total.

100% * 100% * 40% = 40%

2c) The DM rules that the PCs do not know the type of attack, but rolls the attack die in front of the players.

If the players see an 8 through a 14 or so on the die, there is a very high chance that Shield will work (not all creatures have a 50% chance to hit). If they see a 17, Shield will almost never help (although it would have once in our game). This is also dependent on how high an AC or Reflex the PC Wizard has (higher ones bump up the range some). For the most part, the player has a high chance (80% in my estimation) of guessing correctly if he can see the die roll.

100% * 73% * 80% (a guess) = 58.4%

2d) The DM rules that the PCs know the type of attack and rolls the attack die in front of the players.

100% * 100% * 80% (a guess) = 80%

2e) The DM rules that the PCs know everything (i.e. the total attack roll and the type of the attack).

100% * 100% * 100% = 100%

Granted, 2e is not a true 100%. It is just 100% of the first attack in an encounter for which Shield will definitely work.


But, the comparison of 1 and 2a does show us that worse case scenario is 29.2% for Shield versus 50% for Second Chance. What it does not show is that Shield also can be used for multiple attacks versus one for Second Chance. That ups the 29.2% somewhat, especially in situations where the Wizard has multiple foes. Even if the first use of Shield does not stop an attack, later uses in the round might.

So, doesn't 2d and 2e seem overpowered when compared to 1 considering that Second Chance cannot stop multiple attacks and Shield can?

2a and 2b seem like the most balanced adjudications.

When one also considers how frequently people take Shield as their primary second level utility power, one should consider if 2a or 2b is the more reasonable adjudication. Personally, I think 2a is more balanced, but I can see why people would pick 2b.

2e is ridiculously powerful and useful compared to Second Chance.


Note: We use 2c in our games because the DMs always roll attack dice in front of the players. The game does not feel forced or contrived or fudged if the DM is open about his attack and damage rolls. What happens, happens. No guaranteed PC survival entitlement and limited DM punishment for stupid mistakes.

I consider 2c to be reasonable and the math above pretty much illustrates that. Shield actually works out to be more useful than Second Chance with 2c, even if one changes that 80% guess.


Btw, I am old school. I think telling players nearly everything (like MM's post) is part of our recent entitlement society. People are used to seeing damage bars above foes in mmorpgs and other computer games and think that handing information out like candy is reasonable. I do not. I think there should be some mystery in the game system, or why bother to play DND instead of an mmorpg. Even the monster skill checks are way too generous in the information that can be acquired. IMO.


----------



## Nightson (Mar 3, 2009)

You managed to prove in your shield calculations that when shield is useful it's useful.  What you didn't calculate was how likely it was to be useful.  When you went from 2c to 2d you changed the last number from the chance that the number is within the range to the chance that the PCs correctly guess a number already in the range, which renders 2d and 2e totally invalid compared to the first three.


----------



## AngryPurpleCyclops (Mar 3, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Talk about "logical fallacies".
> 
> 1) Shield works until the end of the Wizard's next turn. That has the potential to attempt to stop one attack or five attacks. Second Chance only has the potential to stop one attack per encounter. So, Shield is not quite as lame as you are making it out to be. When a Wizard is surrounded, Shield usually kicks butt on Second Chance.



yes, lets talk about logical fallacies shall we. You're making an argument about effectiveness based upon a situation that happens maybe 1% of the time.    

Now you're talking about "potential"?  What percentage of combat rounds does a wizard face 5 attacks?  Not many if your wizard is planning on surviving.  In the event that you get attacked 5 times while the shield spell is working the math says you'll likely impact exactly one of them.  Hardly a huge difference maker.  So, less than 5% of the time you get to block 1 extra attack.  I'm being extremely generous here math wise because I've played a wizard and I don't remember ever facing 5 attacks in one round.  My only pc that ever faced 5 attacks in one round was a 4th level warlock and he was killed that round.  

In any event second chance ALSO has the 95% chance to block a crit and it blocks roughly 25% of any attack it's used against.  



KarinsDad said:


> 2) Your math is off. AC and Reflex attacks make up ~73% of the attacks in the Monster Manual. It might be 50% of the attack types, but Shield can affect a solid majority of the attacks in the game.



My math is solid, your attention to detail is off.  I used the number 75% to come up with 15% effective.  Here it is in a nut shell, 20% of 75% = 15%.  Shield has the ability to block 15% of all attacks the wizard faces.  Are you following? 



KarinsDad said:


> 3) Nothing in the game indicates that a Class power has to have the same utility as a Racial power. Halflings get screwed in several ways (especially in combat), so having a Racial power that is more effective in many circumstances than a Class power is fair and balanced.



This is another logical fallacy.  Maybe two at once.  I never made any reference to your point, I just mathematically disputed the argument being made that shield was more powerful than the halfling power.  I clearly demonstrated it's probably only about 60% as effective and only if you're getting the full disclosure version.  If you're getting the non disclosure version the halfling power is 5-15 times as effective.  That's 500-1500% for the math impaired.



KarinsDad said:


> 4) Your math has another flaw. If the DM asks a player "Does a 23 hit your AC?", the DM is allowing Shield to work 100% of the time when it can on the first attack. 100% is a lot better than your 25% Second Chance math.



You're either being purposely being obtuse or you're not capable of rational discourse.  My math has no flaw, it's just your grasp of logic that's kind of broken.  Anecdotal evidence doesn't make an argument and it certainly doesn't impugn my math. I fully admit that in the case where the DM asks does 23 hit your AC is where shield works.  You apparently are skipping over the other 19 possibilities the DM might offer, 16 of those 19 are EXACTLY the 80% of the time where shield has no effect.



KarinsDad said:


> 5) Wizards can easily have the highest AC and Reflex defense in the game system. Using a better version of arguably the best defensive utility spell (or at least one taken and used a significant majority of the time for those who can) for a class that is already strong in those areas is questionable. Even non-Wizards can get this power. Each DM can do what he wants, but you getting "annoyed" over someone else's opinion on it is silly. Guess your name here is well suited.



So part of your argument is that because wizards can already have high AC they should be punished?  Perhaps no wizards should be allowed to use magical armor?  I'm not annoyed, this is the internet, I just felt someone ought to point out the ridiculous flaws in your swiss cheese argument.  

Just for your edification AngryPurpleCyclops is a joke that has to do with being a sniper serving in Somolia and nothing to do with my temperament.  There aren't a lot of opportunities for "companionship".  This is a pg website but I glean you and I are of a similar age so I'll assume you can figure it out.  I just find it slightly funny.  



KarinsDad said:


> Balance is a major part of the game system. If you want to run Shield as an auto-success when applicable defense in your game, fine. I consider that unfair to the other players whose powers are not automatic, but you can do what you want in your game.



I agree balance is a major part of any game system.  I think my math directly contradicted your position and more importantly shows that your position unbalances shield with regard to other powers.  You refusing to accept the math only supports my hypothesis that you're just interested in dominating the game/conversation not in reaching a factual conclusion.  I've worked on a dozen games as a play balance professional both computer games and table top games.  I'm not guessing here, I'm trying to educate you as to relative utility of powers.  Shield is hardly an auto success.  Anyone who has played a wizard will tell you that many combats end with it unexpended.  You have no factual argument so you switch to hyperbole to deflect from the untenable nature of your position.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 3, 2009)

Nightson said:


> You managed to prove in your shield calculations that when shield is useful it's useful.  What you didn't calculate was how likely it was to be useful.  When you went from 2c to 2d you changed the last number from the chance that the number is within the range to the chance that the PCs correctly guess a number already in the range, which renders 2d and 2e totally invalid compared to the first three.




It's useful 40% of the time a (50% chance to hit) attack hits.

But in the case of 2e, it's never used when it is not useful.

In the case of 2d, it's rarely used when it is not useful.

Hence, it is basically auto-protect for those DM situations. It's:

DM: "He hits you."
Player: "No he doesn't."

The issue is that 2e's chance to fail is 0%, not that it cannot always be used if the DM plays it that way. It is always more useful if it cannot fail when it can be used than if it possibly can fail.

There is no chance of failure for 2e, hence, 2e is more useful than 2a through 2d. There is almost no chance of failure for 2d, hence, 2d is more useful than 2a through 2c.

Can you calculate the exact amount those are better? I cannot. I just know they are a lot better than if using it can fail.


----------



## AngryPurpleCyclops (Mar 3, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> <snip>superfluous fluff</snip>
> Note: We use 2c in our games because the DMs always roll attack dice in front of the players. The game does not feel forced or contrived or fudged if the DM is open about his attack and damage rolls. What happens, happens. No guaranteed PC survival entitlement and limited DM punishment for stupid mistakes.



This is mostly opinion and everyone is free to do in their campaign as they see fit.  It's one of the best things about DnD.  Take what works for you and roll with it.  Presenting your way as the only way and supporting it with nonsensical arguments is a different story.  Your hyperbole about "entitlement" is just you trying to impugn people who have a different perspective.  This is the logical fallacy of Ad Hominem.  

I shudder to think that you challenged my math and then presented this tripe.  



KarinsDad said:


> I consider 2c to be reasonable and the math above pretty much illustrates that. Shield actually works out to be more useful than Second Chance with 2c, even if one changes that 80% guess.



Your math is scary.  You're not even coming close to comparing two similar things.  



KarinsDad said:


> Btw, I am old school. I think telling players nearly everything (like MM's post) is part of our recent entitlement society. People are used to seeing damage bars above foes in mmorpgs and other computer games and think that handing information out like candy is reasonable. I do not. I think there should be some mystery in the game system, or why bother to play DND instead of an mmorpg. Even the monster skill checks are way too generous in the information that can be acquired. IMO.



More hyperbole designed to deflect and impugn.  I'm old school as well.  My gaming group is anything but "entitlement" centric.  We play a very gritty brand of DnD where death is ever present and TPK is a real possibility.  We don't get a lot of magic items, the items we get are not particularly powerful and we approach the numerous plot lines we are presented pretty cautiously.  4e is clearly designed with the expectation that players will know when monsters are bloodied and by extension monsters know when characters are bloodied as well.  The information we have in our group about defenses is only what we glean from character hits and misses.   I would argue that the campaign I play in is about as far from "entitlement" or monty hall as possible.

You can spin the defense of your position with any fluff you like but that doesn't distract from the reality that you are married to your ideas even when presented with well supported arguments that contradict your baseless supposition.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 3, 2009)

AngryPurpleCyclops said:


> yes, lets talk about logical fallacies shall we. You're making an argument about effectiveness based upon a situation that happens maybe 1% of the time.
> 
> Now you're talking about "potential"?  What percentage of combat rounds does a wizard face 5 attacks?




That was hyperbole. I assumed you would get it. My bad.

5 attacks will not often happen. But, 2 attacks can. It's easy in the game system. Even a Dragon can attack a Wizard 2 or more times in a single round without having other NPCs around to help it.

I know our DM will send 2 or more attackers against the Wizard if he gets the chance, especially once the Wizard starts laying the smack down.



AngryPurpleCyclops said:


> I agree balance is a major part of any game system.  I think my math directly contradicted your position and more importantly shows that your position unbalances shield with regard to other powers.  You refusing to accept the math only supports my hypothesis that you're just interested in dominating the game/conversation not in reaching a factual conclusion.  I've worked on a dozen games as a play balance professional both computer games and table top games.  I'm not guessing here, I'm trying to educate you as to relative utility of powers.  Shield is hardly an auto success.  Anyone who has played a wizard will tell you that many combats end with it unexpended.  You have no factual argument so you switch to hyperbole to deflect from the untenable nature of your position.




Shield is an auto success if the DM uses 2e above. Once per encounter when it can be successful, it will be successful if the player wants to use it.

You appear to be arguing to argue and stating that I am either purposely being obtuse or not capable of rational discourse is attacking just to attack. The last recourse of irrational discourse.


Look at the math behind my numbers 1 and 2a through 2e above and explain any flaws you find in them.

They illustrate how Shield is considerably better than Second Chance if the DM gives out too much information.


As an example of how your math is irrelevant, your 25% Second Chance calcuation is totally accurate. It's just mostly meaningless.

"The halfling can therefore impact 50% of 50% of attacks. This is a 25% overall effectiveness for the halfling power."

Who cares? The halfling does not get hit on 50% of attacks, so Second Chance is not used. It is only relevant when it is used. It is only used when an attack hits. So your math here, although accurate, doesn't say anything important.

What is important is that 54.5% of the time when Second Wind is used, it decreases the amount of damage, 4.5% of the time it increases the amount of damage, and 41% of the time it does nothing (assuming a 50% to hit chance).

Your math might be accurate, but if it doesn't address the real issues, what good is it?


One more point you forgot in your discourse. Shield either stops the damage or it does not. 4.5% of the time, Second Wind increases the damage (upping normal damage to a critical, you mentioned this, but blew it off). 4.5% of the time, Second Wind decreases the damage but does not stop it completely (i.e. dropping a critical down to normal damage, you did not mention this).

Unlike Shield, Second Wind does not always cut out the damage completely. It only does that 44.5% of the time.

Yet another reason why Shield is usually better.

Average damage if Second Wind changes the result ~12%.
Average damage if Shield changes the result 0%.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 3, 2009)

AngryPurpleCyclops said:


> You can spin the defense of your position with any fluff you like but that doesn't distract from the reality that you are married to your ideas even when presented with well supported arguments that contradict your baseless supposition.




Whatever.

Prove your point.

You did not disprove my math, you just yelled about it.

Put down real math, not that pseudo math you wrote before.

Prove 1 and 2a through 2e are flawed, or walk away with your tail between your legs.

I've already illustrated how your 25% is accurate, but meaningless. Prove me wrong.

Show real math to illustrate average damage under 1, and 2a through 2e.

I'll wait.

So far, your pseudo math is lacking.

The proof is in the pudding. Give an example of average damage for each of the cases I layed out if you want to prove your point.

You are aware that you too could be in error and "married to your ideas".

Do the math instead of the hyperbole.


Average damage is the key to this. It makes or breaks these types of math arguments. Remember, neither of these defenses trigger unless an attack hits, so you must start with a case of the attack hits. Anything else is blowing smoke.

If you cannot do it, we'll all pretty much assume you are mistaken.


----------



## AngryPurpleCyclops (Mar 3, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> It's useful 40% of the time a (50% chance to hit) attack hits.
> 
> But in the case of 2e, it's never used when it is not useful.
> 
> ...



Well, I can calculate it, I just won't because you're basing it on something entirely different than the reality of the game.  Kind of like the gamblers fallacy that something is "due" because the opposite has happened X number of times in the past.  My math covers ALL possibilities.  

1st, shield only works on 20% of attacks and only if those attacks are in the 73% of AC/Reflex attacks.  This is EXACTLY 14.6% chance that each time a wizard is attacked shield can be of use.  

2nd the halfling power works on ANY attack but only changes the outcome about 50% of the time.  This is roughly a 25% chance that each time the wizard is attacked the reroll power can help.  PLUS the halfling attack is 95% likely to remove a crit.  AND as an additional bonus (pretty hard to compute the exact math number) it can block attacks that are vs will and fort which are vastly more likely to have an additional effect than attacks vs AC.  So the reroll power can prevent a stun, daze, immobilize or ongoing damage much more frequently than shield can.  Valuing this is pretty abstract as is valuing crit reduction but they both add value to the power and can't be totally ignored.  I was willing to call this roughly equal to the ongoing ac defense value of shield, but you tried to use an obscure and unlikely anecdotal scenario to show that the continuing benefit of shield was very impressive.  I would argue pretty strongly that second chance is more effective than shield AND the added benefits of second chance are also stronger than the continuing benefits of shield.  Shield is more definite, in that if an attack vs reflex or AC hits by 3 or less shield can always change the outcome.  You have somehow confused the definitiveness with effectiveness.  If I offered you a power that automatically blocks all damage when the dm rolls an 18 on the ATT vs one that gives you a 40% chance to block all damage on ATT rolls 16-19 which would you take?

Arguing that it's "a lot better" if it can't fail to be effective when it's used has several serious flaws.  First you discount the fact that in many encounters shield can NEVER be effective.   Second, you're taking the times when shield does work out of context with the times it doesn't.  Of course when shield works it's more effective than second chance.  When it works it works.  Second chance will still block more attacks over the life of your pc than shield.  Third your math avoids the reality that the most dangerous attacks have a higher probability of having a larger chance of success.  Take a look at a young green dragon for instance.  1000 exp, level 5 encounter for 5 level 2 pc's (to compare to my earlier goblin example).  Breath weapon and frightful presence both hit defenses that shield can't help with AND both have ongoing effects.  +8 vs will or +8 vs fort. blocking a d6+5 claw (6-11 and 8.5 avg) is a LOT less important than blocking d10+3 and 5 ongoing plus slow (save ends both) with an after effect of slow (save ends).  The attack is 5 ongoing alone is roughly 10 damage on average and 15+ more than 20% of the time, so you're looking at 4-13 initially with 8.5 average and a likely 9-38+ with 18 being the roughly average expected outcome.  This doesn't even take into account how much additional damage you might take from being slowed and unable to maneuver.  

