# Is Shield to strong of a spell? Should and how would it be changed for OneD&D?



## Kobold Avenger (Oct 20, 2022)

In a lot of peoples mind Shield is quite strong, and that monsters that could cast Shield were also considered for potentially having a higher CR. The +5 AC bonus for until the next turn does it make it really good for those who want to "Tank", and it doesn't even use concentration because it's a reaction spell. Obviously better for someone with already high AC like an Eldritch Knight or any caster that already has Medium Armor with a Dex of 14+ holding a shield (equipment).

So with Shield being that must have spell for those situations, is it too strong that it might get nerfed in OneD&D? How would it get nerfed?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 20, 2022)

yes and no... with bounded accuracy it is basicly 'negate a hit' the problem is the resource it eats up... at 1st level it is 1/3 the casters spell slots, at 20th it is not even noticeable... but at every level it is useful.
if it were 4th level spell people would consider casting it. if it was a 3rd level spell people would weigh it against fireball and counter spell and still see it played...


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 20, 2022)

Kobold Avenger said:


> In a lot of peoples mind Shield is quite strong, and that monsters that could cast Shield were also considered for potentially having a higher CR. The +5 AC bonus for until the next turn does it make it really good for those who want to "Tank", and it doesn't even use concentration because it's a reaction spell. Obviously better for someone with already high AC like an Eldritch Knight or any caster that already has Medium Armor with a Dex of 14+ holding a shield (equipment).
> 
> So with Shield being that must have spell for those situations, is it too strong that it might get nerfed in OneD&D? How would it get nerfed?



Make it treat any shield like an animated shield that doesn't require hands for 8 hours & nothing else.  If it needs to be better it could give half the AC bonus for a non-proficient self targeting caster or allow upcasting to let  it to be used on others like a two handed weapon wielding raging barbarian sporting a floating tower shield

*edit:* in the past it was a preemptive cast spell & the target might choose to attack someone else, making it reaction to getting hit gives it much higher value & the big bonuses are no longer justified for a low level slot


----------



## Arilyn (Oct 20, 2022)

It's a good spell. I don't think it's too strong. It'll probably negate one attack and then it's done. Magic should feel like it's actually doing something amazing, after all, but as a limited resource.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 20, 2022)

Arilyn said:


> It's a good spell. I don't think it's too strong. It'll probably negate *one* attack and then it's done. Magic should feel like it's actually doing something amazing, after all, but as a limited resource.



It's not one attack, it's all attacks till the start of the caster's next turn. Given the low odds of monsters hitting & flat multi-attack bonuses imposed by bounded accuracy the shield spell tends to be much closer to _all_ attacks for that duration.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 20, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> It's not one attack, it's all attacks till the start of the caster's next turn. Given the low odds of monsters hitting & flat multi-attack bonuses imposed by bounded accuracy the shield spell tends to be much closer to _all_ attacks for that duration.



yeah too often I see wizard back line and our front line have LESS then a 5pt spread of AC, meaning the round of shield the backline wizard is harder to hit then the front line tank.

I have seen front line tanks use shield to go from a 21 or 22 to a 'you need a 20' AC


----------



## James Gasik (Oct 20, 2022)

I'm an outlier, I know, but I've never prepared or cast _shield_.  In all the time I played 5e, I found that, as a spellcaster, there are other, better ways to deter enemies from attacking you, like careful positioning, not moving to the front line of combat, use of terrain and cover, and of course, control spells.  Also, barring a critical hit, which the spell does nothing against, a single attack is rarely the end of the world.

The best use of _shield_, then, is to defend against a multiattack or multiple foes swarming you; and guess what, you're still going to be in that situation next turn, so _shield_ isn't really all that useful to me by itself.

Most players who take _shield _seem to take great delight in being able to go "haha, no, you missed me!" to the DM (and most DM's who hate the spell are ones who are easily vexed by such antics, rather than taking the long view and realizing they have many more attacks to make against the PC's to come).

I would rather use a proactive defense spell with a duration than a one-shot spell that is only very likely to protect me from harm for a single turn.  Heck, I think imposing disadvantage to an enemy attacker is better than a +5, since it makes it far less likely that you're suffer a critical hit (some monsters throw a truly insane amount of dice at you with their critical attacks!).

Another issue is that AC isn't exactly hard to get in 5e.  Just about anyone can figure out how to get a 17+ AC, and most monsters don't have great chances to hit, as a consequence of bounded accuracy.  So the actual benefit of _shield _could very well be superfluous; sure, you can negate that freak outlier high roll, but you could easily build your character in such a way that the rest of the attacks you take that turn would probably miss anyways, especially once you get access to better defense spells like _blur_.  Heck, I'd argue that _silvery barbs _is better than _shield_ for that purpose, and the spell is much more versatile, since the only other thing _shield _can do is protect you from _magic missile_- and how often does that come up?


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Oct 20, 2022)

Its too strong, because it makes most weapon and spell attacks miss for 1 round, at a (eventually) minimal cost over an adventuring day. 

To balance things out, I'd make it use a Bonus Action, so its still powerful, but you must use it preventively, not just in case your are attacked. 

or make it different than a boring AC buff:

*Shield*
Duration: 1 Minute
No attack roll has advantage against you and you take no damage from _magic missile_ for the duration of the spell.


----------



## Arilyn (Oct 20, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> It's not one attack, it's all attacks till the start of the caster's next turn. Given the low odds of monsters hitting & flat multi-attack bonuses imposed by bounded accuracy the shield spell tends to be much closer to _all_ attacks for that duration.



It's still only 1 round. If I'm casting Shield, I do want to be pretty unhittable for that round, otherwise it wouldn't be a particularly interesting spell.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Oct 20, 2022)

I've never felt shield was all that great in 5e.  Sure you can be super defensive for a round, but then the next round the enemies are still there and now you are one spell down.

A better use of a spell is to prevent the attack in the first place by killing the enemy or keeping the from attacking you entirely.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 20, 2022)

Arilyn said:


> It's still only 1 round. If I'm casting Shield, I do want to be pretty unhittable for that round, otherwise it wouldn't be a particularly interesting spell.



Most fights only last like two or three rounds max and many will last less... Its a blue turtle shell or star power for half the track& a first level slot is effectively zero cost given the return


----------



## Arilyn (Oct 20, 2022)

At my table, Shield gets prepped occasionally but it's not super common. When it is cast, it has never felt particularly overpowering. It's solidly useful. When I play a spellcasters, it's often on my list of potential spells to learn or prep, but usually gets passed over.


----------



## Jeff Carlsen (Oct 20, 2022)

When I think of shield cast as a reaction, I imagine an anime character casually deflecting a blast with a gesture. It's used narratively to show how powerful a character is compared to their attacker.

So, perhaps the spell should scale. As a first level spell, it's +2 AC, but if cast at higher levels provides an additional +1 AC per level.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 20, 2022)

My impression is, the _Shield_ spell is balanced at low levels where it must compete with other spells for the slot. But it becomes more concerning at high levels when having more 1st-slots can cast it more frequently and casually. Bounded accuracy keeps the AC bonus from the spell effective at higher tiers.

Oddly, _Shield_ is one of the 1st-slot spells that become more powerful in later levels.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Oct 20, 2022)

A reason why I'm thinking of Shield being potentially powerful, is that it's something Bards can get without Magical Secrets. Maybe a Lore Bard won't be going into the fray, but Courage or Sword Bards would. It won't make any type of Bard a primary "Tank", but now those Bards can become a secondary one at least when combined with Medium Armor, Dex and a handheld shield, which I guess is fine for them. Using the Shield spell means they can't prevent a party member from dying with Bardic Inspiration.

But it was something that an Eldritch Knight Fighter could always do (and do it better).


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 20, 2022)

Kobold Avenger said:


> A reason why I'm thinking of Shield being potentially powerful, is that it's something Bards can get without Magical Secrets. Maybe a Lore Bard won't be going into the fray, but Courage or Sword Bards would. It won't make any type of Bard a primary "Tank", but now those Bards can become a secondary one at least when combined with Medium Armor, Dex and a handheld shield, which I guess is fine for them. Using the Shield spell means they can't prevent a party member from dying with Bardic Inspiration.
> 
> But it was something that an Eldritch Knight Fighter could always do (and do it better).



