The Nature of the Shield Spell

[StorytellerHero]

There was a debate on Facebook about how the Shield spell works and what it looks like. I thought that it would be worth sharing in forum.

The Shield spell grants a +5 bonus to AC, cast when you are hit by an attack.

According to Sage Advice, the caster should know the roll made for the attack before casting Shield.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/10/11/shield-before/

There were some that argued that the caster should not know the roll and should cast Shield before seeing if the spell would block the attack or not, because it was metagaming too much to know the roll.

The counter argument was that if the caster was able to cast Shield in time (the moment before impact, before damage can be rolled), then the barrier of force created by the spell would block the attack, so if the attack was going to hit anyway, the caster would not have had the chance to cast the spell in the first place before getting hit.

This brought up a question of whether Shield was a surrounding forcefield that could be broken through or if it was something more like a big floating shield made of force that positioned itself to block attacks.

It was argued for the floating shield opinion that Shield gave a bonus to AC instead of temporary hit points like the abjuration wizard archetype feature Arcane Ward, so it wasn't something destructible.

It was also argued for the floating shield opinion that the Shield spell does not protect from area effects, so it couldn't be a surrounding field that covered the body from head to toe.

The counter argument about the lack of protection from area effects was that the Shield Master feat allows a character to use a shield to defend against area effects. The counter argument was itself countered by a statement that a feat could be made to do the same for the Shield spell, and that if it takes a feat to make a worn shield or Shield spell to protect from an area effect, then neither would normally have an effect that covered the whole body at all times.

Mage Armor was mentioned as a surrounding effect that granted AC instead of temporary hit points, but that was countered by the argument that Mage Armor might surround, but it does not necessarily envelop completely from head to toe; a belt surrounds the body but it doesn't cover everything. Mage Armor probably functions more like (though not exactly like) actual worn armor, which is why it can only be cast on a creature not wearing armor.

The debate ended there. What do you all think? How do you feel about this?

[Easy_Lee]

Shield is a very good spell. You don't even need to be aware that the attack is coming in order to shield against it - or the spell doesn't say you do, at least. And the trigger is being hit with an attack or targeted by magic missile, implying the caster can decide at the exact moment of impact. Plus it lasts until your next turn, implying a barrier is around your full body.

If I try to imagine this, my guess is that shield stops time any time the caster is hit. The time stop lasts just long enough for the caster to decide to use shield, if shield would block that attack. Then time resumes and the caster is now surrounded by a magical, armor-like shell until his next turn.

Yeah, very good spell.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I think this is relatively clear-cut. For the first part, the spell is clearly triggered by a hit, not any attack, and can retroactively turn this hit into a miss. This follows from what the spell says it does. It does not follow that if the hit becomes a miss, then you retroactively could and did not cast the spell. Someone might argue it could be clearer, but I don't think it's particularly unclear, and wouldn't entertain serious arguments that it should work differently.

As for the second part, spells in D&D are typically defined by their mechanical effects, which are limited to what they say they do. You can fluff that effect pretty much any way you want, but you can then not use that fluff to justify any other mechanical effect that it "should" be capable of. If you do go down that path, realize that you're arbitrarily boosting the power of spellcasters beyond whatever advantage they may already have.

[Sigreid]

Well, it was always described as an invisible shield floating in front of the caster in AD&D meaning it also only protect from the front.

[Slipperychicken]

I agree with letting casters use it after they know the result of incoming attacks. The rationale is that they can see when an attack is going to hit, and put it up at the last moment.

I perceive it as a smaller shield, though I'm also okay with an overshield interpretation, like the bubble that Gandalf can form around himself.

I think casters should need to be aware of an incoming attack to cast it in response to one. That said, my group has allowed casters to "pre-cast" it even when not under attack, mainly to make themselves less-appealing targets for enemies. Also, the usual restrictions governing reactions should apply, such as for surprised creatures and ones who have yet to act in combat.

[UrielAwakened]

A floating shield of force that faces one direction, but that you can reposition and move around until the effect ends.

[Chugger]

Don't make it unnecessarily complex!

Yes, it faced the front in old versions of the game - I can still see in my mind that old black and white drawing of a caster with a wand in his hand and a curled beard and a grown-out-looking flat-top hair cut scowling as spears and arrows bounce off the invisible shield in front of him. But if you're playing 5e, that seems not to be the case. As someone said the shield is movable - or it just shields you regardless - there is no facing unless you pick alt/homebrew rules. And why? The game's already complex enough.

Casters are weak, but shield gives them a chance to survive. Gishes with shield - EK with shield - well, that's strong. If that's too strong you can nerf everyone or hit the party with something more challenging - I'd opt for the latter. Nerfing is such a downer.