What's the average will/fort defense of a level 2 pc?  13-15?  This means that the really important attack might have a 60-75% chance to hit.  Third and most important, you make the fallacious argument that shield is too powerful and thus needs to be "downgraded".  Making shield more effective is not a bad thing when you consider that no matter how it's played on average it's LESS effective than the halfling power or shield of faith.  We're not talking about making a level 2 power that automatically prevents 40 damage we're talking about keeping it close to other similar powers.  Your convoluted grasp of logic and clinging to the instances when shield does work as being too powerful without considering all the times it fails to work is just a blatant disregard for mathematics and reality.


----------



## Joker (Mar 3, 2009)

For what it's worth we play with the player having the knowledge of what roll to hit was.  Shield seems nigh useless otherwise.


----------



## Bagpuss (Mar 3, 2009)

Our Wizard has had Shield since second level. It has only made a difference twice, (IE: He would either not have been hit anyway, or would have still been hit if his AC was 4 higher) and we are now 8th level. Doesn't seem that over powered to me.


----------



## Sceadeau (Mar 3, 2009)

It's fairly easy for a player to know the difference between AC/Reflex and Fort/Will attacks.

AC is physical objects flying at his body.
Reflex is a ray spell, that he's trying to dodge out of the way of.
Fort/Will are attacks that affect his body/mind -- meaning they always hit (like old school hold person) but he has the chance to shake it off.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 3, 2009)

1) AngryPurpleCyclops? Less angry please

2) I am currently playing a wizard with shield. In about a dozen encounters I've not had call to actually use it yet. I agree with Joker and Bagpuss, full disclosure seems a non-issue.

3) In the game I run, there is a halfling cleric. His 'second chance' power is effectively a 'negate crit' power. Every time I've got a crit on his bony little hide he second chances it away. Lucky little beggars. Shield couldn't have done that.

Cheers


----------



## AngryPurpleCyclops (Mar 3, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> 1) AngryPurpleCyclops? Less angry please
> 
> 2) I am currently playing a wizard with shield. In about a dozen encounters I've not had call to actually use it yet. I agree with Joker and Bagpuss, full disclosure seems a non-issue.
> 
> ...



sorry, truthfully not angry at all, and not trying to create flames. It's just difficult to reason with someone who questions your math which is the actual probability of a situation and then posts some pseudo-math that doesn't even make sense as the "real math".


----------



## AngryPurpleCyclops (Mar 3, 2009)

Sceadeau said:


> It's fairly easy for a player to know the difference between AC/Reflex and Fort/Will attacks.
> 
> AC is physical objects flying at his body.
> Reflex is a ray spell, that he's trying to dodge out of the way of.
> Fort/Will are attacks that affect his body/mind -- meaning they always hit (like old school hold person) but he has the chance to shake it off.



I agree and disagree.  Many attacks it's obvious but quite a few are not so obvious.

Ray of Frost hits fort. Ray of enfeeblement as well.
Bugbear warrior's skull thumper hit's fort even though he's swinging a morning star.


----------



## Herschel (Mar 3, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> 1. Because it is not information that PCs should have. A black bolt coming from an enemy caster could be anything. Without a successful arcana check, how exactly does the PC know what it is?
> 
> 2. These are metagaming rules. There is no "go back in time" for the PC. There is "go back in time and change a hit to a miss" for players.
> 
> ...





1. Yes, PCs know which defense is attacked. Is it something you would dodge, accept and hope your protections are good enough, resist with your body, or your mind. 

2. Yes, there is. It's called an Imediate Interrupt. I'm not pleased with the concept myself, but it's the best way to make the mechanic work. Just like healing in 4E. It would be too powerful if it were an encounter long power or the like. 

3. See #1

4. You lose any debate just by using that nonsense term.


----------



## Nightson (Mar 3, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> It's useful 40% of the time a (50% chance to hit) attack hits.
> 
> But in the case of 2e, it's never used when it is not useful.
> 
> ...




"You managed to prove in your shield calculations that when shield is useful it's useful. *What you didn't calculate was how likely it was to be useful.* When you went from 2c to 2d you *changed the last numbe*r from the chance that the number is within the range to the chance that the PCs correctly guess a number already in the range, which *renders 2d and 2e totally invalid compared to the first three.*"


----------



## Elric (Mar 4, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Agreed.
> 1) Second Chance is only used on a successful hit. So, 100% to start with. If the attack missed, Second Chance would not be used. It also works against all attack rolls, regardless of defense, so another 100%. With a 50% chance to hit, we have an original 90% chance of a normal hit (11 to 19) and a 10% chance of a critical (20). So the average amount it protects is calculated by:
> 
> 100% * 100% * (90% normal damage * (50% of a miss - 5% chance of a critical) + 10% critical damage * (50% of a miss + 45% of normal damage))
> ...






Nightson said:


> "You managed to prove in your shield calculations that when shield is useful it's useful. *What you didn't calculate was how likely it was to be useful.* When you went from 2c to 2d you *changed the last numbe*r from the chance that the number is within the range to the chance that the PCs correctly guess a number already in the range, which *renders 2d and 2e totally invalid compared to the first three.*"




I'd go a little further.  I don't think 2c is a valid calculation either.  As you can see, in 2c,d,e the chance that Shield works is completely unrelated to its +4 bonus.  2c and d are hard to get a realistic calculation for, because it means specifying player knowledge of the monster's distribution of attack bonuses/what save they're attacking, versus the actual numbers.  Scenario 2e is much easier.

Here's how to do a valid calculation for 2e.  Let's take the simplest scenario possible: all attacks are identical in their chance to hit (hitting at least 25% of the time) and damage, with a set number *n* of attacks per encounter (all this information is known to the player).  We're only considering "attacks" something that targets Reflex and AC here, and expected damage prevented (==number of attacks blocked here) is the metric for effectiveness.  When I run a comparison with Second Chance, assuming that all attacks are equal is definitely in Shield's favor.  

Shield's chance to be effective per attack is *p*= 0.2, since it's a +4 bonus.  

Then the chance that Shield is effective is 1- (1-*p*)^*n*, and p=0.2, so this is 1-0.8^n.  When you use Shield, you also get the benefit until the end of your next turn.  So this means that Shield stops more than one expected attack if you’re targeted by additional attacks.  Let’s assume conservatively that you’ll get targeted by 0.25 additional attacks while the Shield power lasts; at a 0.2 chance to block each, that means each time you use Shield you’re blocking 1+0.2*0.25= 1.05 attacks.  This gives us an expected number of attacks blocked by Shield equal to 1.05*[1- (1-*p*)^*n*].  

Plug in for a few different values of n:
n      Number of attacks blocked
1	0.2100
2	0.3780
3	0.5124
4	0.6199
5	0.7059
6	0.7747

The more attacks there are, the better Shield gets, because the more likely it is to block an attack.  Likewise, if Shield gave higher than a +4 bonus it would also be more valuable under this metric.  

Second Chance: Optimal use of Second Chance, even assuming all attacks were identical, involves solving a dynamic programming problem to determine whether you should reserve it for a critical or should simply use it on any hit.  Optimal strategy in this simple example would presumably be "if there will be *k* or more attacks against me left after this attack, only use Second Chance against a critical hit; otherwise use it against any hit."  From this you can determine the optimal *k* relatively easily.  

If you assume a crit is equivalent to 1.5 regular hits, and the chance to hit is 0.5 (0.45 of that non-crit, 0.05 of that a critical hit) you get optimal k=4.  That is, if there will be 4 or more attacks against you after the current attack, only use Second Chance against a critical hit; if there will be fewer than 4 attacks against you after the current attack, use Second Chance against any hit (side note: assuming that the player knows exactly how many attacks there will be against him helps to use Second Chance more effectively, but as long as the player has a pretty good idea of the number of attacks he’ll face, this shouldn’t change much).

Doing some further calculations, the “regular hit equivalents” blocked by Second Chance here are a function of the number of attacks as follows:  

  # attacks	Regular-hit equivalents blocked
1	0.2850
2	0.4275
3	0.4988
4	0.5344
5	0.5564
6	0.5934
7	0.6201
8	0.6415
9	0.6599
10	0.6765
11	0.6918
12	0.7061

Note that the number of “attacks” facing a character with Shield and Second Chance is going to be different because Shield only applies to AC/Ref, and because as a racial power, Second Chance can be used by non-wizard classes who will tend to be attacked more in combat.  Let’s ignore the second factor and assume we’re only comparing them for the same wizard character.  Then we can use the “75% of attacks target AC/Reflex” assumption, which means we should pick the number for Second Chance to be 4/3 of that for Shield.  

For easy comparison, let’s call a number of attacks 3 (Shield) vs. 4 (Second Chance) the low case and 6 vs. 8 the high case.  

Low attacks case:
Shield: 0.5124 blocked
Second Chance: 0.5344 blocked

High attacks case
Shield: 0.7747 blocked
Second Chance: 0.6415 blocked

In conclusion, from this simple calculation it should be clear that Shield and Second Chance are comparable unless these assumptions are dramatically different from actual practice.  The attacks are identical assumption is the biggest simplification I’ve made, and that certainly helps Shield (though I was conservative on the number of additional attacks that Shield would apply to), but its lead in the “high case” is still under 20%.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 4, 2009)

AngryPurpleCyclops said:


> Well, I can calculate it, I just won't because you're basing it on something entirely different than the reality of the game.  Kind of like the gamblers fallacy that something is "due" because the opposite has happened X number of times in the past.  My math covers ALL possibilities.
> 
> 1st, shield only works on 20% of attacks and only if those attacks are in the 73% of AC/Reflex attacks.  This is EXACTLY 14.6% chance that each time a wizard is attacked shield can be of use.
> 
> 2nd the halfling power works on ANY attack but only changes the outcome about 50% of the time.  This is roughly a 25% chance that each time the wizard is attacked the reroll power can help.  PLUS the halfling attack is 95% likely to remove a crit.  AND as an additional bonus (pretty hard to compute the exact math number) it can block attacks that are vs will and fort which are vastly more likely to have an additional effect than attacks vs AC.




Ok, let's use your numbers 14.6% for Shield.

25% for Second Wind.

Let's use the case that the Wizard gets hit.

Since he only gets hit 50% of the time of all attacks (using your math here), his chance of stopping an attack is 29.2% for Shield and 50% for Second Wind (the same numbers I posted earlier).

He has to get attacked first to even use the powers. Getting missed does not do anything for these powers.

So, let's take DM adjudication 2E above where the DM tells the player exactly when Shield works and exactly when it does not.

Let's say that the Wizard gets hit 1 time in an encounter.

If he uses Second Wind, he takes (on average) 50% of the damage of the hit or 50% damage.

If he uses Shield, his odds of getting hit are:

70.8% (100% - 29.2%, Shield did not work because it was a Will attack, a Fort attack, or a AC/Reflex attack roll that Shield would not stop) of the damage.

So, do you agree that with DM adjudication 2E, for a single successful hit in a round, Second Wind (50% of the damage) protects better than Shield (70.8% of the damage)?

That's the exact same ratio as your numbers (25% of not getting hit vs. 14.6% of not getting hit), it just ignores the silliness of talking about all attacks. It's really 50% vs. 29.2% of the first *successful* attack since the attack has to hit in order for Second Wind or Shield to work at all.


But, what if it is two successful attacks hit (in different rounds) in an entire encounter instead of one (this is where your math stops)?


If he uses Second Wind, he takes 50% of the damage of the first hit and 100% of the damage of the second hit, or 150% damage.

If he uses Shield, his odds of getting hit both times is 70.8% first hit * 70.8% second hit = 50.1264% * 200% of the damage. His odds of only getting hit once is 49.8736% * 100% of the damage.

Or, 50.1264% * 200% + 49.8736% * 100% = 150.1264% of the damage.

For all intents and purposes, TWO successful hits in an encounter averages virtually the same damage with Second Wind and Shield. And, this does not even take into account the bonus Shield has with lasting to the end of the Wizard's next turn (note: I used the example of hits on two separate rounds above).


What about 3 successful attacks in the same encounter?

Second Wind does 250% damage (50% + 100% + 100%).

Shield does 70.8% first hits * 70.8% second hits * 70.8% third hits = 35.4894912% * 300% + 64.5105088% * 200% = 235.4894912% of the damage.


With one successful attack in an encounter, Second Wind works better (as you keep claiming).

With two successful attacks in an encounter, Shield has a very slight edge (since one or more AC/Reflex attack can occur in the same round, lasting until the end of the next turn edges this towards Shield, but only ever so slightly).

With three or more successful attacks in an encounter, Shield wins.


The reason this works is because if Shield does not work (with the 2E adjudication) on an earlier successful attack, the Wizard still has it as an option for a future successful attack in the same encounter until it does work.


This is using YOUR percentages (which also happened to be mine in an earlier post).


Are you starting to understand now how your numbers were limited to ONE and only one attack in an entire encounter? Your numbers were great for that. But, your numbers ignored the fact that if Shield cannot be used, then it is still available for use later in the encounter.

One has to look at the bigger picture.


And to be honest, 2E is starting to sound reasonable to me now that I have run the math for it for multiple successful attacks.

But, 2E Shield is better in the long run than Second Wind unless your Wizard averages getting hit by 1 or fewer successful attacks per encounter. I really doubt that happens in most games.

Note: I do not discount the fact that Fort and Will attacks have additional effects. However, Reflex attacks also often have additional effects such as ongoing damage, so Reflex attacks cannot totally be discounted either.


----------



## Sunglare (Mar 4, 2009)

Screw all this math, the DM shouldn't be keeping tracking of players defence scores anyways. THose are there for the player to run not the DM. THe DM should be calling out what he got on the roll after he applies the modifiers. This is a game, it's okay to call out numbers. If the DM is trying to hide all mechanical aspects of the game then the group might as well be LARPing 

It's not that hard (figure a level 2 Wizard with 18 INT)

DM: The bugbear approachs you and swings his maul at you. "Does AC 17 hit you?
Wizard: No, I throw up my shield just in time to cause the maul to ricochet off it. 

So potentionally the wizard could have a AC that still isn't even close to the Paladin's for one round. If the wizard goes right after the bugbear then he's screwed. Lasting until the end of the wizards next turn is really only beneficial if the wizard just went right before the attacker that caused him to use it. 

As I see it, shield got hit with a big nerf bat and I have no problems with it as is. There is a couple times the wizard in the game I'm running could of really used expedious retreat.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 4, 2009)

Sunglare said:


> As I see it, shield got hit with a big nerf bat and I have no problems with it as is.




Shield might have gotten hit with the big nerf bat, but Wizards did not.

Now that Int adds to AC for them and they can be a Staff Wizard and they can easily wear Leather armor without screwing up their spells, etc., Wizards can easily have one of the highest AC and Reflexes in the game system. Throw them in the back behind cover and they are really hard to hit.

One reason is that one can start a Wizard out with a 20 Int because Wizards really do not have any MAD.

I ran a first level Human Int 20 Staff Wizard with Leather Armor and AC 18, AC 20 with cover, AC 24 with cover and Shield spell. He rarely got touched all the way to 7th level (when we stopped that campaign).


----------



## Elric (Mar 4, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Ok, let's use your numbers 14.6% for Shield.
> 
> 25% for Second Wind...




This is a much better calculation.  The biggest thing you're missing compared to my numbers above is the fact that Second Chance can be saved for critical hits.

Also, I find that number of attacks is a more accurate metric than the number of successful hits (looking back at my calculation, one thing I'd change is that I'd simply assume 0.73 of attacks target AC/Reflex, rather than adjusting the number of attacks, n, directly- this would slightly weaken Shield).  Due to the ability to save Second Chance for critical hits, it gets more powerful as the number of attacks increases, above and beyond the benefit from the chance that you'll get to activate it because you're hit at least once.


----------



## AngryPurpleCyclops (Mar 4, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Let's use the case that the Wizard gets hit.



 This is problematic in that you're instantly discounting all the combats where shield never has a chance to be used.  



KarinsDad said:


> Since he only gets hit 50% of the time of all attacks (using your math here)



not my math, just a rough number that I used to demonstrate the other calculations.  In most combats I have seen, the monsters usually need to roll about a 8-12 in order to hit the party with the vast majority of attacks.  50% seemed like a decent "estimate" to base the rest of the math on.  Feel free to point to a flaw in this assumption but try and back it up with fact if you do.



KarinsDad said:


> his chance of stopping an attack is 29.2% for Shield and 50% for Second Wind (the same numbers I posted earlier).