Updated Spell Schools can help here.

The _Shield_ spell is a force construct, and relates to the theme of force, relating to telekinesis, gravity, fly, force damage _Magic Missile_, and so on. None of these thematic spells belong on the Bard spell list. If they all belong to the same force-theme School, Conjuration, then it is easy for the Bard class to not include any Conjuration spells.


----------



## Willie the Duck (Oct 20, 2022)

For games where the number of challenges approximate the 6-8 encounters*, _Shield _is fine for regular ~AC 12** (15 with _Mage Armor_, an additional expenditure) wizards boosting their ACs to ~17/20 for a round (there are just too many cases where the boost isn't enough that you can't rely upon it), as well as for Eldritch Knights who boost their ~17-21 AC to 22-26 (EKs just never get all that many spell slots, if they spend them all on situational AC boosts it is perfectly reasonable, and if they also have a physical shield they need war caster as well). Also some other straightforward (right out of the book) ways that people get shield (ex: hexblade warlock, where a spell slot per SR becomes a huge expenditure). 
_*and the whole policing the 5-minute workday is a very real issue, but one I consider larger than just this one spell.
**all ACs with the parenthetical "plus potentially a few more if you have rings or protection or the like'_

Where things break down is 1) the aforementioned workday issues, and 2) all the other situations where PCs with relatively large spellcasting pools also have ACs in the 17+ or so range (Cleric or Artificer1/Wizard X-1, various races with armor proficiency or armor-replacement AC, various ways to borrow spells from other classes, etc.). That's where things kinda go off the rails. It also means that various ways to pick up spells can't or shouldn't be included (or at least it will have interesting consequences), and that potentially has constraining issues on the game design -- examples might be how there is no equivalent to Fey Touched/Shadow Touched feats, but for abjuration*; or how one D&D is giving Bards (including presumably the well-armored valor bards) the arcane caster list, but not abjuration (losing them dispels). 
*the Dragonlance UA had some, but who knows where that lands

All in all, Shield doesn't strike me as one of the worst offenders in the poorly-thought-through spells, but I would rather the implementation have been different. Mostly because of the constraint in other design aspect. I think workday and MC dips are something that the game overall needs to address (if nothing else move Multiclassing to the DMG and put warning labels around).


----------



## beancounter (Oct 20, 2022)

It's a decent spell, but is only good for one hit, so IMO, it's not OP.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 20, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> My impression is, the _Shield_ spell is balanced at low levels where it must compete with other spells for the slot. But it becomes more concerning at high levels when having more 1st-slots can cast it more frequently and casually. Bounded accuracy keeps the AC bonus from the spell effective at higher tiers.
> 
> Oddly, _Shield_ is one of the 1st-slot spells that become more powerful in later levels.



Shield, Charm and Tasha's all work at level 20 as well as they did as at 1st in my experience...


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 20, 2022)

Sabathius42 said:


> I've never felt shield was all that great in 5e.  Sure you can be super defensive for a round, but then the next round the enemies are still there and now you are one spell down.
> 
> A better use of a spell is to prevent the attack in the first place by killing the enemy or keeping the from attacking you entirely.



Shield is a reaction so it's when you're suddenly in trouble not on your own turn. On your own turn you can get away using the disengage action or misty step or thunderstep or whatever.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Oct 20, 2022)

I have run a campaign to 20, the wizard had shield but rarely needed to use it and did not have great AC so often it was not useful. I have played a 10th level fighter EK and a 9th level Bladesinger and used Shield quite often. Very useful but not super, I got hit often enough. EK used a greatsword and used Shield alot but does not really have spells that compete with "Hit them often with sharp and pointy". For the Bladesinger it took a bit more circumspection since it is a real resource hog and there are often other spells I would rather be casting. 

It is a top tier spell, but I do not regard it as overpowered. I would not be too upset if it was nerfed slightly either though. It would really depend on what the proposed changes were. 
I have never felt any inclination to ban it though.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens (Oct 20, 2022)

Shield is fine at lower levels, because you have limited slots. Then it becomes _more powerful_ at higher levels because there's more multi-attacks there and it defends against all of them, only it's no more competing with any other spells _and _you have 15+ slots anyway.

The problem here isn't really Shield, but that it's given to full casters... or rather, that all your spell slots stack through your life, full casters just get there faster.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Oct 20, 2022)

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Shield is fine at lower levels, because you have limited slots. Then it becomes _more powerful_ at higher levels because there's more multi-attacks there and it defends against all of them, only it's no more competing with any other spells _and _you have 15+ slots anyway.
> 
> The problem here isn't really Shield, but that it's given to full casters... or rather, that all your spell slots stack through your life, full casters just get there faster.



I disagree that one would be burning higher level slots on shield.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Oct 20, 2022)

Maybe it could be buffed, then made upcast-able:

*Shield*
1 Action
1 Minute
The next time you are hit before the spell expires, you can reduce the damage of the attack to 0. For the duration of the spell, you are also immune to the _magic missile_ spell.

*At Higher Levels*. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, the number of attack blocked increases by 1 for each slot level above 1st.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Oct 20, 2022)

or 

*Shield*
1 Bonus Action
1 minute
Range 5 ft

A wall of force rises from the ground in front of you. You can make the wall up to 15 feet long, 5 feet high, and 1/4 inch thick. You can shape the wall in any way you choose so long as it makes one continuous path along the ground. The wall lasts for the duration and moves with you. If the wall cuts through a creature's space when it appears, the creature is pushed to the other side of the wall.

The wall offers 3/4 cover against attack coming from the other side of the wall and makes you immune to the effect of the _magic missile_ spell.


----------



## Shiroiken (Oct 21, 2022)

The issue with shield is that it's one of the few spells that remains equally beneficial, regardless of spell level. With cantrips scaling damage, they regularly outperform most level 1 spells, leaving low level slots less useful... except for spells like shield.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Oct 21, 2022)

Shiroiken said:


> The issue with shield is that it's one of the few spells that remains equally beneficial, regardless of spell level. With cantrips scaling damage, they regularly outperform most level 1 spells, leaving low level slots less useful... except for spells like shield.



That is better addressed by better scaling of level 1 spells. They should not be afraid of level scaling, Which I think they were.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Oct 21, 2022)

I would prefer they went back to auto-scaling (casters dont have that much spells nowadays) based on Proficiency Bonus, like a Fireball would be 5d6+1d6 per Prof Bonus (aka 8d6 when they get access to it at 5th level).


----------



## Sabathius42 (Oct 21, 2022)

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Shield is fine at lower levels, because you have limited slots. Then it becomes _more powerful_ at higher levels because there's more multi-attacks there and it defends against all of them, only it's no more competing with any other spells _and _you have 15+ slots anyway.
> 
> The problem here isn't really Shield, but that it's given to full casters... or rather, that all your spell slots stack through your life, full casters just get there faster.



I've not seen a lot of 10+ level play in 5e.  Are there no more powerful options a wizard has for their reaction than shield at higher levels?

I would guess it's strongest aspect  and it's biggest weakness, is the fact it uses up a reaction.


----------



## Arilyn (Oct 21, 2022)

There are other 1st level spells that don't go out of style: detect magic, identify, comprehend languages, feather fall, charm person, disguise self, magic missile (sometimes you just want to auto hit), even sleep if you beat down some of the hp first. I'm sure there are some others I'm not thinking of.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 21, 2022)

Arilyn said:


> There are other 1st level spells that don't go out of style: detect magic, identify, comprehend languages, feather fall, charm person, disguise self, magic missile (sometimes you just want to auto hit), even sleep if you beat down some of the hp first. I'm sure there are some others I'm not thinking of.



Shield doesn't just remain useful though it gets better & better at lower & lower cost.  5e doesn't have autoscaling spells & like @Tales and Chronicles  I think that causes more problems than it solves.  5e _does_ have bounded accuracy & multi-attack chains with all attacks made at the same attack bonus though.    That +5ac remains huge at all levels and does so even as monsters are making more attacks for more damage per attack.  Meanwhile the opportunity cost of burning a first level spell slot drifts towards zero as levels advance.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 21, 2022)

The problem with shield is that on a wizard whose only AC booster is Mage Armour it's fine. On e.g. an Eldritch Knight in plate armour with a shield (or even on a bladesinger) it's a whole different story.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Oct 21, 2022)

Shield is fine, it's just an outlier in as much as it is one of the few first level spells that continues to be relevant all game long, while at the same time actually being a poor fit for 1st or 2nd level characters who can't really afford the spell slot (though those are also the deadliest levels so even at extraordinary cost it sees some use). It's a bit of an odd fit with the spell system. But I don't think it's unreasonably powerful for a first level spell slot.