And this can be balanced by badguy casters who also have shield. If the player upcasts, and if you want to be cruel, let them roll all the dice and do all the math and tell you the damage number - then as cheerfully as possible hold up your hand, palm out, and say "Shield!" :D

[Nifft]

Yes, it faced the front in old versions of the game - I can still see in my mind that old black and white drawing of a caster with a wand in his hand and a curled beard and a grown-out-looking flat-top hair cut scowling as spears and arrows bounce off the invisible shield in front of him.

For those without a photographic memory:

https://i.imgur.com/pvXJmLV.png

[Lord Vukodlak]

As a DM when the PC hits the NPC mage. I KNOW if the shield spell will stop the attack or not because I know what the PC rolled to hit(he told me) and I know the NPC's base armor class.
If the PC's have to decided to use the shield spell not knowing whether or not it will work then the same should apply to NPC's. But how can I possibly do that when I already know the above. So how would I make it fair? By giving the PC's the same knowledge. I know is shield will succeed or not against the PC's attack so they should know if it should succeed or not vs an NPC's attack

Furthermore I don't memorize every PC's armor class even in 5e that could fluctuate by dropping their physical shield to switch to a range weapon, shield of faith, haste. I say to Eric, "The Orc takes a mighty swing of his axe hinting an AC of 19"

[Arial Black]

It would be metagaming if there was no in-world equivalent of the metagame player knowing the attack roll.

But there is an equivalent: the caster can see the attack coming and can judge whether or not the attack will hit. If it will (because the attack is on target) then he can cast shield knowing it will intercept the incoming attack. If the incoming attack is going to miss, why would he bother?

The same is true of the NPC Parry ability, and the Defensive Duelist feat. As a fencer IRL I can tell you that you don't bother parrying an attack that is going to miss you.

[Grog Logs]

Having a background more in comics than D&D, I always pictured the Shield spell as the equivalent of Jean Grey's telekenetic shield or the Invisible Woman's force field. They are always trying to block every attack. Sometimes they do so easily (hence why some attacks miss; no spell slot used), but sometimes the attack is so powerful that they can block it but only under great strain (e.g., nosebleed effect; yes spell slot used). If HP is not meat, then spell slots are not a pile of magic pixie dust (or a blue orb in the lower right corner of the computer screen).

I can't post hyperlinks yet, but if you Google Image search "invisible woman force field", the current second image demonstrates the Invisible Woman easily using her force field to deflect attacks. She could keep this up all day long.

If you Google Image search "jean grey nose bleed", the currently the first image demonstrates Jean Grey struggling to use her powers in a way that she is losing stamina rapidly. (Yes, I know she is not blocking an attack in this image, but it demonstrates the point.)

[Tetrasodium]

There was a debate on Facebook about how the Shield spell works and what it looks like. I thought that it would be worth sharing in forum.

The Shield spell grants a +5 bonus to AC, cast when you are hit by an attack.

According to Sage Advice, the caster should know the roll made for the attack before casting Shield.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/10/11/shield-before/

There were some that argued that the caster should not know the roll and should cast Shield before seeing if the spell would block the attack or not, because it was metagaming too much to know the roll.

The counter argument was that if the caster was able to cast Shield in time (the moment before impact, before damage can be rolled), then the barrier of force created by the spell would block the attack, so if the attack was going to hit anyway, the caster would not have had the chance to cast the spell in the first place before getting hit.

This brought up a question of whether Shield was a surrounding forcefield that could be broken through or if it was something more like a big floating shield made of force that positioned itself to block attacks.

It was argued for the floating shield opinion that Shield gave a bonus to AC instead of temporary hit points like the abjuration wizard archetype feature Arcane Ward, so it wasn't something destructible.

It was also argued for the floating shield opinion that the Shield spell does not protect from area effects, so it couldn't be a surrounding field that covered the body from head to toe.

The counter argument about the lack of protection from area effects was that the Shield Master feat allows a character to use a shield to defend against area effects. The counter argument was itself countered by a statement that a feat could be made to do the same for the Shield spell, and that if it takes a feat to make a worn shield or Shield spell to protect from an area effect, then neither would normally have an effect that covered the whole body at all times.

Mage Armor was mentioned as a surrounding effect that granted AC instead of temporary hit points, but that was countered by the argument that Mage Armor might surround, but it does not necessarily envelop completely from head to toe; a belt surrounds the body but it doesn't cover everything. Mage Armor probably functions more like (though not exactly like) actual worn armor, which is why it can only be cast on a creature not wearing armor.

The debate ended there. What do you all think? How do you feel about this?