 Probably should have stopped right there.  



KarinsDad said:


> He has to get attacked first to even use the powers. Getting missed does not do anything for these powers.
> 
> So, let's take DM adjudication 2E above where the DM tells the player exactly when Shield works and exactly when it does not.
> 
> Let's say that the Wizard gets hit 1 time in an encounter.



 well that's an awful assumption and pretty much ELIMINATES the need for either power.  



KarinsDad said:


> If he uses Second Wind, he takes (on average) 50% of the damage of the hit or 50% damage.
> 
> If he uses Shield, his odds of getting hit are:
> 
> ...



 It's second chance, not second wind and yes I agree that if pc's were hit only once in an encounter second chance has a better chance of being useful.



KarinsDad said:


> That's the exact same ratio as your numbers (25% of not getting hit vs. 14.6% of not getting hit), it just ignores the silliness of talking about all attacks. It's really 50% vs. 29.2% of the first *successful* attack since the attack has to hit in order for Second Wind or Shield to work at all.



The massive advantage of talking about all attacks is because it erases part of the error created by guessing at the hit number and also partially makes up for the fact that shield might be forced to block a relatively minor attack (in the 73% of AC/Reflex attacks you are counting ALL but 1 of the minions for example, if you assume you won't block a minion attack with shield nor second chance, then the math moves even more heavily towards second chance) while second chance might stop the devastating daily power.  Talking about all attacks also takes into account that in many encounters shield simply never gets used.  Second chance is probably 25-35% more likely to be used in any given encounter.




KarinsDad said:


> But, what if it is two successful attacks hit (in different rounds) in an entire encounter instead of one (this is where your math stops)?



No, my math specifically talks about the math on any given attack.  This means the math is the same on the first attack as it is on the second or tenth and only changes once the power is expended.




KarinsDad said:


> If he uses Second Wind, he takes 50% of the damage of the first hit and 100% of the damage of the second hit, or 150% damage.
> 
> If he uses Shield, his odds of getting hit both times is 70.8% first hit * 70.8% second hit = 50.1264% * 200% of the damage. His odds of only getting hit once is 49.8736% * 100% of the damage.



Still second chance not second wind.  This is more horrible math and anecdotal evidence.  First if you assume the combat is 10 rounds long and then assume that the characters each get hit twice then the chance that the hits are "back to back" is about 20% so in 80% of the situations your math is flawed.  

The chance that shield will affect an attack on the round of "sustained shielding" is exactly 14.6% per attack.  This is the only number that matters.  If there is no attack there is no added benefit.  If the attack already missed, no added benefit, if the attack was against fort, no added benefit, if the attack hits by 5 no added benefit.  We're trying to determine how much benefit is accrued by the player using the power.  



KarinsDad said:


> Or, 50.1264% * 200% + 49.8736% * 100% = 150.1264% of the damage.



 it's difficult to even understand how you have come to these conclusions.  OK, I just went back and studied your post more carefully. I think what you are trying to say is that shield will eventually get deployed.  The 50% chance of second chance blocking the damage is expended first time  out.  I agree.  Point taken and while this does change things to some degree not at all in the manner you ramble about in your pseudo math.  Please also note that given the "guess factor" you want to apply, shield is also expended the first time out, so when you calculate the usefulness of shield under your system there is NO added benefit gained for subsequent attacks.



KarinsDad said:


> For all intents and purposes, TWO successful hits in an encounter averages virtually the same damage with Second Wind and Shield. And, this does not even take into account the bonus Shield has with lasting to the end of the Wizard's next turn (note: I used the example of hits on two separate rounds above).



No, you're quite mistaken.  After the powers were expended all subsequent hits are exactly equivalent.  The number of hits increases the chance that shield will be useful but it also increases the utility of second chance.  




KarinsDad said:


> What about 3 successful attacks in the same encounter?
> 
> Second Wind does 250% damage (50% + 100% + 100%).
> 
> Shield does 70.8% first hits * 70.8% second hits * 70.8% third hits = 35.4894912% * 300% + 64.5105088% * 200% = 235.4894912% of the damage.



If only either power worked like this you would be correct.  By extension your math says that if you're hit 10 times in an encounter shield would block 2.92 of the attacks and second chance would block .5, a step further and we see that in 20 hits shield has blocked 5.84 of them and second chance has still blocked .5.  Do you see a problem with this?



KarinsDad said:


> With one successful attack in an encounter, Second Wind works better (as you keep claiming).
> 
> With two successful attacks in an encounter, Shield has a very slight edge (since one or more AC/Reflex attack can occur in the same round, lasting until the end of the next turn edges this towards Shield, but only ever so slightly).
> 
> With three or more successful attacks in an encounter, Shield wins.



 only in fairy tale math land.  There is a mathematical point at which shields odds of having stopped an attack does pass second chance. It's a pretty complex calculation if you try and factor things like not blocking minion attacks, etc.  The real "crossover point" is probably somewhere in the neighborhood of having faced 9-10 attacks each.  Shield should block more attacks given that it can't block crits, can't block fort/will attacks, and sometimes will not get used at all.   You completely skipped over the math where I compared it to shield of faith.  I perceive that your issue here is the "sureness" of shield.  Something about it working automatically seems to really offend you because in the grand scheme of things it's simply not going to outperform second chance at damage reduction it's just going to work 100% of the time the 15% of the time it works.  Perhaps it's you that's lost sight of the big picture.



KarinsDad said:


> The reason this works is because if Shield does not work (with the 2E adjudication) on an earlier successful attack, the Wizard still has it as an option for a future successful attack in the same encounter until it does work.



Agreed, shield lingers until it gets an attack that fits its window of opportunity and then is deployed but what if the hit is by a minion?  Something relatively weak early in the combat? Frequently shield is not used (I never use it on minions for example)



KarinsDad said:


> This is using YOUR percentages (which also happened to be mine in an earlier post).



not quite, I think if you scroll back the original percentages were mine. I guesstimated 75% instead of using your 73% and came up with 15%, I later corrected it to 14.6% to match your numbers so that we would be discussing apples and apples and you wouldn't take us on a tangent disputing the numbers.



KarinsDad said:


> Are you starting to understand now how your numbers were limited to ONE and only one attack in an entire encounter? Your numbers were great for that. But, your numbers ignored the fact that if Shield cannot be used, then it is still available for use later in the encounter.
> 
> One has to look at the bigger picture.



 LMAO, are you seeing that you're still totally incorrect in your math?  My numbers were in no way limited to one and only one attack, they just talked about the specific chance of blocking damage on an attack.   You're still not accounting for numerous problems with your examples. Here are a list of questions/points you haven't answered/accounted for yet.

First - if we use shield in the manner you suggest, it is indeed totally expended on the first use.  This decreases the usefulness to about 1/3 so instead of 14.6% we're looking at 4.9% as compared to second chances 50%. Do you understand this?

Second - you haven't accounted for the weakest attacks being in the 73% that shield is viable for.  How much does this devalue shield?

Third -  you haven't accounted for the value of 95% chance of blocking a crit. How powerful is this?

Fourth -  you haven't accounted for combats where shield can't be used at all because of the variables involved.  




KarinsDad said:


> And to be honest, 2E is starting to sound reasonable to me now that I have run the math for it for multiple successful attacks.



 only because your math is so terrible.  Let me know when you're in an epic combat and shield blocks almost 30% of all the damage the pc receives on every single attack.  



KarinsDad said:


> But, 2E Shield is better in the long run than Second Wind unless your Wizard averages getting hit by 1 or fewer successful attacks per encounter. I really doubt that happens in most games.
> 
> Note: I do not discount the fact that Fort and Will attacks have additional effects. However, Reflex attacks also often have additional effects such as ongoing damage, so Reflex attacks cannot totally be discounted either.



I didn't discount reflex attacks, this is another horrible example.  Second chance blocks reflex attacks too, so it's already accounted for in both powers.  The only thing being discounted is that second chance can block ANY attack and shield is far more likely to only be useful against "simple attacks" and by simple I mean straight damage with no lasting effects. 

I honestly can't wait for your reply.  I'm wondering if you'll answer the 4 questions, account for the fact other 2nd level utilities are already better than best case shield at reducing damage, or own the error in your math with regard to multiple attacks.


----------



## Elric (Mar 4, 2009)

AngryPurpleCyclops said:


> Still second chance not second wind.  This is more horrible math and anecdotal evidence.  First if you assume the combat is 10 rounds long and then assume that the characters each get hit twice then the chance that the hits are "back to back" is about 20% so in 80% of the situations your math is flawed.




No.  He is calculating the chance that Shield doesn’t work on each attack, so the chance it doesn’t work on one attack squared is the chance it doesn’t work on both attacks.  If it does work, you decrease the damage by one attack’s worth.  



> If only either power worked like this you would be correct.  By extension your math says that if you're hit 10 times in an encounter shield would block 2.92 of the attacks and second chance would block .5, a step further and we see that in 20 hits shield has blocked 5.84 of them and second chance has still blocked .5.  Do you see a problem with this?




This is also wrong.  He’s doing a similar calculation to that in my post above, but it’s a little less accurate in a way that works in Shield's favor because it’s essentially assuming that of n attacks, exactly half will hit (rather than taking the probability distribution of those attacks into account).

It should all be pretty clear if you look at my post above.



> First - if we use shield in the manner you suggest, it is indeed totally expended on the first use.  This decreases the usefulness to about 1/3 so instead of 14.6% we're looking at 4.9% as compared to second chances 50%. Do you understand this?




You have misunderstood the calculation he was doing.



> Second - you haven't accounted for the weakest attacks being in the 73% that shield is viable for.  How much does this devalue shield?




This wouldn’t be hard to answer, if you simply assumed no one would use Shield on minion attacks and lowered the percentage of attacks that Shield affects accordingly.



> Third -  you haven't accounted for the value of 95% chance of blocking a crit. How powerful is this?




See my post above, where I do account for this.  If you are targeted by 8 attacks with a 50% chance to hit (as in my example above), and crits=1.5 regular hits, optimal use of Second Chance reserving it for crits initially makes it block 13% more damage than a myopic “use Second Chance on the first hit” strategy.



> Fourth -  you haven't accounted for combats where shield can't be used at all because of the variables involved.




The assumption that some % of attacks will target AC/Reflex is somewhat more favorable to Shield than the idea that in some combats there won’t be many enemies even targeting these defenses (and in others lots of enemies will target these defenses), but this effect is probably minor in the scheme of things.  Otherwise, this is pretty much covered.  See my post above.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 4, 2009)

Elric said:


> This is a much better calculation.  The biggest thing you're missing compared to my numbers above is the fact that Second Chance can be saved for critical hits.




I saw your "save Second Chance for a crit" math.

Sound on the surface, but it ignores something fairly basic.

Say your PC gets hit twice in two encounters, each for normal damage (normal damage happens 90% of the time on a 50% chance to hit, critical damage happens 10% of the time on a 50% chance to hit).

The odds of 4 successful attacks hitting with normal damage (as opposed to critical damage on any of them) is 64%, a fairly common and high percentage of the time.

Using the "save Second Chance" strategy, the PC will get hit all 4 times and although he could have used Second Chance twice and only got hit twice, that did not occur. He takes 400% damage. He could have taken 200% damage. Even if the 4th attack would have been a critical, he would have taken 250% damage by using his Second Wind for the critical instead of 200%.

Saving a single extra 50% damage on a critical (approximately), but giving up entire encounter's worth of Second Wind is a mathematically bad strategy.


Spread over the lifetime of the PC, 10% of the times he gets hit, he will negate a critical. Since that will not happen every single encounter, he will lose a lot of Second Winds that he could have used.


And, this too is why APC does not get it. He too thought that saving Second Wind for a critical is important.

It's important for the PC to stay alive.

Sure, if you think your foe is a minion, a player would be smart to not use Second Wind on the off chance that a non-minion might hit him in the same encounter.


And, I read your section on k attacks remaining. I do think that a player could save Second Wind on the first few hits, waiting for that critical if he is fairly sure that he will get hit at least one more time.

But, that too is a guessing game.

The player does not have to use it on the first hit, but should use it somewhere in the first half of the encounter, if only to delay when he goes bloodied (where opponents might have other advantages against him).
But otherwise, it's a mistake to save it for too long over the long haul.


----------



## Elric (Mar 4, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> I saw your "save Second Chance for a crit" math.
> 
> Sound on the surface, but it ignores something fairly basic.
> ...




I wasn't proposing "save second chance for a critical" the entire encounter.  That's a losing strategy compared to only saving it for a critical initially.



> And, I read your section on k attacks remaining. I do think that a player could save Second Wind on the first few hits, waiting for that critical if he is fairly sure that he will get hit at least one more time.
> 
> But, that too is a guessing game.
> 
> ...




As I mention in my post, assuming that the player knows the number of attacks left against him leads to a more effective solution for how long to save Second _Chance_ for (than if he only knows a distribution of times he'll be attacked again).  The player doesn't have to be sure he'll be hit again- it's enough to know he'll be attacked a decent number of times.  With n=8, and optimal k=4, the player faces 8 attacks for the encounter, and reserves Second Chance for crits on the first (8-4)=4 attacks.  As I indicated above, that change in strategy makes Second Chance 13% more effective under my assumptions.

Edit- if you believe that it's important to use a defensive power in the first half of an encounter in general, and we apply this requirement equally strictly to both Shield and Second Chance (instead of just raising it as an objection to saving Second Chance), this will favor Second Chance, because even with the "save it for a critical initially" Second Chance strategy, the rate of increase in expected damage blocked as a function of the number of attacks is higher for Shield.  So anything that effectively shortens the time you have to use the defensive powers favors Second Chance.


----------



## Doctor Proctor (Mar 4, 2009)

I just don't understand why you're all so bothered by this.  What's the point in even taking shield if you have no idea what defense was being attacked, or how hard the hit was.  Heck, why not have the DM keep track of HP too?  Should the PC's really know how close they are to death?  Isn't _that_ metagaming?  </sarcasm>

The fact is that racial powers and other abilities are not comparable.  Bold =/= other abilities that grant saving throw bonuses, and Nimble Reaction =/= Defensive Mobility (especially since they actually stack).  I play a Dragonborn, for example, and I get an encounter Breathweapon attack.  It's not as powerful as many of the Wizard Encounter powers, so where's the outcry over that?

There's no outcry because I'm a Fighter and that's the only way I'm going to be getting a Close Blast 5 attack.  There's no rule that I'm aware of that specifies any  sort of balance between class and racial powers, so why are we arguing about it.  They're different, deal with it.

As for Shield itself though, I think this is a bit ridiculous that we're even discussing this.  There is no official ruling, and if some DM wants to play "gotcha" with his players, let him (even though the creators said that they were trying to get rid of "gotcha" powers...).  Of course, I would also expect that you will see a DRAMATIC drop in the usage of shield in those games...

As for my group, our DM tells us what he rolled.  So he says stuff like "Does a 23 hit your AC", and I say "yep".  I don't see a problem with this as it makes the game flow a lot faster and gets rid of those "gotcha" powers.  I also wouldn't be bothered if I hit one of the monsters and said "Does a 23 hit your AC" and the DM said "Well it would, but I used an interrupt power to boost my AC against that attack, so you miss".

Under the rule that some of the posters are using where a Wizard wouldn't know if Shield would work or not, would the DM follow the same rule in the case of interrupt powers?  Does he give all the monster AC's to the PC's to track so that they don't have to tell him what their hit roll was in order to make him guess at the effeciveness of the power?  Somehow I doubt that...which to me, makes it sound like we just have some very controlling DM's who want to have all the information and give none to the players, thus setting up a huge power imbalance between the PC's and monsters.  If that's the game you want to play, then go ahead.

Edit: One last thing...  One of the false assumptions that's being made here is that the Halfling will be using Second *Chance* (seriously...it's not WIND) as frequently as the Wizard.  This is false.  Part of the reason that racial powers aren't balanced against class powers is that a race can take any class.

So, if you have a Halfling Fighter (not as crazy as it sounds considering the Halfling Bounder PP in Martial Power) or a Halfling Rogue, they would get hit a lot more than the Wizard.  In the case of the Fighter, he might be getting attacked 20 or more times per encounter...I know my Fighter sometimes does.  In these cases, crits can actually happen quite frequently.  You can very easily set up some conditions such as "don't use Second Chance unless there's a crit or I'm below 25% HP" to determine when you should use it, which really increases it's effectiveness a LOT.