I wouldn't be completely adverse to it being a class feature rather than a spell, provided that Wizard's, Sorcerers, and Eldritch Knights all got that feature.

I do think that making it a first level option for Hexblade Warlocks was a sort of a ridiculous cherry on top of making Hexblade _dips_ too powerful. It's a terrible spell for a straight warlock, spending their few precious high level slots for a non-scaling first level effect (however powerful), but for a Paladin, or Bard, or whatever with one or two levels of Hexblade it's fantastic. I definitely think it would have been better implimentation to leave it off the Warlock list and make it a one cast per short rest invocation option, or something.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Oct 21, 2022)

Tales and Chronicles said:


> I would prefer they went back to auto-scaling (casters dont have that much spells nowadays) based on Proficiency Bonus, like a Fireball would be 5d6+1d6 per Prof Bonus (aka 8d6 when they get access to it at 5th level).



Careful what you say. The current WotC design team has never met an arbitrary use of the proficiency bonus that they didn't fall madly in love with.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 21, 2022)

Variant:

Shield
1st level abjuration,
casting time: 1 Action
Duration 24hrs

While you have a hand free you gain +2 AC. This does not stack with other shield or shield spells.
You can use this hand for Somatic components or using a spell focus or carrying other tiny object like a torch or lantern and still keep the bonus.
If you use your hand for any attack(dual wield/2Handed weapon) you lose the bonus until start of your next round.
You take no damage from magic missile spell.

if you cast this spell with 3rd level spell, bonus is +3, with 6th level spell bonus is +4 and with 9th level spell bonus is +5.


----------



## Njall (Oct 21, 2022)

Sabathius42 said:


> I've never felt shield was all that great in 5e.  Sure you can be super defensive for a round, but then the next round the enemies are still there and now you are one spell down.
> 
> A better use of a spell is to prevent the attack in the first place by killing the enemy or keeping the from attacking you entirely.




It's a reaction. It's not like you cast it with your regular action and lose your action in the process... you can still attack.
So, the next round you're one spell down, likely still dealt your own damage to an opponent, and anything that tried to hit you is likely *several hitpoints and one round* down. Which, in a game where combat is based on attrition, means a lot.

Since one of the basic tenets of the game seems to be bounded accuracy, I'd just turn most spell and effects that grant an AC bonus into temporary HP or a damage reduction.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Oct 21, 2022)

Njall said:


> It's a reaction. It's not like you cast it with your regular action and lose your action in the process... you can still attack.
> So, the next round you're one spell down, likely still dealt your own damage to an opponent, and anything that tried to hit you is likely *several hitpoints and one round* down. Which, in a game where combat is based on attrition, means a lot.
> 
> Since one of the basic tenets of the game seems to be bounded accuracy, I'd just turn most spell and effects that grant an AC bonus into temporary HP or a damage reduction.



My point is that it's usually a better use of a spell to kill/incapacitate an enemy versus avoiding one round of damage and having to face the same enemy the next round.

Fog cloud give the caster multiple rounds of protection but I don't see claims it's also overpowered.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 21, 2022)

Sabathius42 said:


> My point is that it's usually a better use of a spell to kill/incapacitate an enemy versus avoiding one round of damage and having to face the same enemy the next round.
> 
> Fog cloud give the caster multiple rounds of protection but I don't see claims it's also overpowered.



You can cast shield and then a cantrip when your turn comes around.  It's only a problem if for some reason you _must_ cast a spell next round due to some contrived or extreme corner case situation.  PCs are so durable in 5e that they would have been over the top as a plot armored GMPC in past editions & that makes any sort of situation where a PC _must_ cast a spell that can't wait till the round after start looking a bit rube goldbergian


----------



## Njall (Oct 21, 2022)

Sabathius42 said:


> My point is that it's usually a better use of a spell to kill/incapacitate an enemy versus avoiding one round of damage and having to face the same enemy the next round.
> 
> Fog cloud give the caster multiple rounds of protection but I don't see claims it's also overpowered.




You're not going to incapacitate lots of stuff with a single 1st level spell past level 4 or 5 anyway. And anything that spends its turn missing you pretty much wasted its turn, so...


----------



## Mephista (Oct 21, 2022)

I am of the opinion that Shield should be balanced against Uncanny Dodge and Defensive Duelist.  As it currently is, Shield is by far and away stronger than the other two by virtue of lasting an entire round instead of a single attack. Not even a single turn = monsters will many attacks laugh.

Yes, Shield takes up limited spell slots (on a caster that, by definition, will almost always be in the back row). But you also get it at level 1 instead of 4 (at the earliest) or 5, the time when Shield is no longer cumbersome to use. And, as an opportunity cost, the feat and rogue are giving up more at this level than a level 5 caster is to hold onto Shield.  

I also feel the same about Deflect Arrow, but I'm holding out to see what Monks look like first.


----------



## Clint_L (Oct 21, 2022)

It's certainly powerful, and we also have to take into account that the new level 1 feats look like they will make it much easier for spell casters to have higher armour classes to begin with, which could make Shield extraordinarily strong in OneD&D.

There's also the fact that it is a level 1 spell, and AC is much more important at low levels.

On the other hand, it's a fun, consequential spell that makes reaction relevant for classes that often have little to do with their reactions, especially at low levels (this obviously changes when counterspell becomes available).

Suggestion: scale the effect. Instead of a flat +5, have it add the caster's proficiency bonus. This makes sense - as spell casters gain proficiency, their shield becomes stronger.


----------



## gorice (Oct 21, 2022)

Based on extensive actual play at higher levels, I think shield is extremely powerful, especially on characters with good dexterity and/or protective items as well (which they generally do have).

The typical scenario in which it's a problem is when a full caster is out of position and attacked by one powerful enemy, or dogpiled by many smaller ones. Instead of eating a bunch of damage, they instead use shield to greatly reduce damage over the entire round. Basically, casters with shield and a decent AC can't be effectively punished for bad tactical play, at least not with anything that requires an attack roll.

Another effect of this is that I never see anyone cast other first-level spells, since they're always hoarding their shields.

I think keeping the reaction (which is fun) but limiting its effect to a single attack (and maybe also advantage on a saving throw instead?) would make the spell much more reasonable.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 21, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> It's certainly powerful, and we also have to take into account that the new level 1 feats look like they will make it much easier for spell casters to have higher armour classes to begin with, which could make Shield extraordinarily strong in OneD&D.
> 
> There's also the fact that it is a level 1 spell, and AC is much more important at low levels.
> 
> ...



All that would do is return to basically the same problem about the same time the cist of burning a first level slot is basically zero.  The spell needs tp be completely reworked


----------



## Clint_L (Oct 21, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> All that would do is return to basically the same problem about the same time the cist of burning a first level slot is basically zero.  The spell needs tp be completely reworked



Well, no, the spell would be effectively nerfed until very high levels. Instead of +5, Shield would only be +2/+3 for the levels that make up the vast majority of gameplay, according to WotC's data. By 13th level, when it would get to +5, it is much less powerful because AC scales poorly with level, and casters will also have some alternate choices to keep in mind, such as keeping that reaction open for a counterspell.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 21, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> Well, no, the spell would be effectively nerfed until very high levels. Instead of +5, Shield would only be +2/+3 for the levels that make up the vast majority of gameplay, according to WotC's data.



+4 at  late tier2 (level 9) when burning first level slots is of no meaningful opportunity cost is absolutely the same basic problem because 5e made shield into a reaction spell that lasts till the start of the caster's next turn rather than the proactive 1min/caster level it was in 3.x  or proactive 5 rounds/caster level it was in 2e.