I don't always tell them the roll, but I usually will tell them if the roll is high enough that it wouldn't help or give them some other benefit (like reduced damage) if it's a situation like that here +5ac won't help

[Vogie]

I've always envisioned it as either:

A)a shield that happened to be made of magic, literally floating as though it was attached to an arm a la buckler.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2d/eb/a3/2deba37ccf73411037d3ea85e8b8612b.jpg
The spellcaster can twist around and use they would a normal shield (except it weighs nothing).

or

B) a sort of martial version of counterspell, and the Magic missile rider was a sort of nod to the arrow catch ability
http://www.artofmtg.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Deflecting-Palm-MtG-Art.jpg

[warsawwombats]

This is definitely one of those cases where applying RAW helps the game flow smoothly.

You can fluff it however you want. We are roleplaying, after all, but for the sake of expediting combat mechanics, I always feel that falling back on RAW helps resolve disputes quicker. Trying to translate roleplay fluff into game mechanics essentially changes the rules, so you're now using a homebrew version of Shield. It's just unnecessarily complex.

One of my groups had this dispute over the Darkness spell (as most groups have). Falling back to RAW just made it easier to move on with the game.

[Unoriginal]

The spell can look however the caster wants, within the limits of the reasonable. One mage could have a pink ball stops the blow, another an invisible barrier, a third a raised yellow hand large like a shield sparking into existence an instant.

As for the effect, it reacts to an *hit*, so of course the caster would know the hit is about to land.

[Tanarii]

5e seems to generally assume that you know the results of the die roll before you use reactive abilities. They mostly call that out. This is one reason as a DM you might as well roll in the open.

In this particular case, it explicitly calls out a hit instead. IMO if it's a hit, I have no problem also letting the players know the total AC hit as well. But even if you weren't told the exact AC it hit, ie result of the die roll plus bonuses, if you combine the die roll with knowing it's a hit and what your AC is, you still generally have a decent idea of if you can turn it into a miss.

If you care which it will be, ask your DM.

[furby076]

I would still keep dm rolls hidden. Players dont need to see how the sausage is made, and it lets a DM fudge as necessary. I just tell the players "i hit ac ...." and the player can decide

[Tanarii]

I would still keep dm rolls hidden. Players dont need to see how the sausage is made, and it lets a DM fudge as necessary. I just tell the players "i hit ac ...." and the player can decide
The problem with secret DM rolls*, is that it nerfs several abilities that are used after the die roll but before results are determined. Unless you announce all die rolls that way, effectively making all those features used after the die is rolled and the results are determined instead?

*besides fudging, which is a whole 'nother thing.

[furby076]

The problem with secret DM rolls*, is that it nerfs several abilities that are used after the die roll but before results are determined. Unless you announce all die rolls that way, effectively making all those features used after the die is rolled and the results are determined instead?

*besides fudging, which is a whole 'nother thing.

Sorry, maybe my message did not convey well. I roll in secret, tell the player the ac i hit. The player tells me if i hit or miss. If the player wants to use a reactive power, then he/she can do so.

[Avigor]

To me, what a Shield spell looks like is fluff and unimportant, the effect is invisible after all, and while shield master is a thing, I'd point out that a fireball doesn't care if you are naked or in full plate, and the spell is easily in the same ballpark. As for casting before or after the attack roll, it clearly says, "you are hit by an attack," so yeah it is cast after the roll is made and a hit is declared. The only part that is up to interpretation IMO is whether you can see the roll or otherwise know if the +5 will change the triggering hit into a miss, as RAW doesn't say either way, albeit it does seem to me like you shouldn't know.

[Tanarii]

Sorry, maybe my message did not convey well. I roll in secret, tell the player the ac i hit. The player tells me if i hit or miss. If the player wants to use a reactive power, then he/she can do so.
I meant how do you do it if the Lore Bard uses Cutting Words, or a Wild Sorcerer uses Bend Luck, to penalize an enemy saving throw? How about an enemy Intuition check? Those are both opposed by a player value, so I can see announcing that value too.

What about an enemy Athletics check to make a particularly hard jump, an Acrobatics check to stunt, or a Medicine check to stabilize an ally?

I'll be honest, there aren't many situations I can think of where the player isn't going to hear the final result announced and really want to use those abilities. For attacks and saves you can announce the final number made so the player can say if it was successful or a failure. Same for an opposed roll. So I guess that method is just as good as letting them see the die roll. Better actually, since they know by how much it succeeded by. A power up, not a nerf.

Edit: I also do shield after letting them know the hit value, but that's because it specifies a hit. Bend luck and Cutting words say after the roll, but before results are determined. One common way to interpret that is the player must decide after knowing the unmodified die roll. That's how I run it. But I always roll everything in the open. Don't even use a DMs screen, so I can't roll in secret.