Another thing is that you can combine Second Chance with other powers, which is something you can't do with Shield.  Imagine, for example, a Halfing Wizard.  He uses Shield to block one attack, but the second is a crit.  Well, he can use Second Chance on that crit and take no damage during that round!  Or he could be a Fighter using Shielded Sides when he's hurt and surrounded, and then save Second Chance for any attack that makes it past Shielded Sides.  Doing so further increases it's utility because the enemy as less than a 50% chance to hit because of the AC bonus from Shielded Sides...so it's got a much better chance of negating the attack.  Shield can't really do that though because it's a typed power bonus and won't stack with other abilities like Shielded Sides (in the case of multiclass Wizard/Fighter that was trading a higher level Utility to get Shielded Sides, or vice versa).


----------



## Mort_Q (Mar 4, 2009)

Doctor Proctor said:


> As for Shield itself though, I think this is a bit ridiculous that we're even discussing this.  There is no official ruling, and if some DM wants to play "gotcha" with his players, let him (even though the creators said that they were trying to get rid of "gotcha" powers...).  Of course, I would also expect that you will see a DRAMATIC drop in the usage of shield in those games...




I retrained Shield, as it had proved almost useless... I think it saved from a hit once over three levels.


----------



## Doctor Proctor (Mar 4, 2009)

Mort_Q said:


> I retrained Shield, as it had proved almost useless... I think it saved from a hit once over three levels.




Why?  I would've traded it out for Expeditious Retreat.  Granted, it's a Daily, but if you're not going to be able to block attacks effectively I'd rather just have a "Get out of Dodge" ability.  Shifting twice your speed means that you won't provoke, and then you can follow it up with something like Ray of Frost to slow down whoever was attacking you...or just do a double move, and you would actually be 3x your speed away from whoever was messing with you.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 4, 2009)

Elric said:


> I wasn't proposing "save second chance for a critical" the entire encounter.  That's a losing strategy compared to only saving it for a critical initially.
> 
> As I mention in my post, assuming that the player knows the number of attacks left against him leads to a more effective solution for how long to save Second _Chance_ for (than if he only knows a distribution of times he'll be attacked again).  The player doesn't have to be sure he'll be hit again- it's enough to know he'll be attacked a decent number of times.  With n=8, and optimal k=4, the player faces 8 attacks for the encounter, and reserves Second Chance for crits on the first (8-4)=4 attacks.  As I indicated above, that change in strategy makes Second Chance 13% more effective under my assumptions.




But, that's the point. 13% is the optimal savings assuming Second Wind is always used in every encounter that it can be used in. It doesn't work at all for a given encounter where the PC gets hit once, saves his Second Wind, and then never gets hit again. In that encounter, it was a 50% decrease in savings, not a 13% gain.

In order to gain the 13%, one needs to be fairly knowledgeable about whether another successful attack is going to occur.



Elric said:


> Edit- if you believe that it's important to use a defensive power in the first half of an encounter in general, and we apply this requirement equally strictly to both Shield and Second Chance (instead of just raising it as an objection to saving Second Chance), this will favor Second Chance, because even with the "save it for a critical initially" Second Chance strategy, the rate of increase in expected damage blocked as a function of the number of attacks is higher for Shield.  So anything that effectively shortens the time you have to use the defensive powers favors Second Chance.




Shield should be used the first time every time (assuming it is not a minion attack). One does not use the same potential strategy as with Second Chance.

The reason is that future successful attacks against the PC might be Will attacks, might be Fort attacks, or might be outside of Shield's 20% protection range. Hence, the best strategy for Shield is typically to use it right away against the first non-minion attack.

Note: if most or all of the enemies are minions, it might once in a while be a good strategy to use it against a minion. It's a good strategy to use it against a minion if the PC has 3 hit points remaining as well. 

Note: if there is a BBEG like a Dragon, it might be a good strategy to not use it against an attack from a different opponent.

So no, waiting is typically not a good strategy for Shield. It is only slightly better for Second Wind assuming the player knows that his PC will get hit at least once more in the encounter.


----------



## Elric (Mar 4, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> But, that's the point. 13% is the optimal savings assuming Second Wind is always used in every encounter that it can be used in. It doesn't work at all for a given encounter where the PC gets hit once, saves his Second Wind, and then never gets hit again. In that encounter, it was a 50% decrease in savings, not a 13% gain.
> 
> In order to gain the 13%, one needs to be fairly knowledgeable about whether another successful attack is going to occur.




No, you don't understand the calculation I was doing.  The calculation I was doing only assumes that you know the number of attacks that will be directed against you, not the number of successful hits.  If you knew the number of successful hits against you, I clearly wouldn't come up with an answer of optimal k=4, since the optimal strategy would instead be "only use Second Chance on a critical hit, unless you know you won't be hit again."

It's a dynamic programming problem, where by waiting you risk the chance of never getting to use Second Chance, and gain that it's more likely to block a critical hit.  Sometimes this will result in not using Second Chance at all, and sometimes it will result in using Second Chance on a critical hit instead of a regular hit.  The end result of making this tradeoff optimally is that you gain 13% in expectation.  



> Shield should be used the first time every time (assuming it is not a minion attack). One does not use the same potential strategy as with Second Chance.
> ...
> So no, waiting is typically not a good strategy for Shield. It is only slightly better for Second Wind assuming the player knows that his PC will get hit at least once more in the encounter.




As I indicate above, if you are solely going by expected values, waiting noticeably improves the value of Second Chance, even though all attacks are identical and all that you can wait for are critical hits to come up.  

You said



> The player does not have to use it on the first hit, but should use it somewhere in the first half of the encounter, if only to delay when he goes bloodied (where opponents might have other advantages against him).
> But otherwise, it's a mistake to save it for too long over the long haul.




This objection is what I was referring to.  If you believe that there's an intrinsic value in getting the effects of Shield/Second Chance earlier in the encounter above and beyond the fact that by getting the effects once you know the power will be of us (because you value avoiding being bloodied), this works to Second Chance's favor.


----------



## AngryPurpleCyclops (Mar 4, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> I saw your "save Second Chance for a crit" math.
> 
> Sound on the surface, but it ignores something fairly basic.
> 
> ...



even if this example was correct which it's not you're ignoring more then 1/3 of the outcomes.  



KarinsDad said:


> Using the "save Second Chance" strategy, the PC will get hit all 4 times and although he could have used Second Chance twice and only got hit twice, that did not occur. He takes 400% damage. He could have taken 200% damage. Even if the 4th attack would have been a critical, he would have taken 250% damage by using his Second Wind for the critical instead of 200%.



 This is a horrible interpretation of what is being said. First of all, pc's are rarely knocked unconscious by 2 hits.  So if you only get hit twice in an encounter neither power matters very much (other than a possible slight cost savings in number of healing surges spent on the short rest).  Because second chance ALWAYS can block any hit the pc takes, it's easy to save it on the first few hits with the intent to block a major attack or a critical hit.  It will rarely go wasted even if you save it (you can use it when you feel like the battle is nearly over and your remaining chances for use will be small if you haven't already picked a use for it) and when it does go wasted it's because you won the battle anyway.  This is another weakness of shield.  Because it's only available on 14.6% of attacks or 29.2% of hits saving it for something bigger runs an increasing risk of it never being used AND you can wind up losing the encounter because you didn't use it.  In a nut shell, it's pretty easy to imagine a scenario where your pc is killed while shield is still available but almost impossible to imagine the same for second chance. This heavily favors second chance.



KarinsDad said:


> Saving a single extra 50% damage on a critical (approximately), but giving up entire encounter's worth of Second Wind is a mathematically bad strategy.



you're missing the gist of strategy entirely, second chance will almost never get wasted.




KarinsDad said:


> Spread over the lifetime of the PC, 10% of the times he gets hit, he will negate a critical. Since that will not happen every single encounter, he will lose a lot of Second Winds that he could have used.



once again you missed the point and made a very poor assumption.



KarinsDad said:


> And, this too is why APC does not get it. He too thought that saving Second Wind for a critical is important.
> 
> It's important for the PC to stay alive.
> 
> Sure, if you think your foe is a minion, a player would be smart to not use Second Wind on the off chance that a non-minion might hit him in the same encounter.



 it is you that doesn't get it. saving second chance for a critical is indeed a very valid strategy that enhances it's effectiveness.



KarinsDad said:


> And, I read your section on k attacks remaining. I do think that a player could save Second Wind on the first few hits, waiting for that critical if he is fairly sure that he will get hit at least one more time.
> 
> But, that too is a guessing game.
> 
> ...



This is another very poor assumption.  It's not a guessing game, you save it for a critical until you have enough damage that you feel the next hit could possibly put you down.  The number of creatures who have additional affects vs bloodied is somewhat small and in those cases you could modify your behavior once you became aware of those effects.  Using it because you know that a gnoll gets an additional power vs bloodied the first time your pc faces that kind of gnoll is basically cheating via metagame knowledge.


----------



## Mort_Q (Mar 4, 2009)

Doctor Proctor said:


> Why?  I would've traded it out for Expeditious Retreat.  Granted, it's a Daily, but if you're not going to be able to block attacks effectively I'd rather just have a "Get out of Dodge" ability.  Shifting twice your speed means that you won't provoke, and then you can follow it up with something like Ray of Frost to slow down whoever was attacking you...or just do a double move, and you would actually be 3x your speed away from whoever was messing with you.




That's precisely what I did.  I swapped out Shield and took Expeditious Retreat, which proved very useful for setting up Area powers, when Fey Step doesn't have the range I need.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 4, 2009)

Elric said:


> No, you don't understand the calculation I was doing.  The calculation I was doing only assumes that you know the number of attacks that will be directed against you, not the number of successful hits.  If you knew the number of successful hits against you, I clearly wouldn't come up with an answer of optimal k=4, since the optimal strategy would instead be "only use Second Chance on a critical hit, unless you know you won't be hit again."




Actually, I did understand. I just ignored the "number of attacks" part of it because number of attacks is totally irrelevent to this discussion.

I hope we can agree at least upon that.

It is not the number of attacks, it's the number of successful attacks. Neither Shield or Second Chance can be used on an unsuccessful attack since they trigger on hits.

Talking about non-successful attacks muddies the water. I'm trying to lean the discussion (and the math) into what is relevant to the powers, not what is irrelevant to the powers.



Elric said:


> It's a dynamic programming problem, where by waiting you risk the chance of never getting to use Second Chance, and gain that it's more likely to block a critical hit.  Sometimes this will result in not using Second Chance at all, and sometimes it will result in using Second Chance on a critical hit instead of a regular hit.  The end result of making this tradeoff optimally is that you gain 13% in expectation.




Except when it comes to discussing strategy, we are talking people, not math. There is no optimally that works every time. Everyone will make mistakes, the situations will call for different strategies, some people using it early, some people using it not at all.

There is no one equation that states that optimal useage of it that works for all encounters. The best we can do is some form of rule of thumb preferred strategy such as not using it on the first one or two non-critical hits or so, but using it early enough so that it at least gets used. That requires guesswork and intuition on the part of the player to gain anything.

You said it yourself "the calculation assumes that you know the number of attacks that will be directed against PC". People don't know that. People have to guess. And combat is fluid such that a different PC can become the focus of more attacks.

If the player avoids early Second Chance in order to use it on a critical, it takes one "used it on a critical" to make up for one "failed to use it during the encounter, but did get hit in that encounter". Actually, it is slightly worse than that.

Take the first creature in the MM. It does 2D8+8 damage.

17 average points on a hit, 24 on a critical.

The average number of points saved by using it on a critical over using it on a normal attack is 7 points (24-17). Since it is at least used in either case (where it averages 8.85 damage), the only savings is the difference between a normal hit and a critical hit or 7 points.

But, if it is never used and could have been used on a normal hit, it would have saved 8.15 points (17-8.85).

So, NOT using the Second Chance at all in an encounter is more of a loss than the gain of using Second Chance for a critical in an encounter.



Elric said:


> As I indicate above, if you are solely going by expected values, waiting noticeably improves the value of Second Chance, even though all attacks are identical and all that you can wait for are critical hits to come up.




And that's true as long as the PC is hit during the encounter and he uses Second Chance during the encounter. If he is hit and never uses it, the expected gain evaporates and becomes a loss (percentage-wise, not necessarily in reality because the Second Chance could do nothing or even increase the damage).



Elric said:


> This objection is what I was referring to.  If you believe that there's an intrinsic value in getting the effects of Shield/Second Chance earlier in the encounter above and beyond the fact that by getting the effects once you know the power will be of us (because you value avoiding being bloodied), this works to Second Chance's favor.




For Shield, there is no doubt. Shield will never stop a critical. It should nearly always be used as early as possible during what appears to be a serious attack. Sure, there will be situations where waiting was better in hindsight, but hindsight is not something people have ahead of time.

For Second Chance, we are mostly in agreement here. One should wait some for a critical. I just think that one has to be a bit cautious and not wait too long, otherwise he runs the risk of not using it at all or of causing other problems for the party.

The PC Wizard could throw out a Fireball and suddenly instead of 4 opponents, there is only 1 and the PC Halfling Rogue will not use his Second Chance. The player of the PC Cleric asks "Why did you not use your Second Chance? I healed you because you got bloodied and then later on had to use a potion to get up the Fighter because I did not have another Healing Word."

This type of stuff happens. It's not just about the math, there are a lot of variables in it.

This is not just an optimal usage situation, it's also about resources and other "in combat" advantages. If the Halfling PC uses Second Chance, he might use one less healing surge. Or he might stay in melee longer and give flank longer. Or the Cleric might not have to heal him. Or the ongoing effect on him takes 2 more rounds to make him unconscious.

But the bottom line is that each situation is unique and saving Second Chance for the optimal point in time can easily backfire.

A more prudent strategy is to use Second Chance somewhat in the middle of each encounter (as soon as one foe in four is down or possibly when two foes are bloodied for example) so that the Halfling does not screw up the situation. Having the Cleric not have to focus on the Halfling is also a good thing.

APC will now talk about my bad assumptions, etc. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I'm not quite sure why he re-opened this 6 months old thread just to disagree with everyone, regardless of what they write.


----------



## AngryPurpleCyclops (Mar 4, 2009)

Elric said:


> No.  He is calculating the chance that Shield doesn’t work on each attack, so the chance it doesn’t work on one attack squared is the chance it doesn’t work on both attacks.  If it does work, you decrease the damage by one attack’s worth.
> 
> This is also wrong.  He’s doing a similar calculation to that in my post above, but it’s a little less accurate in a way that works in Shield's favor because it’s essentially assuming that of n attacks, exactly half will hit (rather than taking the probability distribution of those attacks into account).
> 
> ...



If you read further in my post I went back and read what he was saying more carefully and I figured out what he meant.  I was just too lazy to go back and edit the first half of my post.  

See my post above, where I do account for this.  If you are targeted by 8 attacks with a 50% chance to hit (as in my example above), and crits=1.5 regular hits, optimal use of Second Chance reserving it for crits initially makes it block 13% more damage than a myopic “use Second Chance on the first hit” strategy.



Elric said:


> The assumption that some % of attacks will target AC/Reflex is somewhat more favorable to Shield than the idea that in some combats there won’t be many enemies even targeting these defenses (and in others lots of enemies will target these defenses), but this effect is probably minor in the scheme of things.  Otherwise, this is pretty much covered.  See my post above.



more favorable yes, but not at all minor.  If you have played a wizard with shield you'll be well aware that a significant percentage of encounters shield does not get employed.  This is partly because the attacks might not be vs ac and partly because the attack rolls might not fall in the window.  If you take out minion attacks this becomes even more likely.  In a recent encounter with howling hags and bugbears I was only attacked vs reflex/ac 3 times out of about 9 attacks.  None of them fell in the range I could affect.  Trust me I would have really liked to have had second chance when the hag critical'd me for 27 with her bloodied shriek.  If you take out minions, for argument sake I assume minions are about 10% of the attacks. The percentage that shield will impact an attack drops from 14.6% to 11.4%. I'll do the math if someone disputes this but that is the right number based upon 10% minions and not using shield against them.

This means that 88.6 percent of attacks will not be impacted by shield.  If your wizard gets attacked 6 times in an encounter 48.3% of the time you will not be able to use shield.  If he gets attacked 10 times in an encounter the percentage is still 29.8% that he will NOT get to use shield.  That's a pretty significant chance in my opinion and one backed up by both personal experience and the anecdotal evidence presented in this thread by several other players.  Even at 15 attacks in an encounter it's still 16.3% likely shield did not get a chance to be used.  That's still 1 in 6 in an encounter which is probably at the high end of attacks on the wizard and thus pretty important that you get to use your defenses.  Hardly "minor".




KarinsDad said:


> But, that's the point. 13% is the optimal savings assuming Second Wind is always used in every encounter that it can be used in. It doesn't work at all for a given encounter where the PC gets hit once, saves his Second Wind, and then never gets hit again. In that encounter, it was a 50% decrease in savings, not a 13% gain.
> 
> In order to gain the 13%, one needs to be fairly knowledgeable about whether another successful attack is going to occur.



this totally misses the point. again.