----------



## Clint_L (Oct 21, 2022)

So, it would be +4/ not +5, and you don't get it that strong until a level where AC is significantly less powerful than at level 1. So that's already a nerf. +4 is less than +5. Secondly, the opportunity cost of shield is significantly higher as characters gain levels because reactions become more crucial. Once counterspell (in particular) is available, the main opportunity cost of Shield is using up your reaction, not your spell slot (which is not "meaningless" but certainly less impactful as you level).

I think Shield as it exists in 5e is more interesting than the older versions. I like the concept. I just think it is OP at low levels, when AC is extremely powerful and there aren't many other reactions competing against it.

I get the impression that you prefer those other versions of Shield. I don't. I really like it as a reaction. Players getting to do things on someone else's turn is fun.

Edit: What I mean by AC being less valuable at higher levels is illustrated by what happens when you cast a Shield spell. Take a typical level 1 encounter - say, a goblin. It has +3 on its attack roll, so against shield it has a net -2. A typical mob you might run into at level 9 might be something like an elemental, +8 to hit, so a net +3 against Shield. In other words, Shield already naturally gets less powerful as you level up, even setting aside the fact that using up a reaction on it becomes more problematic as you acquire more options. I think it just starts much too powerful - it makes spell casters all but un-hittable by common low level mobs.


----------



## Gadget (Oct 21, 2022)

I don't think it's too powerful, but is a tad on the high end of power for first level spells.  What if it was moved to a second level spell?  I would be tempted to move Blur down to level one in its place; especially since the devs seem to think _Invisibility_ gives you the effects of _Blur_ (plus some) even against someone with _See Invisibility_ up.   This does not solve the "Okay at low levels, more powerful at higher levels" issue though.


----------



## James Gasik (Oct 21, 2022)

I remember when _shield _was such a rarely used spell that a minor artifact in 1e granted a continuous _shield_ effect and it wasn't overpowered at all, lol (UK2 The Sentinel and UK3 The Gauntlet).


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 21, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> So, it would be +4/ not +5, and you don't get it that strong until a level where AC is significantly less powerful than at level 1. So that's already a nerf. +4 is less than +5. Secondly, the opportunity cost of shield is significantly higher as characters gain levels because reactions become more crucial. Once counterspell (in particular) is available, the main opportunity cost of Shield is using up your reaction, not your spell slot (which is not "meaningless" but certainly less impactful as you level).
> 
> I think Shield as it exists in 5e is more interesting than the older versions. I like the concept. I just think it is OP at low levels, when AC is extremely powerful and there aren't many other reactions competing against it.
> 
> ...



No not really because it's AC *on demand* _when your own ac fails_ & does it at no meaningful cost.  Bounded accuracy & monster tohit is tuned so monsters don't hit reliably at all & there's no iterative attack penalties that make some attacks extremely likely to hit.

It wouldn't be a big deal if it went back to 2e or 3.x style because there would be an action cost _before_ the attack it blocks or a ticking clock if it gets cast before the combat.  The 5e version uses a reaction, there are very few reactions a player _could_ take & very few of those are things likely to compete with shield making it a no action cost since the reaction is almost certain to go unused anyways.



Spoiler: 2e shield



Shield
(Evocation)

Range: 0 Components: V, S
*Duration: 5 rds./level Casting Time: 1*
Area of Effect: Special Saving Throw: None

When this spell is cast, an invisible barrier comes into being in 
front of the wizard. This shield totally negates magic missile attacks. 
It provides the equivalent protection of AC 2 against hand-hurled 
missiles (axes, darts, javelins, spears, etc.), AC 3 against small device-
propelled missiles (arrows, bolts, bullets, manticore spikes, sling 
stones, etc.), and AC 4 against all other forms of attack. The shield 
also adds a +1 bonus to the wizard’s saving throws against attacks 
that are basically frontal. Note that these benefits apply only if the 
attacks originate from in front of the wizard, where the shield can 
move to interpose itself.





Spoiler: 3.5 shield



278 

Shield 
Abjuration [Force] 
Level: Sor/Wiz 1 
Components: V, S 
*Casting Time: 1 standard action *
Range: Personal 
Target: You 
*Duration: 1 min./level (D) *



Shield creates an invisible, tower shield-
sized mobile disk of force that hovers in 
front of you. It negates magic missile attacks 
directed at you. The disk also provides a +4 
shield bonus to AC. This bonus applies 
against incorporeal touch attacks, since it 
is a force effect. The shield has no armor 
check penalty or arcane spell failure 
chance. Unlike with a normal tower 
shield, you can’t use the shield spell for 
cover.





Spoiler: 5e shield



S h i e l d
1st-level abjuration
*Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take when you are 
hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell *
Range: Self 
Components: V, S 
Duration: 1 round
An invisible barrier of m agical force appears and 
protects you. Until the start of your next turn, you have a 
+5 bonus to AC, including against the triggering attack, 
and you take no damage from magic missile.


----------



## Lycurgon (Oct 22, 2022)

Shield is never a problem on a low AC Wizard or Sorcerer. It might save them from a some attacks but they are still going to get hit by a reasonable number of attacks. 

It becomes overpowered on a AC frontliner because it can easily make them unhittable to all but Crits. An Eldritch Knight or worse a Bladesinger (because of the number of slots they have to throw at it) can become almost untouchable. And if the DM ups the monsters attacks to be able to hit them more often, they they can become too powerful against the other frontliners that don't have shield, hitting them too often. 
I have seen this happen, I have seen how an Eldritch Knight using blur and shield when needed is almost impossible to hit. I have been that Bladesinger that rarely gets hit, I am more of a tank than our Paladin. We have had situations when I stood in front and thr paladin hid behind me and used their polearm to attack. I know the DM doesn't want me to up my AC further so I don't even have 20 Int and am not going for it to avoid higher AC. The problem being the difference in AC of the PCs, my Bladesinger is already higher AC while Bladesinging than anyone else in the party before using Shield.

SO the DM is considering banning or modifying it for future games, at least for the high AC character.


----------



## TheSword (Oct 22, 2022)

It shouldn’t be able to raise AC past 20. Shield is balanced when used to protect a magic user or low AC character. When it’s used by a character who already has AC 20+ it makes them immune to the main form of damage for monsters in the game.

Limit the abuse and it’s otherwise fine as is.


----------



## gorice (Oct 22, 2022)

Personally, I like that shield is a reaction. I hate buffing spells on principle (extra bookeeping in exchange for mushy modifiers), whereas the the reaction feels a lot more dynamic in play.

At high levels, any well-optimised spellcaster build is stacking multiple AC bonuses and can easily afford to spend 1st level slots. This is where I find it problematic.


----------



## Clint_L (Oct 22, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> No not really because it's AC *on demand* _when your own ac fails_ & does it at no meaningful cost.



I guess I just totally disagree. To begin with, I do think a spell slot is always a meaningful cost, though obviously the value varies with levels. But more importantly, I think that as soon as counterspell, arguably the most consequential spell in the game (I put it up there with Healing Word), becomes available, a caster's reaction becomes very, very important in a lot of situations.

I agree that shield is much more powerful on a character like an Eldritch Knight, which is why I argue for nerfing it so that it is FAR less powerful at low levels - using proficiency would trade a spell slot + reaction for +2 AC at levels 1-3, for example, which I doubt anyone would find OP.

I don't like the old versions. Then it's just another version of mage armour or barkskin. In general, I think reactions are fun because they add more choices and make combat more dynamic. If you want to make it just another action cast spell, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Oct 22, 2022)

Lycurgon said:


> Shield is never a problem on a low AC Wizard or Sorcerer. It might save them from a some attacks but they are still going to get hit by a reasonable number of attacks.
> 
> It becomes overpowered on a AC frontliner because it can easily make them unhittable to all but Crits. An Eldritch Knight or worse a Bladesinger (because of the number of slots they have to throw at it) can become almost untouchable. And if the DM ups the monsters attacks to be able to hit them more often, they they can become too powerful against the other frontliners that don't have shield, hitting them too often.
> I have seen this happen, I have seen how an Eldritch Knight using blur and shield when needed is almost impossible to hit. I have been that Bladesinger that rarely gets hit, I am more of a tank than our Paladin. We have had situations when I stood in front and thr paladin hid behind me and used their polearm to attack. I know the DM doesn't want me to up my AC further so I don't even have 20 Int and am not going for it to avoid higher AC. The problem being the difference in AC of the PCs, my Bladesinger is already higher AC while Bladesinging than anyone else in the party before using Shield.
> ...



