Deflect (PHB2): Intent or Oversight?

[Malachei]

While Lesser Deflect grants a deflection bonus, Deflect is written to give a shield bonus.

Because both are immediate-action spells lasting only for the next attack the caster is subject to, it is unlikely that the different bonus types were set to allow stacking (casters would not have both spells active at the same time).

Moreover, a wizard would also carry shield, which would mean Lesser Deflect would stack, while Deflect would not.

Do you think Deflect should give a shield bonus or would you advise to houserule it to a deflection bonus, like Lesser Deflect?

[Roguenewb]

I always though deflect should give a deflection bonus, but what do I know? My guess, if anything, they should both be bonuses, or the bonus order should be reversed

[FMArthur]

You can use both, actually, since immediate actions use your next turn's Swift action when you use it out of turn. So you'd cast Lesser Deflection on your turn using the immediate action like a swift action (and a 1st-level slot that you presumably don't care about wasting), and then after your turn ends you can cast Deflection as well and stack them if the attack you're preparing for looks like it's going to be more dangerous than your initial assessment. None of this interferes with your standard and move actions, so it's an easy reactive protection if you just prepare the spells.

I still wouldn't use it of course. It's a waste of spell slots. I'd prefer to use a Shadow Cloak or something that circumvents AC to avoid attacks, since things with +Yes to attack rolls that you'd want +No to AC to avoid are often so big and strong that they also have +Yes to damage on your frail ass and even giving them a chance at it is risky.

[Malachei]

You can use both, actually, since immediate actions use your next turn's Swift action when you use it out of turn. So you'd cast Lesser Deflection on your turn using the immediate action like a swift action (and a 1st-level slot that you presumably don't care about wasting), and then after your turn ends you can cast Deflection as well and stack them if the attack you're preparing for looks like it's going to be more dangerous than your initial assessment. None of this interferes with your standard and move actions, so it's an easy reactive protection if you just prepare the spells.

Do you think that was the design intent? Because, for a spell chain, I'd usually assume the same bonus type, with different strength.

Also, I'd wonder why the higher-level version would have the (less valuable) shield bonus, and the lower-level version would have the (more valuable) deflection bonus?

For a low-level wizard (without the Shadow Cloak), I'd assume to have mage armor and shield active. This makes deflect actually an inferior choice compared to lesser deflect. Shield gives +4 for the whole fight, while Deflect would only provide a better bonus at level 10+, when a wizard would have better defenses (such as the Shadow Cloak).

[FMArthur]

Do you think that was the design intent? Because, for a spell chain, I'd usually assume the same bonus type, with different strength.

Also, I'd wonder why the higher-level version would have the (less valuable) shield bonus, and the lower-level version would have the (more valuable) deflection bonus?

For a low-level wizard (without the Shadow Cloak), I'd assume to have mage armor and shield active. This makes deflect actually an inferior choice compared to lesser deflect. Shield gives +4 for the whole fight, while Deflect would only provide a better bonus at level 10+, when a wizard would have better defenses (such as the Shadow Cloak).

Some low-level spells aren't made for their best usage to be at low levels. If you're low level and spending slots on Nerveskitter your offensive power is diminished, but not later on. Spending the standard action casting Shield is almost always a poor choice and gets to be moreso later on; I don't see why you'd ever assume that it would be in place already. These spells are different because they're reactive defenses - I'm not saying they're good, but I don't think the design intent is easy to pin down here.

Deflect being a shield bonus might have been a mistake, but if it wasn't then the design intent was probably to layer them over one another. Maybe it was even a misguided balance concern, with the author thinking of the high AC of a wizard who spent all his spells on AC increasing, so they decide to make it not stack with much else.

It's normal for a "Lesser" variation of [spell name] to be outclassed by other ones, but nothing bad happens to the game when this isn't the case. The two can coexist and occupy separate (albeit closely related) niches. Heck, some spells with this naming convention fail to outclass one another just by being too expensive on your spell slots for the benefit; Celerity is a more efficient spell than Greater Celerity, making them coexistant parts of a wizard's arsenal.

[deuxhero]

Even in core shield bonus is partly redundant on a wizard, getting a mithirl buckler as soon as he can afford one.

[Oscredwin]

There might be an assumption that the player would have an always on deflection bonus from another source (ring of protection?).

[Malachei]

There might be an assumption that the player would have an always on deflection bonus from another source (ring of protection?).

But this is more expensive than shield and armor bonus.

[FMArthur]

Are we talking about actual value, or design intent? It's simple but somehow I don't get the impression that WotC knew about lightweight-buckler-carrying arcane casters.

I'm not saying that these spells are good or worthwhile or anything. Just that they do fill a niche if you leave them be and the separate typing actually could have served a game purpose.

If you're trying to fix all the spells in the game or something, my vote would be to remake these spells to be more useful at a reasonable level, not just flip the bonuses (but do that too). They lose some situational functionality if you make them the same type, and I don't see the point in taking that away from what are already a pair of oddball niche spells. It can give a one-time NPC a 'trick' to use if nothing else.