KarinsDad said:


> Shield should be used the first time every time (assuming it is not a minion attack). One does not use the same potential strategy as with Second Chance.
> 
> The reason is that future successful attacks against the PC might be Will attacks, might be Fort attacks, or might be outside of Shield's 20% protection range. Hence, the best strategy for Shield is typically to use it right away against the first non-minion attack.
> 
> Note: if most or all of the enemies are minions, it might once in a while be a good strategy to use it against a minion. It's a good strategy to use it against a minion if the PC has 3 hit points remaining as well.



you're making my case not yours here.  Second chance will always get to be played or it won't matter (i.e. the combat reached a successful outcome).  These are both pretty minuscule probabilities.  If you have 3hp remaining the battle field will pretty likely not have any minions remaining on it.  There are lots of times where it's preferable to hold shield in reserve.  If a kobold hits me with a shortsword or spear but there's a kobold slinger or 3 hurling gluepots or firepots I'll probably hold off on usuing it and take my d6+3 or d8 dmg.  



KarinsDad said:


> Note: if there is a BBEG like a Dragon, it might be a good strategy to not use it against an attack from a different opponent.
> 
> So no, waiting is typically not a good strategy for Shield. It is only slightly better for Second Wind assuming the player knows that his PC will get hit at least once more in the encounter.



I agree that waiting is generally not a good idea for shield (one more weakness compared to second chance) but there are numerous times where waiting is a good idea with shield which hurts it's overall effectiveness.  Waiting with second chance is pretty much NEVER going to hurt you.  You'll almost always get to use it since you can use it on ANY attack and if you don't it's because you already won the encounter.



Elric said:


> No, you don't understand the calculation I was doing.  The calculation I was doing only assumes that you know the number of attacks that will be directed against you, not the number of successful hits.  If you knew the number of successful hits against you, I clearly wouldn't come up with an answer of optimal k=4, since the optimal strategy would instead be "only use Second Chance on a critical hit, unless you know you won't be hit again."



I initially skipped this because there's just no way to know the number of future attacks you'll face.  Your math is a lot better than KD's but a lot of your assumptions are at least a little circumspect and ignore real world application.



Elric said:


> It's a dynamic programming problem, where by waiting you risk the chance of never getting to use Second Chance, and gain that it's more likely to block a critical hit.  Sometimes this will result in not using Second Chance at all, and sometimes it will result in using Second Chance on a critical hit instead of a regular hit.  The end result of making this tradeoff optimally is that you gain 13% in expectation.



 expectation of what?  There are way too many variables in this equation to put a good number to it.  

Bottom line, it's very easy to save second chance until you receive a crit unless you reach a point in the combat that you feel a normal hit has a significant chance of putting you down.  It will almost never be wasted and in the cases where it is wasted it's moot because by default you must have won the battle.   The odds that you block a crit in any major battle with second chance (by major I mean you receive 10 or more attacks) is probably in the neighborhood of 35-65% and the rest of the time you'll still have a 50% chance of blocking a normal hit.  There is almost no chance of wasting it unless you're simply not paying attention.  In shorter encounters, it probably doesn't even matter (though you still have a decent chance to block a crit). 13% is greatly undervalued for crit blocking.  The real number is probably about an additional 40% in damage reduction.

If a crit is 150% damage and a regular hit is 100%, then we assume that 45% of that time you turn the crit into a hit and 50% into a miss
.45 x .50 = .09
and 50% of the time you turn it into no dmg at all
.50 x 1.5 = .75
and .5 of the time you have no effect 
.09 + .75 = .84 or 84% average damage reduction on crits.

if you block a crit in only 20% of encounters (a very low number almost guaranteed to not be accurate) then the .84 x .2 would be 16.8% damage reduction value.  If you change this to blocking a crit in 35% of encounters the value of second chance jumps by 29.4% additional damage reduction.  In the encounters where it really matters (i.e. the 'hard" encounters where the party is severely challenged) then you can likely expect upwards of 8-10 attacks and the added value of second chance rises toward 50%.  This is somewhat reduced by the concept that you might feel pressed to use it before you take 10-12 attacks because you hp's are getting low but you might also get a healing word from the cleric and hang in for 12-15 ATT's before you use it.  The more I look at these numbers the more obvious it becomes that second chance is at least twice as effective as shield.


----------



## AngryPurpleCyclops (Mar 4, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Actually, I did understand. I just ignored the "number of attacks" part of it because number of attacks is totally irrelevent to this discussion.
> 
> I hope we can agree at least upon that.
> 
> ...



Why is it you're so unable to grasp the concept that by ignoring attacks you increase error in you calculation?  You also use this as a method to drop the probability for the attacks to be outside shields abilities out of the equation.  The water is only muddied here by your desire to muddy it.  



KarinsDad said:


> Except when it comes to discussing strategy, we are talking people, not math. There is no optimally that works every time. Everyone will make mistakes, the situations will call for different strategies, some people using it early, some people using it not at all.
> 
> There is no one equation that states that optimal useage of it that works for all encounters. The best we can do is some form of rule of thumb preferred strategy such as not using it on the first one or two non-critical hits or so, but using it early enough so that it at least gets used. That requires guesswork and intuition on the part of the player to gain anything.



First we're comparing the powers so we have to look at best usage or "optimal".  Any power can be misused and decrease it's effectiveness but that isn't even close to relevant.  We're discussing your belief shield is too powerful.  Not only is your estimation of 1-2 VERY low but it totally flies in the face of real world application.  You can hang onto second chance past the 2nd hit 99% of the time.  How often are you bloodied on the first hit?  



KarinsDad said:


> You said it yourself "the calculation assumes that you know the number of attacks that will be directed against PC". People don't know that. People have to guess. And combat is fluid such that a different PC can become the focus of more attacks.



 we agree here for once.  You can project the number of attacks you might still face based upon the condition of the party and the number of enemies left standing plus the tactical situation on the battle field.  In any event this information hardly matters.  What matters is your perception of how close to unconscious is your pc relative to the danger of each subsequent attack.  If you're not bloodied, it's pretty easy.



KarinsDad said:


> If the player avoids early Second Chance in order to use it on a critical, it takes one "used it on a critical" to make up for one "failed to use it during the encounter, but did get hit in that encounter". Actually, it is slightly worse than that.



You keep saying this but first it's not true and second it's almost never going to happen.  It's not true primarily because the objective is to survive.  One blocked critical is worth 25+ missed chances to use the power because when you fail to use the power the very most it cost you is a healing surge. By definition if you fail to use the power you won the combat.  Blocking a critical can save you from losing or dieing.  Second because it's available on EVERY attack it's pretty easy to judge when you'll be attacked again or when the battle is nearing it's end.  You are weighing two things (missed chance to use power vs block a crit) as roughly equally important when one matters almost not at all and the other could save your pc's life.  



KarinsDad said:


> Take the first creature in the MM. It does 2D8+8 damage. 17 average points on a hit, 24 on a critical.
> 
> The average number of points saved by using it on a critical over using it on a normal attack is 7 points (24-17). Since it is at least used in either case (where it averages 8.85 damage), the only savings is the difference between a normal hit and a critical hit or 7 points.



Anecdotal and irrelevant.  Take an orc raider avg dmg 9.5, critical dmg 21.5 or ~230%.
We've been using 150% dmg on a crit and that seems pretty fair.  



KarinsDad said:


> But, if it is never used and could have been used on a normal hit, it would have saved 8.15 points (17-8.85).



Once again your hypothesis is based upon the faulty assumption that it will fail to be used because you held off using it for several rounds waiting to block a crit.  TRY TO UNDERSTAND!!  This will almost never happen and be irrelevant when it does. This also totally avoids the added benefit that it doesn't have to block a crit to have increased effectiveness.  It can block the bbeg encounter power and gain just as much advantage.  



KarinsDad said:


> So, NOT using the Second Chance at all in an encounter is more of a loss than the gain of using Second Chance for a critical in an encounter.



Once again, this is totally fallacious.  Not using second chance in an encounter has almost no cost beyond the opportunity cost associated with using another healing surge.  Blocking a crit has a huge upside because the battle is still raging and you've significantly cut down on the bad guys offense.


----------



## Elric (Mar 4, 2009)

“AngryPurpleCyclops” said:
			
		

> > The assumption that some % of attacks will target AC/Reflex is somewhat more favorable to Shield than the idea that in some combats there won’t be many enemies even targeting these defenses (and in others lots of enemies will target these defenses), but this effect is probably minor in the scheme of things.  Otherwise, this is pretty much covered.  See my post above.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




This is an example of different powers of attacks, which I’m not trying to quantify.  I can quantify, say, the difference between having half of your  encounters with 50% of attacks targeting AC/Reflex and half of your encounters with 100% of attacks targeting AC/Reflex, versus having every encounter with 75% of attacks targeting AC/Reflex.

I’ll assume n=8 in both cases.  In the former case, Shield is 96.3% as effective in terms of attacks stopped as in the latter case (0.701 attacks stopped vs. 0.728 attacks stopped).  I think this distribution across encounters leads to changes at least as extreme as what you’re likely to see in practice, and it’s still not a big difference.



> I agree that waiting is generally not a good idea for shield (one more weakness compared to second chance) but there are numerous times where waiting is a good idea with shield which hurts it's overall effectiveness.  Waiting with second chance is pretty much NEVER going to hurt you.  You'll almost always get to use it since you can use it on ANY attack and if you don't it's because you already won the encounter.




This idea that it doesn’t matter if you don’t end up using Second Chance because then you weren’t hit again is more consistent with a “mini-max” strategy of trying to minimize the maximum damage you take, rather than what I’m doing, which is trying to minimize the _average_ (i.e., expected) damage you take.  Doing a calculation related to a minimax strategy would involves assuming players who are risk averse over the amount of damage they take, and would be quite a bit harder.




> I initially skipped this because there's just no way to know the number of future attacks you'll face.  Your math is a lot better than KD's but a lot of your assumptions are at least a little circumspect and ignore real world application.




Indeed, I mention this in my initial post.  If you don’t know the number of attacks you’ll face, this doesn’t impact Shield at all in my example (since my assumption is that you use it as soon as possible), but does weaken Second Chance (because you don’t know if you’ll get another chance to use it, which makes optimization more difficult).  I could do a calculation letting the number of future attacks be a variable, but that would be more difficult and would require stronger assumptions.



> > It's a dynamic programming problem, where by waiting you risk the chance of never getting to use Second Chance, and gain that it's more likely to block a critical hit.  Sometimes this will result in not using Second Chance at all, and sometimes it will result in using Second Chance on a critical hit instead of a regular hit.  The end result of making this tradeoff optimally is that you gain 13% in expectation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Expectation means average damage blocked, since that’s the metric I’m using.  I’ve made a lot of assumptions, but a nice result is that I can calculate a number.



> Bottom line, it's very easy to save second chance until you receive a crit unless you reach a point in the combat that you feel a normal hit has a significant chance of putting you down.  It will almost never be wasted and in the cases where it is wasted it's moot because by default you must have won the battle.   The odds that you block a crit in any major battle with second chance (by major I mean you receive 10 or more attacks) is probably in the neighborhood of 35-65% and the rest of the time you'll still have a 50% chance of blocking a normal hit.  There is almost no chance of wasting it unless you're simply not paying attention.  In shorter encounters, it probably doesn't even matter (though you still have a decent chance to block a crit). 13% is greatly undervalued for crit blocking.  The real number is probably about an additional 40% in damage reduction.




This number is the additional average damage blocked you get by saving Second Chance and not using it initially on any hit (only critical hits).  The baseline calculation already takes into account that some hits will be critical hits, but assumes you use it the first time available.  Your 40% statistic is the answer you get if you compare “optimal waiting to use Second Chance vs. using it on the first available hit” (with hit chance=50%, crit=1.5 regular hits, and optimal k=4) and assume n=16-17 attacks.  

Assuming n=8 gives you 15.7%, actually, not 13% as I said before.  See my post below.  I had a minor error here- I wasn’t handling the fact that Second Chance sometimes turns a regular hit into a critical hit, which makes saving it for critical comparatively better.  But Second Chance is slightly worse overall as a result.


----------



## Elric (Mar 4, 2009)

“Karinsdad” said:
			
		

> Actually, I did understand. I just ignored the "number of attacks" part of it because number of attacks is totally irrelevent to this discussion.
> 
> I hope we can agree at least upon that.
> 
> ...




Indeed, the number of successful attacks is the metric that directly matters.  What I am doing is generating a probability distribution of the number of successful attacks through a hit probability and a set number of attacks.  Now, you’ve both taken issue with my assuming a set number of attacks, which could in theory be changed as well at the cost of much more complication.  

By looking at successful hits directly without any probability distribution on it, you have made a more restrictive assumption than what I am assuming—essentially, you have not only assumed the number of attacks, but you have also assumed that the results of those attacks will be the average number of successful hits.  

If I assumed a set number of successful hits, I couldn’t evaluate the tradeoff of not using Second Chance now on a regular hit, which lessens the chance that you’ll get to use it at all, but raises the chance you’ll get to use it on a critical.  The way you do it also increases the chance Shield gets used at all.



> > It's a dynamic programming problem, where by waiting you risk the chance of never getting to use Second Chance, and gain that it's more likely to block a critical hit.  Sometimes this will result in not using Second Chance at all, and sometimes it will result in using Second Chance on a critical hit instead of a regular hit.  The end result of making this tradeoff optimally is that you gain 13% in expectation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I assume optimality because it makes calculations easier.  If you would like to do calculations with a “makes mistake” term added, you can do so, but it means more work (and arguing about the manner in which people make mistakes), so I don’t do it.  When you’re near optimality in general, small deviations have a small effect on the result, so nearly optimal usage will produce the nearly optimal result.  



> You said it yourself "the calculation assumes that you know the number of attacks that will be directed against PC". People don't know that. People have to guess. And combat is fluid such that a different PC can become the focus of more attacks.




I assume this because it’s easy to calculate and making assumptions about what PCs know about attacks remaining is much harder.  As long as you have a reasonable idea when the number of attacks remaining against you drops to a very low number, you’re OK here.  

One simple assumption could be that the player is 1 more conservative than my optimal k, and this accounts for the loss due to uncertainty.  This doesn’t affect the “low” n=4 case, because you already use Second Chance every time you can.  In the “high” n=8 case, this lowers Second Chance to 96% of the expected damage blocked that it would otherwise get.  This strategy ends up being an 11% increase in average damage blocked over the “use Second Chance the first time you can” strategy.



> If the player avoids early Second Chance in order to use it on a critical, it takes one "used it on a critical" to make up for one "failed to use it during the encounter, but did get hit in that encounter".




This is roughly correct, given my assumptions.  Actually, now that you bring this up, I spot a small error in my calculation- I wasn’t accounting for the chance that Second Chance changes a regular hit into a critical hit properly.  So this makes Second Chance a little worse in general, but increases the relative value of the “wait for a critical hit” strategy (because I was correctly accounting for the fact that on a critical hit, Second Chance can’t hurt you).  This doesn’t change the optimal k.

In particular, the Low case (n=4) number for Second Chance goes from 0.53 to 0.49, and the high case number for Second Chance goes from 0.64 to 0.605.  So this error had a noticeable impact on Second Chance’s average damage blocked.



> > As I indicate above, if you are solely going by expected values, waiting noticeably improves the value of Second Chance, even though all attacks are identical and all that you can wait for are critical hits to come up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




No, the expected value is the average damage prevented.  This accounts for the times when you don’t get to use it because of waiting and Second Chance prevents 0 damage.



> For Second Chance, we are mostly in agreement here. One should wait some for a critical. I just think that one has to be a bit cautious and not wait too long, otherwise he runs the risk of not using it at all or of causing other problems for the party.




Indeed, waiting too long can cause other problems, as you suggest with the healing surge example.  Knowing whether you need healing can be valuable in and of itself.  To the extent that the optimal k=4 I calculated occurs very close to the end of the encounter, this could give us pause, but for n=8, it means waiting halfway through the encounter, which seems reasonable.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 4, 2009)

AngryPurpleCyclops said:


> Why is it you're so unable to grasp the concept that by ignoring attacks you increase error in you calculation?




Unable to grasp the concept?

HAHAHAHAHAHA

You're a funny guy. 

Missed attacks DO NOT MATTER to Second Chance or Shield because those powers cannot come into play then. Missed attacks are non-events, just like movement or encumbrance or XP or many other game elements are non-events for Second Chance or Shield.

One has to actually get hit to use these powers, so only hits are relevant. The player cannot just randomly decide to use these powers.

Your POV here is like saying that the Turn Undead power matters when fighting Elementals. Sorry, but you are flat out wrong on this and you will not get anyone on this forum to support such a silly POV.

If you could just post ONE serious non-refutable calculation that matters to show a mathematical difference between all attacks vs. all successful attacks to support your POV, it would be great. Course, you haven't so far.