I am curious, what ACs are you seeing? and how many encounters per long rest. Because I find I can get hit often enough unless really spend resources but then there will be fights with nothing in the tank. If I conserve resources, then it is a lot more tricky.

Note: I am about to bed so it may be some time before I respond.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 22, 2022)

Maybe the _Shield_ spell remains as-is currently, except only works against a single Attack.

At low levels, it is effective. But the caster should still avoid getting ganged up on in melee.

However, at higher level it becomes less effective, because opponents are more likely to have Multiattacks and Extra Attacks. _Shield_ will only be effective against one of the Attacks, because only one Reaction per round is possible.

So, _Shield_ is still a good spell, but less of a game-changer.


----------



## Azzy (Oct 22, 2022)

I had never heard of anyone take issue with this spell until this thread. I'm going to go with no, it's not too strong.


----------



## Peter BOSCO'S (Oct 22, 2022)

Benjamin Olson said:


> Careful what you say. The current WotC design team has never met an arbitrary use of the proficiency bonus that they didn't fall madly in love with.



False. They can only fall in love Proficiency Bonus times per day. This means it takes them months to apply Proficiency Bonus to everything.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Oct 22, 2022)

Wj


Njall said:


> You're not going to incapacitate lots of stuff with a single 1st level spell past level 4 or 5 anyway. And anything that spends its turn missing you pretty much wasted its turn, so...




Why does the wizard have to cast a low level spell?  Either they go first and cast a level appropriate spell that kills or incapacitates enemies, or they go after the bad guys and burn a 1st level spell to possibly live long enough to cast the spell they were going to anyway.

What has shield done that is so overpowered , let the wizard live an extra turn?


----------



## Sabathius42 (Oct 22, 2022)

Mephista said:


> I am of the opinion that Shield should be balanced against Uncanny Dodge and Defensive Duelist.  As it currently is, Shield is by far and away stronger than the other two by virtue of lasting an entire round instead of a single attack. Not even a single turn = monsters will many attacks laugh.
> 
> Yes, Shield takes up limited spell slots (on a caster that, by definition, will almost always be in the back row). But you also get it at level 1 instead of 4 (at the earliest) or 5, the time when Shield is no longer cumbersome to use. And, as an opportunity cost, the feat and rogue are giving up more at this level than a level 5 caster is to hold onto Shield.
> 
> I also feel the same about Deflect Arrow, but I'm holding out to see what Monks look like first.



Uncanny dodge is way better than shield in my opinion.  Shield has a good but not guaranteed chance of stopping one round of attack rolls versus the caster at the cost of a resource and a reaction.

Uncanny Dodge is guaranteed to halve damage from any one source of damage once a round for as many rounds as the rogue would take damage at the cost of a reaction.


----------



## Njall (Oct 22, 2022)

Sabathius42 said:


> Wj
> 
> 
> Why does the wizard have to cast a low level spell?  Either they go first and cast a level appropriate spell that kills or incapacitates enemies, or they go after the bad guys and burn a 1st level spell to possibly live long enough to cast the spell they were going to anyway.
> ...




It's a *reaction.*
It's not competing with other spells.
You can cast that other, level-appropriate spell with your regular action, incapacitate one opponent and then make yourself virtually unhittable by anything still standing for the rest of the round by casting shield (especially at higher levels, when low-level spells you can cast with your action aren't that useful anymore).
Or you can spam it on top of damaging spells when dealing with something you can't incapacitate (such as monsters with LR).

I don't really get why you seem to be comparing shield to high level spells, it can be cast on top of those (and is functionally a stun for anything that wastes your turn missing you).
It's a first level spell that doesn't require much commitment (as it can be cast out-of-turn, and only if something actually attacks you), lasts until the start of your next turn and provides a very significant bonus to AC even at high levels.

What it does that is so overpowered is, potentially, saving the wizard (or really, just about any class and subclass that can cast it... like, just to name a few, Bladesingers with their already insane AC, Valor bards medium armor+ shield, Eldritch Knights in plate armor+shield) a huge amount of damage for a trivial cost (a 1st level spell).
And yeah, in a game where combat is based on attrition, "fight (rather than "live") an extra turn" is kind of a big deal.


----------



## TheSword (Oct 22, 2022)

Yes, I’ve seen it most broken on Paladins, that potentially already have a shield of faith up, a shield, and full plate armour. The 22 AC at first level will mean most creatures are hitting them on 18+ on the off chance in a combat that the enemy get an attack through they bump to 27. Even at higher levels you can end up with Paladins only hit on nat 20’s


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Oct 22, 2022)

TheSword said:


> Yes, I’ve seen it most broken on Paladins, that potentially already have a shield of faith up, a shield, and full plate armour. The 22 AC at first level will mean most creatures are hitting them on 18+ on the off chance in a combat that the enemy get an attack through they bump to 27. Even at higher levels you can end up with Paladins only hit on nat 20’s



The answer there is not to let paladins have it, not to ban or nerf shield.


----------



## TheSword (Oct 22, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> The answer there is not to let paladins have it, not to ban or nerf shield.



Well it isn’t just Paladins, it’s any high AC class with spell slots. I also don’t see how you can do that without removing… multi-classing and Magic initiate. Both of which are great for the game. Except by asking the player not to take it. Which I am fine with as a nuclear option.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Oct 22, 2022)

TheSword said:


> Well I don’t see how you can do that without removing… multi-classing and Magic initiate. Both of which are great for the game. Except by asking the player not to take it. Which I am fine with as a nuclear option.



The thing is, in my experience, with a bladesinger, AC 22 with bladesong, is that I still get hit often enough and liberal use of shield can see all first level fights used in short order which impacts on a lot of other options. It is very easy to burn though all the available spell slots in a couple of fights and then one is running on empty. The Pally is also going to want to burn slots on smites, sometimes more than one slot per round. Adding in reaction shields that paladin is going to burn resources in no time and have a very short working day.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Oct 22, 2022)

Peter BOSCO'S said:


> False. They can only fall in love Proficiency Bonus times per day. This means it takes them months to apply Proficiency Bonus to everything.



You're right of course. In 5.5 Shield will be a class feature to add your proficiency bonus to your AC, for a maximum number of attacks before your next turn equal to your proficiency bonus, proficiency bonus times per day.


----------



## TheSword (Oct 22, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> The thing is, in my experience, with a bladesinger, AC 22 with bladesong, is that I still get hit often enough and liberal use of shield can see all first level fights used in short order which impacts on a lot of other options. It is very easy to burn though all the available spell slots in a couple of fights and then one is running on empty. The Pally is also going to want to burn slots on smites, sometimes more than one slot per round. Adding in reaction shields that paladin is going to burn resources in no time and have a very short working day.



I don’t really understand how your maths is working on this. AC 22 is high.

A hard hitting CR creature like an ogre (+6) is hitting you 25% of the time. That’s one casting of shield per four rounds.

If we go tougher to a CR 5 Hill giant (+8), it’s hitting you 35% of the time. A shield every 3 rounds.

… and these are hard hitting combat characters… it’s worse for creatures with more mixed abilities.

I don’t agree with your idea that these slots are burnt through quickly. Unless of course your GM is upping the difficulty by throwing multiples of these monsters at lower levels… in which that’s fine for your bladesinger, but sucks for everyone else.

I originally thought that this would resolve itself at higher levels, but then the hit rates of higher CR creatures also slow down. CR 15 Purple Worm +9, CR 14 Ice devil +10, CR 16 Iron Golem +13, CR 13 Storm giant +14.

Bounded Accuracy only works if the challenge DCs of rolls is similarly bounded.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Oct 22, 2022)

Maybe one possibility would be to change the restriction on casting to restrict out-of-turn leveled spells.

- When you cast a spell of 1st level or higher on your turn, you can only cast 0-level spells until the start of your next turn (buff-able with Feats like War Caster, frex). 

That way, if you use your Chain Lightning on your turn, no Shield or Counterspell for you. To keep time for reactive defensive casting, you must keep to those quick'n easy 0-level spells.