[SociopathFriend]

I personally thought of it as the Shield version of Magic Missile- essentially using your will to defend yourself instead of attacking. If I recall correctly that was (at some point) mentioned to be the reason Magic Missile can't miss- you're not hurling a projectile- but your own will given form. That's why it can strike the wrong image for Mirror Image- you will it to hit- but you can still hit the wrong target.

Likewise Shield is a reaction, Somantic and Verbal, you basically shout and throw your hands out to make a barrier of your own will when someone tries to hit you.

[gloryblaze]

I usually imagine it looking like a glowing disc of force that appears in and moves with the caster's hand, mostly out of influence from the Dr. Strange comics. Here's a pic of how the movie did it:

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/94/e5/6a/94e56a0b9a2ae20be8a144425d8bee2d--marvel-movies-a-doctor.jpg

[Malifice]

I think this is relatively clear-cut. For the first part, the spell is clearly triggered by a hit, not any attack, and can retroactively turn this hit into a miss.

This.

Sometimes it doesnt turn a hit into a miss though because you dont know the roll or the monsters bonus (without looking at the roll or metagaming).

[Lord Vukodlak]

This.

Sometimes it doesnt turn a hit into a miss though because you dont know the roll or the monsters bonus (without looking at the roll or metagaming).
Why wouldn't you know? does your DM keep track of every PC's AC(including temporary bonuses from spells) then simply tell them if the creature hit or miss. Or does he announce what AC the creature hit and leave tracking the PC's armor class to the PC's. I tend to see the ladder because its less work for the DM.

And as I said before if the DM is controlling the wizard he WILL always know if shield will turn a hit into a miss or not. So how should a DM decide if an NPC wastes casting a shield spell or not. Its a bit cheap and metagammy that NPC's can NEVER waste casting a shield spell but the PC's can.

Thus in the interest of fair play the PC's should have that same knowledge.

[Malifice]

Why wouldn't you know?

Because your character doesnt know what I rolled. You just know if the attack is going to hit or not.

I dont roll in the open.


And as I said before if the DM is controlling the wizard he WILL always know if shield will turn a hit into a miss or not.

The DM is beholden to the same rules. His NPC doesnt know the PCs attack bonus. He just knows he doesnt want to be poked in the face by a sword.

[Lord Vukodlak]

The DM is beholden to the same rules. His NPC doesnt know the PCs attack bonus. He just knows he doesnt want to be poked in the face by a sword.

But the DM KNOWS. Should the NPC be required to ALWAYS cast shield just because he can? If the npc mage forgos casting shield then later casts counterspell that same round the player may feel like the DM cheated and didn't use shield because he knew it wouldn't work. How can the DM make the decision without that knowledge poisoning his mind?

The only way for both parties to be beholden to the same rules is if for both parties to know if casting shield or not will work just like it says to do in sage advice.

[StorytellerHero]

But the DM KNOWS. Should the NPC be required to ALWAYS cast shield just because he can? If the npc mage forgos casting shield then later casts counterspell that same round the player may feel like the DM cheated and didn't use shield because he knew it wouldn't work. How can the DM make the decision without that knowledge poisoning his mind?

The only way for both parties to be beholden to the same rules is if for both parties to know if casting shield or not will work just like it says to do in sage advice.

A possible compromise is to tell the player that they weren't able to cast Shield in time, if it wouldn't be enough to turn the hit into a miss, letting them keep their spell slot after they declared their intention to cast Shield.

This would maintain a sense of immersion and fairness for DMs that want to hide their rolls and still use Shield normally.

[alchahest]

my DM just has a little cheat sheet with our ACs on it, we are courteous enough to tell him if we change our AC in some way (switching to sword and board for example) and he will let us know if there's a hit when attacks are made, so we can choose whether to use shield. after using it he'll advise whether it's still a hit.

[Tanarii]

But the DM KNOWS. Should the NPC be required to ALWAYS cast shield just because he can? If the npc mage forgos casting shield then later casts counterspell that same round the player may feel like the DM cheated and didn't use shield because he knew it wouldn't work. How can the DM make the decision without that knowledge poisoning his mind?

The only way for both parties to be beholden to the same rules is if for both parties to know if casting shield or not will work just like it says to do in sage advice.
Yup. 5e seems to assume one of three things:
1) the player knows what the DM's die roll is. Ie the DM doesn't make secret rolls.
2) the player knows the result of any DM roll plus bonuses.
3) both.

IMO it's supposed to be the third. The second is better for anything that triggers off a die roll or a hit, the first is worse for both. And the third means things that trigger off a die roll are a bit weaker than things that trigger off a hit or other post-die roll resolution.

[Danielqueue1]

lots of good ideas in this thread. one thing to note is that if your character is surprised you don't get reactions. so you cannot cast shield. everything else I wanted to say has already been said by others.