On average, Second Chance helps 50% on one single successful hit (more if one waits to use it on a critical and still uses it during the encounter), it does not help 25% on all hits. Your 25% number is just plain silly and has no point to it in the conversation. It's only important in your mind.


----------



## Elric (Mar 5, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Unable to grasp the concept?
> 
> HAHAHAHAHAHA
> 
> ...




I can post a calculation for him.  As I mention in my previous post, doing it the way you do slightly increases the chance that Shield works.  Suppose that you are hit with an average of 4 successful attacks in an encounter (with each attack hitting you 50% of the time) and that 75% of the attacks that hit you target AC/Reflex.  What is the chance that Shield will work on one of them?

The unconditional chance that Shield works on a given attack is 15%.  The chance that Shield works on a given attack, conditional on the attack hitting, is 30%.  

If we start from n=8 attacks, each with a 50% chance of hitting, we get 
Prob (Shield works)= 1- (1-0.15)^8 = 72.75% of the time.

If we start by assuming that there are 4 successful attacks, we get 
Prob (Shield works)= 1-(1-0.3)^4= 75.99% of the time.

The latter calculation cannot be used as a proxy for the answer in the former calculation (as you seem to be implying it can be).  The answer you think you are getting is wrong.

This occurs because the chance that Shield works is concave in the number of (edit- _successful_) attacks, and from there it's a consequence of Jensen's inequality.


----------



## Trebor62 (Mar 5, 2009)

While this might not apply to a invisible attacker the PC's who are being attacked can curtainly judge for themselves how easily their attacker is beating down there defenses or not. Afterall there "right there" facing the monster trying to kill them.

And why should only the DM have all the information as to how easliy or not the PC can hit the monsters? To maintain balance and realism within the game frame the information should be equal available to monster and PC. Why should monsters only be privy to all the details of the PC defenses but not the PC's of the monsters? Afterall the PC's are "Heroes" head and shoulders above oridinary people in terms of ability. Why should a lowly dumb goblin for example have a better understanding of the PC's strengths and weaknesses than the heroes do of the Goblins. If I understand your point you would reserve that information for the monsters run by the DM but deny it to the PC's as something they could not know, while it is something the DM controlling the monsters cannot help but know and be influenced by to some degree.


----------



## AngryPurpleCyclops (Mar 5, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Unable to grasp the concept?Missed attacks DO NOT MATTER to Second Chance or Shield because those powers cannot come into play then. Missed attacks are non-events, just like movement or encumbrance or XP or many other game elements are non-events for Second Chance or Shield.



You're kind of obtuse.  Because you don't actually know the chance that a character will be hit by an attack, (we've been using 50% but that's not the correct number just an estimation) but you do know the exact chance that shield is going to come into play on any attack using attacks is better than hits.  Shield always affects 4 numbers out of 20 of any attack vs AC or reflex (unless the creature needs to roll a 16 or above in which case it affects less but I haven't seen a monster that needed to roll a 16 yet so I didn't factor that in.)



KarinsDad said:


> One has to actually get hit to use these powers, so only hits are relevant. The player cannot just randomly decide to use these powers.



Well it's pretty clear you're the master of the obvious, but we've digressed far away from the OP.  The intent of this thread was to determine if shield was too powerful.  We've spent a lot of time comparing it to a racial power with a similar effect.  I think it's clear to virtually everyone on the thread second chance out performs shield in utility.  This doesn't even factor in how your use of shield totally devastates shields utility.  All these numbers are based upon the "full disclosure" method.

And if you want to talk about "funny math" I'm still waiting on you to explain how shield blocks nearly 6 hits out of 20 with your previous example.  



KarinsDad said:


> Your POV here is like saying that the Turn Undead power matters when fighting Elementals. Sorry, but you are flat out wrong on this and you will not get anyone on this forum to support such a silly POV.



No, this is you applying the straw man logical fallacy to my argument.  You're doubling up here and trying to apply the appeal to popularity logical fallacy simultaneously.  If you want to "appeal to popularity" take a look at both this thread and the ones on several other rpg forums (gleemax, pen and paper, etc) the vast majority of people feel it's not over powered. On this thread you're one of only two people who have posted it's over powered and the other stopped posting.



KarinsDad said:


> If you could just post ONE serious non-refutable calculation that matters to show a mathematical difference between all attacks vs. all successful attacks to support your POV, it would be great. Course, you haven't so far.



actually all my posts have been serious, you just try to circumvent the reality by proposing preposterous counter arguments with horrible math based upon unsupported assumption.  You don't seem to have even a rudimentary grasp of intellectual debate, logic, probability or the scientific method.  Now you're switching gears and attacking me (ad hominem fallacy) instead of actually rebutting any points being made with anything other than superfluous fluff. 



KarinsDad said:


> On average, Second Chance helps 50% on one single successful hit (more if one waits to use it on a critical and still uses it during the encounter), it does not help 25% on all hits. Your 25% number is just plain silly and has no point to it in the conversation. It's only important in your mind.



This is you projecting.  You did exactly what you accuse me of doing I never implied second chance had a 25% chance of impacting each hit.  YOU ACTUALLY MADE CALCULATIONS based upon shield reducing each hit by 29+%.  From the get go I have stated that I was calculating the odds on any given hit.  You have math on this thread that openly states shield can block more than one hit.  

You're just becoming an obnoxious forum troll at this point looking to move your baseless off topic arguments into flames.  The thread is supposed to be about shield being over powered.  I defy you to show with real math that shield is more powerful than shield of faith (another level 2 utility power).  

You rant and ramble endlessly about missed opportunity to use second chance having some meaning but I have stated a half dozen times on here why it doesn't.  You can't refute that so you ignore it.

Elric has disputed your math but he is also moving very tangentially into a dissertation on probability of lower expected average damage which really isn't what this is about either.  

The real question is how will shield impact the game from a play balance perspective.  You've pontificated endlessly with horrible math and baseless assumptions about it's relative power being too great but you haven't shown that to be the case at all.

I tried repeatedly to explain that when you just focus on hits you're introducing more error in the calculation but you refuse to accept that.  Elric's last post went to great detail to explain this to you:


Elric said:


> I can post a calculation for him.  As I mention in my previous post, doing it the way you do slightly increases the chance that Shield works.  Suppose that you are hit with an average of 4 successful attacks in an encounter (with each attack hitting you 50% of the time) and that 75% of the attacks that hit you target AC/Reflex.  What is the chance that Shield will work on one of them?
> 
> The unconditional chance that Shield works on a given attack is 15%.  The chance that Shield works on a given attack, conditional on the attack hitting, is 30%.
> 
> ...



He's obviously been in college much more recently than I have but I worked at Intel for 6 years and statistical analysis and probability were part of my every day job.  I couldn't have pointed you to Jensen but I repeatedly tried to make you understand that your position was faulty.  I think it goes beyond this, in that looking at the entire 20 number range also eliminates half the error created by assuming 50% hits.  

These calculation still don't take into account that minions probably account for 10% of all the attacks so we should be starting from 70% and not 75% and we're still discounting the fact that second chance is much more likely to block a power with a debilitating ongoing effect.


----------



## Lord Ernie (Mar 5, 2009)

Doctor Proctor said:


> I just don't understand why you're all so bothered by this.  What's the point in even taking shield if you have no idea what defense was being attacked, or how hard the hit was.  Heck, why not have the DM keep track of HP too?  Should the PC's really know how close they are to death?  Isn't _that_ metagaming?  </sarcasm>



I know you're joking here, but I seriously had a DM once in 3.5 who did this. He kept track of our HP, and the only way my druid could determine how wounded anyone was was to make a Heal Check DC 15 (trivial, but he had it cost me a move action), and then he'd give me a general idea ("just scratched", "on the brink of death", etc.). Anything else than that he felt was far too much metagaming. 

I'm going to start playing in a 4th Campaign of his in a couple of weeks (and yes, I'm playing a Wizard)... I'm rather curious to see how it turns out. Much like I didn't usually pick save-or-die/suck spells in 3.5 with a certain DM who didn't like his bad guys to go down like that, I probably won't opt for Shield if this DM continues in his trademark style. Call me metagamey, but there's such a thing a shooting yourself in the foot.

PS: Mathematics aside, the design of the Shield Power and the overall tone in the DMG clearly seems to indicate, IMO, that the results of the attack roll and the defense under attack is known when you choose whether or not to activate it. I don't like playing "gotcha" with my players, so when I DM I announce that sort of thing all the time, myself. To each their own, of course.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 5, 2009)

Elric said:


> I can post a calculation for him.  As I mention in my previous post, doing it the way you do slightly increases the chance that Shield works.  Suppose that you are hit with an average of 4 successful attacks in an encounter (with each attack hitting you 50% of the time) and that 75% of the attacks that hit you target AC/Reflex.  What is the chance that Shield will work on one of them?
> 
> The unconditional chance that Shield works on a given attack is 15%.  The chance that Shield works on a given attack, conditional on the attack hitting, is 30%.
> 
> ...




I had a lengthy response, but ENWorld went down and lost it when I hit submit last night.

So, I will give you the Reader's Digest Condensed version.

First, I am not solving the former equation. Some other people here might want to solve for that, but I am not. I am solving for how well Shield and Second Chance protect.


Having said that, let's take a slightly different look at it. Let's have a 50% chance on average that the Wizard will get attacked on any given round for 16 rounds, a 50% chance that the attack will hit, and a 75% chance that any given attack is versus AC or Reflex.

The unconditional percentage = 7.5%

n=16 rounds, 
Prob (Shield works)= 1-(1-0.075)^16 = 71.2745% of the time.

Didn't you state that the chance was 72.75%? Obviously, the number of rounds are important if there is a 50% chance to even attack the Wizard. How could you have been mistaken? 


The reason your first equation is incorrect is the same reason that the third equation here is incorrect. And yes, I absolutely understand that your first equation is the default equation anyone would consider writing when doing this type of problem using normal probability (and why APC is absolutely convinced I am wrong on this, we are comfortable with what is familiar).

The number of rounds do not matter. The misses do not matter. The only thing that matters is the hits when calculating this. Rounds (or attacks) which do not involve a hit do not do damage and are not a consideration when figuring out the math. They are non-events. We are only concerned with how well Shield protects. Our set is not a superset of everything, it is a set of when damage occurs.

But, I am willing to admit that I make mistakes late at night. If you can explain why your first equation must be correct, but my third equation is incorrect, I am willing to listen.

Think carefully about it. While you are at it, make sure that the 20% (or 40%) can be multiplied by the 75% inside the equation. Just because it works for n=1 does not necessarily mean that it is correct.


For 4 hits and 4 misses in an encounter, the equation is:

1-((1-0.30)^4 * (1-0)^4))

which reduces to your second equation.

For 4 hits and 10 misses in an encounter, the equation is:

1-((1-0.30)^4 * (1-0)^10))

which also reduces to your second equation.

Shield protects exactly the same in these two encounters, even though the number of attacks are different. Food for thought. I also used "only when hit" when calculating Second Chance. So, since you claim that I upped the odds slightly for Shield, I also must have done that for Second Chance.


You started your word problem here with "Suppose that you are hit with an average of 4 successful attacks in an encounter". That is not the word problem your first equation solves.

Your first equation solves the word problem: "Suppose that you are attacked with 8 attacks in an encounter".

The problem sets are slightly different.


----------



## Elric (Mar 5, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> I had a lengthy response, but ENWorld went down and lost it when I hit submit last night.
> 
> So, I will give you the Reader's Digest Condensed version.
> 
> ...




Indeed, I’ve been quite up front from the beginning that I’m setting the number of attacks constant as a simplification.  As I have mentioned repeatedly, thinking about an optimal use of Second Chance (in terms of average damage blocked) requires a simplifying assumption.  One could, I suppose, think of the number of rounds as known constant and the chance a character would be attacked per round as another known constant, and solve from there for optimal strategies for Second Chance use as a function of the number of rounds, but I haven’t done that.  

Changing from 8 rounds at 1 attack/round to 16 rounds at a 50% of an attack per round changes the probability distribution over the number of successful hits (as you can see, in the former case it’s not possible to get successfully hit 9 times, but this is possibly in the latter case), even though the average number stays the same.  Changing to 32 rounds at a 25% chance of an attack per round would change the odds as well, though the average number of attacks would be the same in each case.  

As I said in a previous post, which addressed this issue quite directly:



Elric said:


> Indeed, the number of successful attacks is the metric that directly matters.  What I am doing is generating a probability distribution of the number of successful attacks through a hit probability and a set number of attacks.  Now, you’ve both taken issue with my assuming a set number of attacks, which could in theory be changed as well at the cost of much more complication.
> 
> By looking at successful hits directly without any probability distribution on it, you have made a more restrictive assumption than what I am assuming—essentially, you have not only assumed the number of attacks, but you have also assumed that the results of those attacks will be the average number of successful hits.
> 
> If I assumed a set number of successful hits, I couldn’t evaluate the tradeoff of not using Second Chance now on a regular hit, which lessens the chance that you’ll get to use it at all, but raises the chance you’ll get to use it on a critical.  The way you do it also increases the chance Shield gets used at all.






> The reason your first equation is incorrect is the same reason that the third equation here is incorrect. And yes, I absolutely understand that your first equation is the default equation anyone would consider writing when doing this type of problem using normal probability (and why APC is absolutely convinced I am wrong on this, we are comfortable with what is familiar).
> 
> The number of rounds do not matter. The misses do not matter. The only thing that matters is the hits when calculating this. Rounds (or attacks) which do not involve a hit do not do damage and are not a consideration when figuring out the math. They are non-events. We are only concerned with how well Shield protects. Our set is not a superset of everything, it is a set of when damage occurs.
> 
> But, I am willing to admit that I make mistakes late at night. If you can explain why your first equation must be correct, but my third equation is incorrect, I am willing to listen.




It’s not that my first equation must be in a deep and abiding sense correct.  It’s that it involves fewer simplifying assumptions.  We could do this calculation at any level of simplification desired.  For example, assuming a distribution of the number of rounds and a distribution of the number of attacks on a given round (round 1, round 2, etc.) would generate its own probability distribution for the number of successful attacks, would be less simplified still.  I wouldn't want to try doing it, but it's theoretically possible.



> Think carefully about it. While you are at it, make sure that the 20% (or 40%) can be multiplied by the 75% inside the equation. Just because it works for n=1 does not necessarily mean that it is correct.




This requires the assumption that each attack has a set and independent percentage chance to target Reflex/AC in every encounter.  As I indicated above in a response to APC, this is only an approximation to a varied set of encounters each with their own separate independent chance of an attack targeting AC/Reflex, which averages out over those encounters to 75% (and again, the approximation works slightly to Shield’s favor).



> For 4 hits and 4 misses in an encounter, the equation is:
> 
> 1-((1-0.30)^4 * (1-0)^4))
> 
> ...




Indeed, you will change the odds for Shield and Second Chance slightly (and in their favor) with your assumptions.  However, the effect is going to be much larger for Shield if you are considering a “use it at the first opportunity” strategy for Second Chance.  The reason, as I’ve indicated before, is being able to use Shield is much more dependent on being attacked by a decent number of attacks than Second Chance is.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 5, 2009)

Elric said:


> Indeed, I’ve been quite up front from the beginning that I’m setting the number of attacks constant as a simplification.




Precisely. But, it is not the only simplification that can be done.



Elric said:


> It’s not that my first equation must be in a deep and abiding sense correct.  It’s that it involves fewer simplifying assumptions.




Err, not really. It has the same number of assumptions as using "when one is hit".



Elric said:


> Indeed, you will change the odds for Shield and Second Chance slightly (and in their favor) with your assumptions.  However, the effect is going to be much larger for Shield if you are considering a “use it at the first opportunity” strategy for Second Chance.  The reason, as I’ve indicated before, is being able to use Shield is much more dependent on being attacked by a decent number of attacks than Second Chance is.




The percentage change for Shield was approximately 3% for 4 hits.

I'd like to see the two different equations for Second Chance (without saving it for a crit) that illustrate that the change is a lot less than 3% for 4 hits.


Btw, this discussion boils down to one thing: how much does Shield protect?

Using your equations for the first time Shield is used:

1-(1-0.15)^2 = 27.72%
1-(1-0.3)^1 = 30%

If the Wizard gets hit in an encounter, how good is Shield going to protect him?

The answer really is not 27.72%. It's 30%. 3 out of every 10 first hits in an encounter will be stopped.

The limitations that you placed on your problem set force your answer to this question to be slightly low. Mine is not high, it's precisely accurate. Yours is low and understandably so.

Or, are you really claiming that Shield will stop the attack 27.72% of the time?


----------



## Joker (Mar 5, 2009)

It's like Shield is the new Mind Blank.