----------



## Mephista (Oct 22, 2022)

Sabathius42 said:


> Uncanny dodge is way better than shield in my opinion.  Shield has a good but not guaranteed chance of stopping one round of attack rolls versus the caster at the cost of a resource and a reaction.
> 
> Uncanny Dodge is guaranteed to halve damage from any one source of damage once a round for as many rounds as the rogue would take damage at the cost of a reaction.



You're entitled to your opinion and I'm not going to argue that even if I disagree with it. That said, aren't you being a little lopsided in your portrayal here?  

You make a point that Shield costs a resource and a reaction. Fair enough. But you avoid saying that Uncanny Dodge also costs a reaction, hinting as if its not a concern for that ability even as it is for Shield. The net difference is that Shield costs a low level resource.  Limited resources versus spamming for free is a good point to make, though its a debatable one, given the nature of spellcasting versus martial endurance and the length of adventurer workdays. 

Shield is not quite predicated on chance.  You do get to activate the ability when you know it will absolutely negate an attack, so its not like you're wasting resources, which is an important point to make, even if its not one you mean to. With the potential for further negation.  

You also don't mention that complete negation of an attack is worth two Uncanny Dodges.  If we assume 50% chance of hitting (someone else can run real numbers from MM), reducing that by half again with Shield means that, for every two attacks that would land on the rogue, Shield blocking one of them on the mage. So, its evening out before we factor in the round long defense versus single attack-ness. Over the course of the battle, Shield at least equals UD in terms of damage negated.

Uncanny dodge does not halve damage from any one source for a round.  It halves the damage from a single attack - that damage source can make more than one attack and stack more damage on that Uncanny Dodge has zero effect on.  It also doesn't work against spells without attack rolls or traps. I'm not saying the others like Shield do, but that you're being inaccurate in your portrayal here.  As you grow in level, multiattacks grow to be bigger and bigger concerns, so you're going to be hit by more attacks from a single source instead of a powerful single attack. So, the value of halving a singular attack decreases as you grow higher and higher in level when you face more and more multiasttacks, whereas Shield's round long defense actively grows in value. Granted, most games end before it becomes majorly noticable, but still.


----------



## Staffan (Oct 22, 2022)

TheSword said:


> I don’t really understand how your maths is working on this. AC 22 is high.
> 
> A hard hitting CR creature like an ogre (+6) is hitting you 25% of the time. That’s one casting of shield per four rounds.
> 
> ...



Other than the ogre, your example monsters all have multi-attack, making it much more likely that they'll hit a _shield_-relevant AC. It also means that if other characters are in reach, they can stop attacking a _shield_ed target and hit someone softer.

Come to think of it, a _shield_ isn't a guaranteed miss either. In any scenario where you would normally be hit 30% or more of the time (meaning your AC isn't more than 15 points over your enemies' attack bonus, barring disadvantage-inflicting stuff), it turns one out of four attacks from a hit to a miss.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Oct 22, 2022)

TheSword said:


> I don’t really understand how your maths is working on this AC 22 is high
> 
> 
> A hard hitting CR creature like an ogre (+6) is hitting you 25% of the time. That’s one casting of shield per four rounds.



At the level I would have been fighting Ogres, the character would have had a base AC of 15 (Studded leather and Dex 17) and with Bladesong the AC would have reached +3 (Int 17)
So the Ogre would have been hitting on rolls from 12 and up. 


TheSword said:


> If we go tougher to a CR 5 Hill giant (+8), it’s hitting you 35% of the time. A shield every 3 rounds.
> 
> … and these are hard hitting combat characters… it’s worse for creatures with more mixed abilities.
> 
> ...



From the numbers I am looking at on FantasyGrounds a purple worm has +14 to hit so it hits AC 27 on a 13 or better
So, by my calculations the Ogre can only hit on criticals, the Purple Worm has a 40% chance to hit AC 27 (Which is the Shielded AC), the same as the Storm Giant, the Ice devil has a 19% change and the Iron Golem a 35% chance, a +2 to the Bladesinger's int would drop all of these chances by 5%
Against Bladesong (AC 22) the chances are; Purple Worm or Storm Giant (65%) so for about a third of the hits shield will be useful, the rest get through. 
My point is that hits will get through and that is it a nontrivial cost. You have a base of 4 slots, I would hesitate to use second level slots and then you are blowing a lot of your Arcane Recovery into shield. A lot depends on the number of combat rounds per working day. 

I think that is where a lot of the experience differs. It is not just the number of combats per long rest but the rounds in combat. or the number of rounds before an opportunity of a short rest.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens (Oct 22, 2022)

Staffan said:


> Come to think of it, a _shield_ isn't a guaranteed miss either. In any scenario where you would normally be hit 30% or more of the time (meaning your AC isn't more than 15 points over your enemies' attack bonus, barring disadvantage-inflicting stuff), it turns one out of four attacks from a hit to a miss.



If they hit you 30% of the time, that's a roll of 15 or higher to hit. If you use Shield, that becomes a 20 to hit. It doesn't matter how many attacks they make, only successful ones matter - and you just dropped their successful attacks to one-fifth of what they would've otherwise been.


----------



## TheSword (Oct 22, 2022)

Staffan said:


> Other than the ogre, your example monsters all have multi-attack, making it much more likely that they'll hit a _shield_-relevant AC. It also means that if other characters are in reach, they can stop attacking a _shield_ed target and hit someone softer.
> 
> Come to think of it, a _shield_ isn't a guaranteed miss either. In any scenario where you would normally be hit 30% or more of the time (meaning your AC isn't more than 15 points over your enemies' attack bonus, barring disadvantage-inflicting stuff), it turns one out of four attacks from a hit to a miss.



Sure, to be clear the ogre and the hill giant were the examples I was using because this strength of AC can come online at level 1.

My point about other creatures was that this is not limited to a low level problem. High level creatures attack bonuses don’t dramatically increase proportionally with CR. That 1st level AC22 character can have substantially higher AC by the time they’re fighting CR 13+ creatures. Multi attack creatures are supposed to be a challenge for a whole party.


----------



## TheSword (Oct 22, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> At the level I would have been fighting Ogres, the character would have had a base AC of 15 (Studded leather and Dex 17) and with Bladesong the AC would have reached +3 (Int 17)
> So the Ogre would have been hitting on rolls from 12 and up.
> 
> From the numbers I am looking at on FantasyGrounds a purple worm has +14 to hit so it hits AC 27 on a 13 or better
> ...



Yep. So a CR 15 purple worm is missing 2/3 of its attacks against a level 1 PC with shield. That’s not a good thing!

If you’re AC was only 15-18 at the point you’re fighting ogres there isn’t a problem using shield. If you have a 15th level character with AC 22 who care. This is a problem when the power is disproportionate and a 1st level character can get the AC of a CR 25 ancient red dragon at level 1, and then buff it by another 5 points retrospectively if needed.


----------



## TheSword (Oct 22, 2022)

One thing I will say… Shield becomes substantially more controlled if you don’t know what the creature rolled in order to hit!

On VTT where you can generally see the roll result before making the decision then it’s an easy choice to see wether it’s work using the spell or not.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Oct 22, 2022)

TheSword said:


> Yep. So a CR 15 purple worm is missing 2/3 of its attacks against a level 1 PC with shield. That’s not a good thing!
> 
> If you’re AC was only 15-18 at the point you’re fighting ogres there isn’t a problem using shield. If you have a 15th level character with AC 22 who care. This is a problem when the power is disproportionate and a 1st level character can get the AC of a CR 25 ancient red dragon at level 1, and then buff it by another 5 points retrospectively if needed.



No it is not, the level 2 (Bladesong comes on stream at level 2) character in my example has a shielded AC at level 2 of AC 23 and a Purple Worm would hit that AC 60% pf the time.  Hell at level 2 the Ogre is hitting 20% of the time and the Bladesinger has only 3 slots to cast shield or 4 if you include Arcane Recovery and casts no other spell.
I really do not see the issue.
My point is that even at level 12 when I have Dex up to 20 and Int to 18 and thus base AC 18, +Bladesong +4 and Shield +5 to shielded AC of 27 the Purple Worm will hit me 40% of the time, which is quite enough thank you given the resources and effort I have made to have him not hit me.


----------



## TheSword (Oct 22, 2022)

Ok. I thinking you are missunderstanding me. I refer to unshielded ACs of 22 being buffed to 27 at low levels being a problem.

In your example your AC is only 22 when it gets level 12. Which is a very high level.

The problem is when AC is 22 at level 2 and *then* shield gets stacked on top! That maybe why you don’t see it as a problem.

It could be even worse… Defense fighting style, ring of protection, haste, cover, races etc etc etc.

Though (and this is beside the point) I’m not sure what resources and effort you refer too in the example of your level 12 bladesinger. You used a bonus action to activate bladesong and then a reaction and a 1st level spell slot. That’s only really a fraction of your resources for a very powerful effect.


----------



## Mephista (Oct 22, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> No it is not, the level 2 (Bladesong comes on stream at level 2) character in my example has a shielded AC at level 2 of AC 23 and a Purple Worm would hit that AC 60% pf the time.  Hell at level 2 the Ogre is hitting 20% of the time and the Bladesinger has only 3 slots to cast shield or 4 if you include Arcane Recovery and casts no other spell.
> I really do not see the issue.
> My point is that even at level 12 when I have Dex up to 20 and Int to 18 and thus base AC 18, +Bladesong +4 and Shield +5 to shielded AC of 27 the Purple Worm will hit me 40% of the time, which is quite enough thank you given the resources and effort I have made to have him not hit me.



With all due respect, if the only defense you got up as a level 12 Bladesinger is mage armor, shield and subclass abilities, you are missing out. Blur, mirror image, blink, greater invisibility, haste, Tasha's Otherworldly Guise...


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Oct 22, 2022)

Mephista said:


> With all due respect, if the only defense you got up as a level 12 Bladesinger is mage armor, shield and subclass abilities, you are missing out. Blur, mirror image, blink, greater invisibility, haste, Tasha's Otherworldly Guise...



I am aware of them and I think that for the purposes of this discussion they are somewhat beside the point because we can introduce wrinkles until the cows come home and never get anywhere. 
For the record, I regard Blink as one of the best defensive spells in the game.

Back to shield, my point is that, I do not believe it to be an issue on general play. I have never had an issue hitting players with it or being hit as the player with it and given enough combat rounds the resource usage tells.

It is very powerful, I grant you that, perhaps the most powerful reaction spell in the game, with counterspell its main competition, but I do not believe it is overpowered.


----------



## TheSword (Oct 22, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> I am aware of them and I think that for the purposes of this discussion they are somewhat beside the point because we can introduce wrinkles until the cows come home and never get anywhere.
> For the record, I regard Blink as one of the best defensive spells in the game.
> 
> Back to shield, my point is that, I do not believe it to be an issue on general play. I have never had an issue hitting players with it or being hit as the player with it and given enough combat rounds the resource usage tells.
> ...



You call them wrinkled, I call them stacking effects that exacerbate what is already a problem. 

The difference between counterspell and shield is that shield works every time, every combat… just as planned 

Whereas counterspell is only useful in the 20% of fights that contain a spellcaster and at higher levels requires guessing the level of spell cast. Get that guess too low and there’s only a chance it will work. Guess too high and you’ve just wasted a higher level slot.


----------



## gorice (Oct 22, 2022)

I think the one good point that's been made in shield's defence is that its utility varies a lot based on how many encounters are being run per day. Against this, I would say: (1) this is true of casters in general, and so not specific to shield; and (2) that players can choose to use shield only when they really need it. This means, not only when they actually get hit, but when they actually get hit _and_ are concerned about the amount of damage they might take. A wizard at full health who gets hit by a mediocre enemy can afford to spend another resource (HP) and save a spell slot for when they really need it.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Oct 22, 2022)

TheSword said:


> You call them wrinkled, I call them stacking effects that exacerbate what is already a problem.
> 
> The difference between counterspell and shield is that shield works every time, every combat… just as planned
> 
> Whereas counterspell is only useful in the 20% of fights that contain a spellcaster and at higher levels requires guessing the level of spell cast. Get that guess too low and there’s only a chance it will work. Guess too high and you’ve just wasted a higher level slot.



I think I have said my piece and there is little point continuing this much more. There is an issue with these types of discussions that the specific ways different groups of players tackle combat encounter and build characters and the ways this interacts with DM styles and encounter building makes the number of variables. Plus we clearly have different view on very strong and overpowered.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 22, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> The answer there is not to let paladins have it, not to ban or nerf shield.



Pallylock with a single level of hexblaxe can cast it. Likewise with a single level of sorcerer or taking magic initiate & probability more options.  It's not like getting shield on a Paladin is an involved pun pun type hurdle. 

A level of wizard will work too but is probably the most costly option for nearly any pc because of the need to not dumostat intelligence while giving up the front loaded boons those other options give anyone not playing an artificer

The solution is not to restructure anything in the entire ruleset that can create problems like that on around preserving the problematic ability as written.  The solution is to rethink & rebuild that one ability.  In the process of rebuilding & rethinking it they can fix these kinds of problems and make something new that is more exciting for players than the current self only nosell that has no possibility of reciprocity.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Oct 22, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> Pallylock with a single level of hexblaxe can cast it. Likewise with a single level of sorcerer or taking magic initiate & probability more options.  It's not like getting shield on a Paladin is an involved pun pun type hurdle.
> 
> A level of wizard will work too but is probably the most costly option for nearly any pc because of the need to not dumostat intelligence while giving up the front loaded boons those other options give anyone not playing an artificer
> 
> The solution is not to restructure anything in the entire ruleset that can create problems like that on around preserving the problematic ability as written.  The solution is to rethink & rebuild that one ability.  In the process of rebuilding & rethinking it they can fix these kinds of problems and make something new that is more exciting for players than the current self only nosell that has no possibility of reciprocity.



You see my initial reaction to a situation like this, is that I do not have an issue with a player trying this out for a campaign but if all players or one player over many campaigns was creating the same build to exploit shield as a paladin then I would have a discussion about it, depending on how that went I might or might not ban it. 
If someone came up with a suitable replacement, I might also consider that, but I have not had an issue with it and do not want it banned or even severely nerfed.


----------



## Staffan (Oct 22, 2022)

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> If they hit you 30% of the time, that's a roll of 15 or higher to hit. If you use Shield, that becomes a 20 to hit. It doesn't matter how many attacks they make, only successful ones matter - and you just dropped their successful attacks to one-fifth of what they would've otherwise been.



I was looking more at the slot expenditure. Unless your AC is exceptionally high, one attack in four will be one where _shield_ would make a difference. So a multi-attacking creature will eat about one spell per two rounds.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Oct 22, 2022)

Mephista said:


> You're entitled to your opinion and I'm not going to argue that even if I disagree with it. That said, aren't you being a little lopsided in your portrayal here?
> 
> You make a point that Shield costs a resource and a reaction. Fair enough. But you avoid saying that Uncanny Dodge also costs a reaction, hinting as if its not a concern for that ability even as it is for Shield. The net difference is that Shield costs a low level resource.  Limited resources versus spamming for free is a good point to make, though its a debatable one, given the nature of spellcasting versus martial endurance and the length of adventurer workdays.
> 
> ...



Note:  I literally said (typed I guess) in my last sentence for Uncanny dodge it costs a reaction.

But overall all I am going to reiterate is that your use cases for shield being overpowered are use cases that are rare at my table.  

We never play at levels higher than early teens. 

Wizards rarely get attacked by attack rolls.  They are usually behind the line at low levels and flying out of reach at higher ones.  Rogues also get rarely attacked as they are hiding.

When wizards do get attacked it's rarely by an entire enmy side  it's one combatant.   Enemies usually pair off against the available opponents they can reach.

My table doesn't frequently build optimized characters like paladins with level dips to bend the system to the pint of breaking.  ACs in the 20s are temporary and rare.

So if you want to call shield broken I can't agree because shield is rarely used at my table.  It doesn't cause a disruption in the game when it's used.  It's not even a must take spell when available.


----------



## TheSword (Oct 22, 2022)

Sabathius42 said:


> Note:  I literally said (typed I guess) in my last sentence for Uncanny dodge it costs a reaction.
> 
> But overall all I am going to reiterate is that your use cases for shield being overpowered are use cases that are rare at my table.
> 
> ...