----------



## Elric (Mar 5, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Err, not really. It has the same number of assumptions as using "when one is hit".




As I have indicated many times before, assuming a set number of successful hits is a stronger form of assuming a set number of attacks.  It is essentially assuming (in this case with 50% hit probability) a set number of attacks, exactly half of which will be hits and half of which will be misses.



> The percentage change for Shield was approximately 3% for 4 hits.
> 
> I'd like to see the two different equations for Second Chance (without saving it for a crit) that illustrate that the change is a lot less than 3% for 4 hits.




Using your method, 4 hits= 100% chance you get to use Second Chance.  Using my method, 8 attacks at a 50% chance to hit= 1- (1-0.5)^8= 99.6% chance that Second Chance can be used.  Done.



> Using your equations for the first time Shield is used:
> 
> 1-(1-0.15)^2 = 27.72%
> 1-(1-0.3)^1 = 30%
> ...




If you notice, this was never the question I was answering.  As my very first post on the subject indicated, I'm working with average damage prevented in an encounter.



			
				Elric said:
			
		

> We're only considering "attacks" something that targets Reflex and AC here, and expected damage prevented (==number of attacks blocked here) is the metric for effectiveness.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Mar 5, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Shield might have gotten hit with the big nerf bat, but Wizards did not.
> 
> Now that Int adds to AC for them and they can be a Staff Wizard and they can easily wear Leather armor without screwing up their spells, etc., Wizards can easily have one of the highest AC and Reflexes in the game system. Throw them in the back behind cover and they are really hard to hit.




I've got 2 words for that setup: Bugbear Strangler.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 5, 2009)

Elric said:


> As I have indicated many times before, assuming a set number of successful hits is a stronger form of assuming a set number of attacks.  It is essentially assuming (in this case with 50% hit probability) a set number of attacks, exactly half of which will be hits and half of which will be misses.




Not in the least. It assumes nothing of the sort.

It matters not if there if 5 attacks or 10 attacks. If 4 of them hit, how good is Shield? If 2 of them hit, how good is Shield?

Conversely, if 2 of them hit, how good is Second Chance? How much damage does it stop?

You are really getting hung up on standard probability and forcing the question to relate to number of attacks.

That is one approach, but not necessarily the best one when considering game mechanics which only occur on a to hit.

If we were talking a +1 to AC game mechanic, then it affects every single attack against AC. There, it is important to consider attacks because the mechanic affects attacks.

Second Chance and Shield do not affect the initial attack roll. They come into play AFTER an attack is determine. It's a different type of problem.

Shoe horning it into standard attack equations is not quite valid.



Elric said:


> Using your method, 4 hits= 100% chance you get to use Second Chance.  Using my method, 8 attacks at a 50% chance to hit= 1- (1-0.5)^8= 99.6% chance that Second Chance can be used.  Done.




And this illustrates two answers to two different questions.

Just like the other two equations do.


I'll get back to what is important for these two powers (and you stated that it was the important metric yourself). What happens when one gets hit and one of these powers can occur. How does it change the damage?

It matters not what happens if the attack misses. That's outside the domain of the scope of these two powers. Instead of using the Set, you are using a Superset.



Elric said:


> If you notice, this was never the question I was answering.  As my very first post on the subject indicated, I'm working with average damage prevented in an encounter.




And, that's fine. You answered a different question.

But at the same time, I did not claim your math was incorrect for what you wanted to solve, you claimed that my math was incorrect for what I wanted to solve.

Going back to this last example:

Miss and Miss = 0%
Miss and Hit = 30%
Hit and Miss = 30%
Hit and Hit = 51%

For me, what is important is that Shield is effective in that encounter 30% of the time on one hit and 51% of the time on two hits. That's what is really important to a player.

Not that out of two attacks, Shield is effective 27.72% of the time. Although related to the important question, it misses the mark slightly.


----------



## Doctor Proctor (Mar 6, 2009)

Despite all of this math, I have yet to see an explanation of why Shield and Second Chance should even be similar in power.


----------



## Elric (Mar 6, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> That is one approach, but not necessarily the best one when considering game mechanics which only occur on a to hit.
> 
> Second Chance and Shield do not affect the initial attack roll. They come into play AFTER an attack is determine. It's a different type of problem.
> 
> Shoe horning it into standard attack equations is not quite valid.




You asked for one calculation; I showed you one calculation.  You asked for a second calculation; I showed you a second calculation.

Now, let me pose a question to you: Assuming that Second Chance is reserved for critical hits until some time late in the encounter, how does this change how you evaluate it, mathematically?


----------



## keterys (Mar 6, 2009)

Doctor Proctor said:


> Despite all of this math, I have yet to see an explanation of why Shield and Second Chance should even be similar in power.




Very unclear why it matters in the slightest. As I read it, the DMG advises DMs to let the player know when his Shield ability will be useful. That does not appear to be breaking anything. Not sure where the rest of the discussion is really going 

Hopefully Arcane Power next month will give the wizard more valid choices for a utility power, since the other choices are pretty lackluster. Fwiw, try putting Ethereal Stride on there as well and see if any (non-Eladrin) Wizards use it instead of Shield.


----------



## AngryPurpleCyclops (Mar 6, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Err, not really. It has the same number of assumptions as using "when one is hit".



Because probability is not linear it's quite possible that in 2 separate encounters a wizard faced with 14 ATT in both might be hit 10 times and 4 times.  Your methodology doesn't account for the fact that random distribution favors the utility of second chance.  



KarinsDad said:


> Btw, this discussion boils down to one thing: how much does Shield protect?



actually it boils down to you arguing that shield is over powered and comparing it endlessly to second chance which isn't a level 2 power. 



KarinsDad said:


> The answer really is not 27.72%. It's 30%. 3 out of every 10 first hits in an encounter will be stopped.



This is another over simplification and wrong.  You're not accounting for minions, a more threatening attack on the battlefield that might cause you to reserve it, the actual hit values, or the added weight that should be attributed to non AC attacks.  That said assuming that shield will block 30% of all 1st hits doesn't offend me, nor tilt the scales in it's favor, I'm wondering how you make the leap to it being overpowered. 



KarinsDad said:


> The limitations that you placed on your problem set force your answer to this question to be slightly low. Mine is not high, it's precisely accurate. Yours is low and understandably so.
> 
> Or, are you really claiming that Shield will stop the attack 27.72% of the time?



There are numerous factors not being accounted for in your math.  Your number IS NOT exactly correct and no number could be EXACTLY correct with out a very complex environmental model (even then no one reasonable would attribute exact to the model).  The only number that can be exactly correct is that shield will be able to block 20% of all attacks vs AC or reflex.  Not hits, attacks.  We only know the range with 100% accuracy on ATT's and we do not know it on hits.



KarinsDad said:


> Not in the least. It assumes nothing of the sort.
> 
> It matters not if there if 5 attacks or 10 attacks. If 4 of them hit, how good is Shield? If 2 of them hit, how good is Shield?
> 
> ...



 You're really missing the point that because of random distribution sometimes either power will face a higher percentage of hits for x number of attacks and conversely sometimes there will be a lower percentage.  This works to shields detriment as the variability dramatically increases the number of encounters where shield will remain unusable.



KarinsDad said:


> That is one approach, but not necessarily the best one when considering game mechanics which only occur on a to hit.
> 
> If we were talking a +1 to AC game mechanic, then it affects every single attack against AC. There, it is important to consider attacks because the mechanic affects attacks.



and yet you steadfastly ignore the comparison to shield of faith.  Please explain how shield is over powered and shield of faith is not?



KarinsDad said:


> Second Chance and Shield do not affect the initial attack roll. They come into play AFTER an attack is determine. It's a different type of problem.
> 
> Shoe horning it into standard attack equations is not quite valid.



Ignoring the problems with your model is what's not valid.  The question is and always has been is shield overpowered.  Ignoring attacks and concentrating on hits increases shields power relatively to second chance.  



KarinsDad said:


> I'll get back to what is important for these two powers (and you stated that it was the important metric yourself). What happens when one gets hit and one of these powers can occur. How does it change the damage?
> 
> It matters not what happens if the attack misses. That's outside the domain of the scope of these two powers. Instead of using the Set, you are using a Superset.



Repeating yourself endlessly doesn't make your argument valid it's just a tactic people with no case use to deflect from the real issue. When comparing how effective shield is to second chance you MUST try to account for the varied distribution of hits from encounter to encounter.  Especially if you're trying to decide which has the highest average damage reduction.  I'm not too interested in highest average damage reduction though it's certainly a factor in determining which is more powerful.  What really matters is which power will save your bacon more often.  If you block some damage in an encounter that doesn't matter it's somewhat less important.  



KarinsDad said:


> And, that's fine. You answered a different question.



 what question have you answered?  




KarinsDad said:


> For me, what is important is that Shield is effective in that encounter 30% of the time on one hit and 51% of the time on two hits. That's what is really important to a player.



based upon blocking 40% of all hits 75% of the time?  It's baffling to me that you can't see both the 75% and the 40% are flawed.  Is it your experience that every time the dm rolls an 11 he hits and every time he rolls a 10 he misses?  If your answer is no, then you're agreeing that 50% hits is an approximation which by definition introduces some error to the math.  Using 20% of attacks avoids this error.  When using the distribution formula's elric has been using the error created by this assumption is magnified exponentially.



keterys said:


> Very unclear why it matters in the slightest. As I read it, the DMG advises DMs to let the player know when his Shield ability will be useful. That does not appear to be breaking anything. Not sure where the rest of the discussion is really going



I made this point several times.   The thread is asking if shield is over powered and we're 100+ posts in talking about second chance.  There's not even a significant basis for comparing them as one is a racial power and the other is a level two utility power.  I repeatedly asked KD to compare shields defensive value to Shield of Faith (another level 2 utility that prevents damage so MUCH MORE RELEVANT) but he's really just interested in steam rolling the thread down his tangential path.


----------



## Doctor Proctor (Mar 6, 2009)

AngryPurpleCyclops said:


> I made this point several times.   The thread is asking if shield is over powered and we're 100+ posts in talking about second chance.  There's not even a significant basis for comparing them as one is a racial power and the other is a level two utility power.  I repeatedly asked KD to compare shields defensive value to Shield of Faith (another level 2 utility that prevents damage so MUCH MORE RELEVANT) but he's really just interested in steam rolling the thread down his tangential path.




Yeah, but there's 3 people in this thread, only one of whom is KD, that are throwing around giant posts talking about all the Second Chance vs Shield math.

Also, if you want another power to compare it to, how about Shielded Sides?  It's also a level 2 Utility, but it only grants +2 AC and REF.  However, it's an on-demand power that you can use before you get in the ****, and more importantly, it cancels any CA bonuses.  For a Fighter this is an AWESOME ability because then I can go and attract 4 or 5 with an AoE burst power, drop Shielded Sides, and then know that I won't be granting +2's to every guy surrounding me.


----------



## AngryPurpleCyclops (Mar 6, 2009)

Doctor Proctor said:


> Yeah, but there's 3 people in this thread, only one of whom is KD, that are throwing around giant posts talking about all the Second Chance vs Shield math.
> 
> Also, if you want another power to compare it to, how about Shielded Sides?  It's also a level 2 Utility, but it only grants +2 AC and REF.  However, it's an on-demand power that you can use before you get in the ****, and more importantly, it cancels any CA bonuses.  For a Fighter this is an AWESOME ability because then I can go and attract 4 or 5 with an AoE burst power, drop Shielded Sides, and then know that I won't be granting +2's to every guy surrounding me.



I agree, I went down the path of math with KD, I thought we could mathematically demonstrate that shield isn't that powerful. The comparisons to second chance are kind of a boondoggle since even if someone convinces him that shield is roughly equivalent to second chance it's not a level 2 utility.  I brought up shield of faith as a counter point, first because it is a level 2 utility and second because it's a damage reducer that works more effectively than shield.

I assume shielded sides is from the martial powers book. Sadly it appears from everything I have seen that martial power and the PHB2 are both going to engage in power creep.  It's kind of sad that WotC with all it's money and experience in the industry can't offer us different classes/feats/powers without making the older ones obsolete.  I think it's a strategic marketing ploy to make the new books all more "attractive" by putting progressively more powerful spells in each book thus making them more important to power gamers.  It's really a shame that this is at the expense of balance.  With that in mind I would rather stick to the discussion of powers from the phb when trying to discern if shield is too powerful.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 6, 2009)

AngryPurpleCyclops said:


> I agree, I went down the path of math with KD, I thought we could mathematically demonstrate that shield isn't that powerful. The comparisons to second chance are kind of a boondoggle since even if someone convinces him that shield is roughly equivalent to second chance it's not a level 2 utility.  I brought up shield of faith as a counter point, first because it is a level 2 utility and second because it's a damage reducer that works more effectively than shield.




I won't get into a long discussion concerning Shield vs. Shield of Faith.

It will just be 100 more posts.

Shield typically would have slightly more utility if one considers the 2E adjudication above of Shield and one focuses on number of attacks stopped per day. Shield of Faith has more utility in the sense that it protects multiple PCs.

Assuming the Wizard gets hit 3 or more times per encounter and there are 5 encounters per day, Shield is solidly more potent. It will stop 5 encounters * (1-(1-0.3)^3) = 3.285 or roughly 3 hits per day. Shield of Faith, even assuming that it gets cast in round one (which it usually only is if fighting some BBEG like a Dragon) will stop 10% * 5 PCs * 8 attacks against each PC per encounter * 56% AC attacks in the MM = 2.24 hits per day. I'm assuming about 10 rounds per encounter here with some PCs getting attacked 10 or so times and other PCs in the back not getting attacked as often.

At 2 hits per encounter against the Wizard, they are closer. 2.55 vs. 2.24.

Now, one could drop the 56% here assuming that the Cleric only uses it in big vs. AC fights. In that case, Shield of Faith would stop 4 hits per day (assuming every single attack is vs. AC).

In that case, the Wizard would need to be attacked 4.5 times per encounter for Shield to stop 4 hits per day like Shield of Faith.

But, these comparisions are off a bit. The Shield number of hits per day is a little low due to the fact that Shield can stop more than one hit in a single round multiple times per day. And the (latter) Shield of Faith number of hits per day is high because it will not always cast in round one and not all attacks against the PCs will be vs. AC every time. The real number is probably somewhere around 3 hits per day, somewhere between the two extremes.

Shield probably has a slight edge here except on BBEG days against creatures that do nothing but attack AC.

Shield of Faith is good against minion fights, but that's a substandard use of it.

They are probably comparable. Shield has a slight edge if the PC Wizard gets hit 3 or more times per encounter.

But, I won't go another 100 posts with you on this APC.


----------



## AngryPurpleCyclops (Mar 6, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> I won't get into a long discussion concerning Shield vs. Shield of Faith.
> 
> It will just be 100 more posts.



More drivel and only accurate because you're intent on stilting the playing field with EVERY assumption.



KarinsDad said:


> Shield typically would have slightly more utility if one considers the 2E adjudication above of Shield and one focuses on number of attacks stopped per day. Shield of Faith has more utility in the sense that it protects multiple PCs.



You're completely devoid of any sense of propriety.



KarinsDad said:


> Assuming the Wizard gets hit 3 or more times per encounter and there are 5 encounters per day, Shield is solidly more potent.



I don't think we've ever had 5 encounters in a day.  This is only accurate if a large percentage of your encounters are easy.  5 is certainly not average.  Many days might have 1-2 encounters.  On an easy encounter not only is your figure for number of hits too high, you're still using "average" hits per encounter as a fixed number which artificially favors shield yet again.  On an easy encounter shield doesn't matter and you wouldn't use shield of faith either.  



KarinsDad said:


> It will stop 5 encounters * (1-(1-0.3)^3) = 3.285 or roughly 3 hits per day. Shield of Faith, even assuming that it gets cast in round one (which it usually only is if fighting some BBEG like a Dragon) will stop 10% * 5 PCs * 8 attacks against each PC per encounter * 56% AC attacks in the MM = 2.24 hits per day. I'm assuming about 10 rounds per encounter here with some PCs getting attacked 10 or so times and other PCs in the back not getting attacked as often.



Lets count the errors shall we.  First, you MUST use attacks and not hits or else you favor shield.  Easy encounters don't even matter so blocking an attack in a combat where you got hit 1-3 times likely has almost zero impact on pc survival.  You assume that shield of faith will be employed in an encounter lasting 10 rounds and once again take the 3 hits number.  You also imply that the bad guys only get 40 attacks in 10 rounds.  This is idioticly low or else you've simply never played the game.  Do you employ your dailies in easy encounters?   



KarinsDad said:


> At 2 hits per encounter against the Wizard, they are closer. 2.55 vs. 2.24.



 even given your ridiculously stilted assumptions EVERY one of which favors shield some of them massively, this is the best you came up with to support the words "solidly more potent"?  You have no interest in the truth or finding a mathematically correct answer to a problem.  



KarinsDad said:


> Now, one could drop the 56% here assuming that the Cleric only uses it in big vs. AC fights. In that case, Shield of Faith would stop 4 hits per day (assuming every single attack is vs. AC).
> 
> In that case, the Wizard would need to be attacked 4.5 times per encounter for Shield to stop 4 hits per day like Shield of Faith.



Of course the party is going to be attacked at least 10-12 times each in an encounter where you're deploying this daily.  



KarinsDad said:


> But, these comparisions are off a bit. The Shield number of hits per day is a little low due to the fact that Shield can stop more than one hit in a single round multiple times per day.



I'm beginning to think you have a learning disorder.  The shield number is obscenely high because you based it on 5 encounters per day EVERY day.  I used google to find threads on this topic on 4 different forums.  The vast consensus of players put the high end of encounters per day at 4 unless you're facing lots of easy encounters.  This means that your assumption of 5 encounters per game day not only is 200% above average, it totally ignores that the number isn't constant and only in the major battles does it even matter which spell out performs.  As I stated above easy encounters simply don't matter for the real utility of this spell, because no one gets killed by easy encounters and we're supposed to be figuring out if shield is over powered.  Overpowered really is only relevant in how shield or shield of faith changes the outcomes of encounters.  



KarinsDad said:


> And the (latter) Shield of Faith number of hits per day is high because it will not always cast in round one and not all attacks against the PCs will be vs. AC every time. The real number is probably somewhere around 3 hits per day, somewhere between the two extremes.



In a major encounter the pc's might sometimes field 100+ attacks.  60-70 is a pretty good number to use.  If you assume that the cleric reserves this spell for when most of the creatures are AC hitters we can knock this down by 10-25% at most not 44% as you would like.  Even if you use only 50 attacks vs AC the number blocked is 5 attacks per day.  If there were only two encounters on that day, shield can block at most 2 attacks (slightly more if you want to factor in the next round bonus which is about a 5-10% chance per use) This means that even if you take what I would consider the low end of shield of faith utility it's possible it outperformed shield by 250%.  I've certainly been in combats where shield of faith blocked 8-10 or possibly more attacks.



KarinsDad said:


> Shield probably has a slight edge here except on BBEG days against creatures that do nothing but attack AC.



only in the deluded fantasy land of your mind.



KarinsDad said:


> Shield of Faith is good against minion fights, but that's a substandard use of it.



as it is a substandard use of shield.



KarinsDad said:


> They are probably comparable. Shield has a slight edge if the PC Wizard gets hit 3 or more times per encounter.



Only if we accept your assumptions as realistic and they're simply not.  your math is bad and your understanding of distributed probability is nonexistent.  You simply can't assume 5 encounters every day and x number of hits every encounter.  



KarinsDad said:


> But, I won't go another 100 posts with you on this APC.



blah blah blah, it's your ridiculous assertions and almost obsessive off topic tangents that drove this bus to the crazy place it wound up.  I have to resign myself that you don't really care what the right answer is to a question you're totally interested in "winning" even if you have to lie, cheat and steal to make that happen.


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 7, 2009)

APC, see you in three days after you've had a chance to reread the rules about personal attacks.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 7, 2009)

AngryPurpleCyclops said:


> In a major encounter the pc's might sometimes field 100+ attacks.




Second level. PCs average ~32 hit points each. 5 PCs = 160 hit points in the party.

A major encounter is against third level or higher foes. But I will cut you a break and make it second level foes. Second level foes average +6.5 to hit in the MM, 6.55 points of damage and 9.7 points of damage on a crit (even with minions). Second level PCs average AC 18, so they get hit on a 12 (11.5, but I am cutting you a break here too). 45% chance to hit. The second level foes in the MM all have attacks vs. AC and this equation does not include their special abilities.

100 attacks * (40% hit chance * 6.55 points per hit + 5% crit chance * 9.7 points per crit) = 310 points of damage

You've just TPKed your party nearly twice over. 

Even the two Cleric Healing Words only add another 31 hit points and 5 Second Winds add 40 more. An immediate in round one Shield of Faith for 66.  Where exactly do the other 14 hit points for one PC to still be standing with one hit point come from? Maybe a Beacon of Hope.


I lowered the total damage by including wimpy minions in these calculations (it's +6.5, 7.7+ damage and 10.4+ damage on a crit without them), I made it only second level foes, I rounded to fewer hits per encounter, I cast Shield of Faith in round one, I did not include any monster special abilities and the PCs are still TPKed or nearly so.


Or put another way, 100+ attacks = 10 opponents, each of which last an average of 10 rounds. Would 10 second level foes really last 10 rounds on average? How about 20 second level foes averaging 5 rounds each?

You must have fairly large fights.


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 7, 2009)

If someone has been removed from the thread, it is in bad taste to make a post they can't respond to. It is in exceptionally bad taste to make that post full of snide jabs that are meant to bait another fight. Stop doing that, please.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 7, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> If someone has been removed from the thread, it is in bad taste to make a post they can't respond to. It is in exceptionally bad taste to make that post full of snide jabs that are meant to bait another fight. Stop doing that, please.




Sorry PC.

I actually started my response before you posted (this afternoon in fact). I just got interrupted several times and it took some time to research the MM stats. I wasn't trying to start a fight with him, I just like analyzing stuff.


----------



## epochrpg (Mar 7, 2009)

To those GMs that don't tell what AC the attack hit (or at least that it was a close one), or won't even tell what defense is being attacked, please do the gaming world a favor and stop.  It does not contribute to the fun or mystery of the game-- it is just frustrating.  

For some reason, at cons I get stuck with GMs who like to do stuff like this, and it turns something that was supposed to be fun into an adversarial thing.  As if the GM were trying to 'get" the players.  It is not worth the frustration on the part of the players.  I have learned to just get up from the table and leave in situations like this (because it always gets worse in my experience with this style GM).


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 7, 2009)

Elric said:


> Now, let me pose a question to you: Assuming that Second Chance is reserved for critical hits until some time late in the encounter, how does this change how you evaluate it, mathematically?




Finally got back to this question.

As we discussed earlier, Second Chance should be saved until either the first critical, or until about the middle the encounter (rough rule of thumb is that 25% of non-minion foes are down, or 50% of non-minion foes are bloodied), or until the PC is seriously wounded and threatened (e.g. PC is 2/3rds damaged).


Assuming a critical does 150% and there ia a 50% chance of being hit, a re-rolled hit goes to no damage 50% of the time, normal 100% damage 45% of the time and 150% damage 5% of the time. Or, 52.5% of the damage instead of the 100% of a normal hit or 150% of a critical hit.

But, this is an "instead of" situation. For Second Chance, we have to calculate how much damage was saved, not how much damage was taken.

If he uses Second Chance, he will always average 52.5% damage taken. But, how much damage he saves is based on whether it is a critical or a normal hit.

On one hit, Second Chance saves 90% * (100% - 52.5%) + 10% * (150% - 52.5%) = 52.5%. Another way of looking at this is that an average hit does 90% * 100% + 10% * 150% = 105% damage and Second Chance does 52.5% damage, hence, the savings on one hit = 105% average - 52.5% taken = 52.5% saved.

On one hit, Shield saves 1-(1-0.3)^1 = 30%.

For two hits, there is a 10% chance that Second Chance stopped a critical on the first hit (97.5% saved) and a 90% chance that it stops 52.5% damage on the second hit. 10 * 97.5% + 90% * (90% * 47.5% + 10% * 97.5%) = 57% saved.

So, we solve for a range of N hits and how much damage is saved on average if the PC uses Second Chance or Shield on the nth hit (in the case of Shield, nth or earlier hit since Shield is used on the first hit it can be used on):

N 2ndCh Shield
1 52.5% 30%
2 57.0% 51%
3 61.1% 65.7%
4 64.7% 76%
5 68.0% 83.2%

10 * 97.5% + 90% * 47.5% = 52.5%
10 * 97.5% + 90% * 52.5% = 57%
10 * 97.5% + 90% * 57% = 61.1%
10 * 97.5% + 90% * 61.1% = 64.7%
10 * 97.5% + 90% * 64.7% = 68%

Shield saves 1-(1-0.3)^N.

We have to look at these numbers in the big picture:

1) This has slightly low numbers for Shield since Shield can stop multiple hits in the same round. Even if this only occurs one encounter in ten for a single extra foe, that increases the percentages for Shield by ~2%. Pro Shield.

2) Second Chance has a chance of not ever being used in an encounter if it is being saved for a later critical, especially in easier encounters. Combat is fluid and it's very possible for a player to think "Oh, it's stilll early, I should save it" and then combat is over in the next round or two due to good player dice rolls or area effects and the PC never gets hit again. Not being used drops the savings to 0%. Pro Shield.

3) A given player might use Second Chance on the third normal hit assuming that combat might be over soon and then get hit with a critical. One cannot just compare N = x between the two, one must realize that the Second Chance choice to use it has risks involved in using it too early. Using it too early on a normal hit drops the percentage down to 52.5% saved automatically, no matter how many hits were not used first. Shield should always be used the first time it can (unless the foe is known to be a wimp maybe). Pro Shield.

4) Second Chance has a better chance to save against specials such as daze because it can affect Fort or Will attacks. Pro Second Chance.


Taking all of this into account over the lifetime of a campaign, it really depends on how many times the PC gets hit per encounter.


----------



## Trebor62 (Mar 7, 2009)

epochrpg said:


> To those GMs that don't tell what AC the attack hit (or at least that it was a close one), or won't even tell what defense is being attacked, please do the gaming world a favor and stop. It does not contribute to the fun or mystery of the game-- it is just frustrating.
> 
> For some reason, at cons I get stuck with GMs who like to do stuff like this, and it turns something that was supposed to be fun into an adversarial thing. As if the GM were trying to 'get" the players. It is not worth the frustration on the part of the players. I have learned to just get up from the table and leave in situations like this (because it always gets worse in my experience with this style GM).




I agree. Additional it grants an advantage to the monsters. Being controlled by the DM this knowledge cannot help but influence his handling of the monsters weither it is realized or not. This grants the monsters some degree of advantage that the PC do not have. All of this could be avoided by not withholding the information from the PC's who are face to face with the monsters and would have an excellent idea how effective there attacks and defenses where in the first place.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Mar 7, 2009)

Fedifensor said:


> For the benefit of those who haven't heard the podcasts - he told the players what the attack roll was, and asked if the attack hit their AC (or whatever other defense was being attacked).




Hmmm.  That is how I've always played it.

DM: Does a 17 hit your AC?
Player: Nope
or
Player: Yeah it does.  But wait, I use the Shield spell, now my AC is a 19, so you miss!


----------



## Elric (Mar 9, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> So, we solve for a range of N hits and how much damage is saved on average if the PC uses Second Chance or Shield on the nth hit (in the case of Shield, nth or earlier hit since Shield is used on the first hit it can be used on):
> 
> N 2ndCh Shield
> 1 52.5% 30%
> ...




This calculation seems reasonable.  If you consider a distribution of the frequency of successful hits for encounters as something like:

1: 0.15
2: 0.25
3: 0.3
4: 0.2
5: 0.1

Then you can compute an expected value for each of the powers.  The above distribution comes out to: Second Chance: 0.602.  Shield: 0.605.  Of course, this is somewhat too favorable to Second Chance, because, as you indicate, nowhere does the player have to consider that saving Second Chance might mean it never gets used.  Since you’ve assumed the number of successful attacks to be fixed, you can’t quantify this tradeoff.

In practice you can do more than save Second Chance for a critical or Fort/Will status effect as your point 4 says—you can save it for a hit from a Brute with higher damage/lower attack bonus, be more likely to use it against a single AC/Reflex status effect, and so on.  

Turning to a different issue, Shield of Faith is a hard power to compare to Shield.  The reason is that Shield of Faith is a daily, and requires a Standard Action.  So at a minimum, making a comparison requires an assumption about the number of encounters per day, and the value of a lost standard action compared to an immediate action (one in the first round of combat, if you want to get the maximum use out of Shield of Faith), plus an assumption about comparing the utility of blocking a lot of hits in one encounter against the whole party vs. blocking fewer hits and only against the Wizard in each encounter.

Here’s one set of (very simple) assumptions you could make:
We’re only concerned with the average number of hits blocked per day.  There are 4 encounters per day. 
Suppose Shield blocks an average of 0.55 attacks per combat (n=5, 70% of attacks targeting AC/Reflex, 0.2 extra attacks for which Shield will apply each time it’s used gets you this result).  So Shield blocks 2.2 hits/day.

Shield of Faith is useful in one encounter.  In the encounter when you use it, the party faces, say, 28 attacks against AC.  Shield of Faith blocks 0.1 hits for each attack against AC.  So Shield of Faith blocks 2.8 hits a day.  Using up a standard action on the first round of combat as opposed to an immediate action when you end up using Shield is worth, say, 0.6 hits (wizards really value actions at the start of combat, but that’s less true of clerics; if a wizard had Shield of Faith I’d definitely pick a higher value here).  So Shield of Faith gives a net 2.2 hits a day, the same as Shield.

Which power is better until this metric is going to depend _heavily_ on the number of encounters you assume per day.  While more attacks per day means that the number of attacks you should expect in the one encounter you use Shield of Faith goes up somewhat (since you will use it at an opportune moment), Shield’s value improves linearly with the number of encounters per day, which will be a significantly faster rate of increase.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 9, 2009)

Elric said:


> This calculation seems reasonable.  If you consider a distribution of the frequency of successful hits for encounters as something like:
> 
> 1: 0.15
> 2: 0.25
> ...




True. However, 5 is not the upper limit, it was just how far I took it out. Obviously, a PC could get hit more often (if the opponents are minions, if the PC gets healed a lot, if the foes roll wimpy damage, etc.).

But, there is probably some practical upper limit like 8 for most encounters (i.e. if hit 8 times in an encounter, most PCs will fall in most encounters, even with heals).

If one were to extend this out to a limit like 8, Shield starts looking nicer. However, most Wizard players probably wouldn't stick around for 8 hits if they could help it and I suspect anything over 5 is rare, at least for a Wizard.



Elric said:


> In practice you can do more than save Second Chance for a critical or Fort/Will status effect as your point 4 says—you can save it for a hit from a Brute with higher damage/lower attack bonus, be more likely to use it against a single AC/Reflex status effect, and so on.




Agreed. That is a Pro Second Chance point.



Elric said:


> Turning to a different issue, Shield of Faith is a hard power to compare to Shield.  The reason is that Shield of Faith is a daily, and requires a Standard Action.  So at a minimum, making a comparison requires an assumption about the number of encounters per day, and the value of a lost standard action compared to an immediate action (one in the first round of combat, if you want to get the maximum use out of Shield of Faith), plus an assumption about comparing the utility of blocking a lot of hits in one encounter against the whole party vs. blocking fewer hits and only against the Wizard in each encounter.
> 
> Here’s one set of (very simple) assumptions you could make:
> We’re only concerned with the average number of hits blocked per day.  There are 4 encounters per day.
> ...




Also agreed.

I think encounters per day is a group type metric. For example, DMs who want to avoid grind and create fewer tougher encounters might see a shift towards Shield utility over Second Chance (due to the fact that Wizards will probably get successfully hit more often in a tougher encounter). But, that also shifts in favor of Shield of Faith over Shield due to having fewer encounters per day.


Btw, have you seen Druid Barkskin? That is something we should be able to compare to Shield. Shield kicks Barkskin's butt, especially at low level. But the "can be cast on any ally" can throw a real monkey wrench into the real utility of Barkskin which the math just might not show adequately.


----------



## Elric (Mar 10, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Btw, have you seen Druid Barkskin? That is something we should be able to compare to Shield. Shield kicks Barkskin's butt, especially at low level. But the "can be cast on any ally" can throw a real monkey wrench into the real utility of Barkskin which the math just might not show adequately.




I've seen it.  Barkskin is strange in that its bonus scales by level, and it can be used on ally.  Both of these are important factors, because it typically won't be good for the Druid to use it on himself, and since the power ends up more than twice as effective by epic levels (figure Con 16-18 at level 2 and Con 24-28 by level 30), it is likely to be somewhat underpowered at the level when you get it to avoid scaling issues.  

That said, let's go with a +4 Con bonus at level 2, and assume our metric is average attacks blocked per encounter.  Then Barkskin stops 0.2*the number of attacks against AC for the round.  If you can get 3 attacks (vs. AC) against the protected character on average, that's comparable to Shield.  If you can only get 1.5 attacks vs. AC, not so much.  

Having a fighter with Come and Get It (level 7 encounter), for example, makes it much more likely you'll get good use out of the power.  In general, I think Barkskin is going to be a little weak at level 2, but it will scale nicely.


----------