Arcane casters can use it at without any shenanigans. That includes Bards, Sorcerers, Warlocks, Wizards, Eldritch Knights, Bladesingers etc.

Multiclassing is hardly bending the system to breaking, it’s a normal and well used part of the game. Multiclassing a combat class with a spellcasting class is also pretty normal.

Magic Initiate gives everyone a 1st level slot that can also be added to the spell list for all slots. With 5.5 that feat only becomes easier to obtain,

You might not have seen it in play, but believe me it’s out there and it’s coming for your monsters!

I’d be happy with one of the following:


Limiting the max AC to 20
Making it not stack with armour
Used in cases when the monster has hit but you don’t know by how much. So there is some risk to using it. Or changed to be used before the attack roll.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 22, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> You see my initial reaction to a situation like this, is that I do not have an issue with a player trying this out for a campaign but if all players or one player *over many campaigns *was creating the same build to exploit shield as a paladin then I would have a discussion about it, depending on how that went I might or might not ban it.
> If someone came up with a suitable replacement, I might also consider that, but I have not had an issue with it and do not want it banned or even severely nerfed.



I think you are overlooking how & why paladin came up.  Paladin with shield wasn't brought up earlier in #61 because it was an edge case of extreme CharOp where shield becomes a problem, just one example of a cherry on top of the problem exhibited in the many problems reaction shield causes.   


It seems like you are just tossing out 5e's favorite "let the GM handle it" universal solution in the quoted  post.   If that's the case then how do you justify expecting the problematic 5e changes to a previously utterly mundane spell taking precedence over 5.5/6e fixing it to the point that a GM should be expected to trial by fire each of the ways it becomes unreasonable "over _*many*_ campaigns" & then reactively using the bully pulpit of being the GM to rework PC builds or perhaps not make that same build the next campaign.  A spell that is so badly designed in the current 2014 rules needing to rely on "You are the gm, you fix it" type workarounds shines a spotlight with see it from space intensity on a problem that 5.5/6e needs to fix with a rebuild or reversion of the spell.


----------



## Mephista (Oct 22, 2022)

Sabathius42 said:


> Note:  I literally said (typed I guess) in my last sentence for Uncanny dodge it costs a reaction.
> 
> But overall all I am going to reiterate is that your use cases for shield being overpowered are use cases that are rare at my table.
> 
> ...



Fun fact- I never called Shield broken.  I just said that I want it balanced with the martial features and the DD feat.  I made no cases about in game or white room scenarios. Either you are confusing me with others or assuming things about me.


I mean you're also kinda contradicting yourself. Either UD is better than shield because it doesn't cost a spell slot (ergo balanced), or it never comes up in play so it doesn't matter. If it's the latter, why care? Doesn't impact your games at all.

Your subjective experiences do not negate others problematic experiences.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Oct 22, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> I think you are overlooking how & why paladin came up.  Paladin with shield wasn't brought up earlier in #61 because it was an edge case of extreme CharOp where shield becomes a problem, just one example of a cherry on top of the problem exhibited in the many problems reaction shield causes.
> 
> 
> It seems like you are just tossing out 5e's favorite "let the GM handle it" universal solution in the quoted  post.   If that's the case then how do you justify expecting the problematic 5e changes to a previously utterly mundane spell taking precedence over 5.5/6e fixing it to the point that a GM should be expected to trial by fire each of the ways it becomes unreasonable "over _*many*_ campaigns" & then reactively using the bully pulpit of being the GM to rework PC builds or perhaps not make that same build the next campaign.  A spell that is so badly designed in the current 2014 rules needing to rely on "You are the gm, you fix it" type workarounds shines a spotlight with see it from space intensity on a problem that 5.5/6e needs to fix with a rebuild or reversion of the spell.



Because I genuine do not think that it is that big of a problem and I really like the reaction shield. Are you proposing an alternative? or just banning it?


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Oct 22, 2022)

TheSword said:


> Making it not stack with armour



Dare I say it?....Maybe go with the old Barkskin rules which sets the AC to 16?

As a Reaction, Shield sets your AC to 16 and makes your immune to magic missile until the start of your next turn.


----------



## Gorck (Oct 22, 2022)

After finally catching up on the arguments presented in this thread, I have been persuaded: my verdict is, YES, the Bladesong subclass is OP.

Wait, that’s not the topic of this thread.  Then my adjusted verdict is, YES, multiclassing is an OP mechanic.

Oh, that’s not the topic of this thread either.  The thread is whether or not Shield is an OP spell and I just can’t see that it is.  A spellcaster spending their one reaction and a spell slot to increase their AC by 5 until the start of their next turn isn’t overpowered in my estimation. 

Most of the arguments seem to be in comparison to another class’s ability, or when playing a specific class with a specific subclass while combining specific other spells and then topping it off with Shield.  That’s hardly an argument for how Shield itself is OP.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 22, 2022)

Gorck said:


> After finally catching up on the arguments presented in this thread, I have been persuaded: my verdict is, YES, the Bladesong subclass is OP.
> 
> Wait, that’s not the topic of this thread.  Then my adjusted verdict is, YES, multiclassing is an OP mechanic.
> 
> ...





"OP" a crude distillation that is very different from far too good for a reactive first level spell that effectively carries no action cost.  You missed a bunch though.  Hexblade has medium armor prof shield prof & the shield spell.   eldritch knight has heavy armor prof shield prof & the shield spell. Mountain dwarf wizard or sorcerer has medium armor & the shield spell.  Any bard archetype can add shield to their list with magical secrets.  Any archetype of any class with magic initiate can have the shield spell.  Any oned&d PC that takes lightly armored at first level can add medium armor prof & shield prof to a class or archetype that has the ability to cast shield for all three. "fix anything but the obvious problem" is an endless rabbit hole of one off fixes likely to carry their own baggage train of issues that need correcting & rebalancing.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 23, 2022)

TheSword said:


> I’d be happy with one of the following:
> 
> 
> Limiting the max AC to 20
> ...



The first is, to me, terrible. Armour is already too much like tissue paper for my suspension of disbelief. Plate armour was serious stuff.

Shield in 3.X didn't stack with, well, shields. I think not stacking with armour other than Mage Armour would be best.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 23, 2022)

Shield cast at level one should negate only a single attack. Cast at level 3 it may negate a whole round of attacks.

Actually I think it is better that way, because after the initial attack it has a 25% chance to help you dodging an extra attack and is unreliable anyway.

I think cast at level 2, it might retain a +2 bonus for the remainder of the round.

Maybe also not call it +2/+5 bonus but half cover and full cover, so it can't be stacked again with additional cover.


----------



## FrogReaver (Oct 23, 2022)

Some considerations on shield (spell).

1.  You must have a free hand or warcaster.  
2.  You need to know what result of the creatures attack roll+bonus so that you don't waste the spell.
3.  It requires a reaction which often has other potential uses.

Shield is strong compared to other first level spells (especially as the game progresses).  However, in broader game context shield only really shines when the DM let's you see enemy rolls, when your other reactions aren't that useful and when you invest into AC and spell slots.

An example of a character the shield spell would be strong on.  A light cleric using spirit guardians and his channel divinity to AOE enemies.  His Holy Symbol is on his shield and he has weak OA's so he keeps a free hand for somatic spell components.  For investment he needs a 1 level dip into wizard, sorcerer or hexblade to get the shield spell added to his list.  He doesn't have any other useful reactions.  He also still needs to see enemy rolls.

But even with this strong use case, it may not be worth delaying cleric spells and features by the level dip it took to gain the shield spell.  So my conclusion is that shield is not too strong of a spell.  Though it could certainly be nerfed a bit and still not be too weak of a spell.


----------



## Clint_L (Oct 24, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> ...a reactive first level spell that effectively carries no action cost.



You keep asserting this in spite of the fact that many people have pointed out that in our opinion, it does include a significant action cost. I think a spell slot is a significant action cost, especially at low levels, and a reaction is a hugely important action cost, especially at high levels. I find it odd that you seem to see reactions as worthless. Has no one in your campaign ever taken _counterspell_?


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Oct 24, 2022)

Is it too strong? Kind of? It's annoyingly strong and sorta-mandatory if you actually want to live, and can eat a lot of spell slots.

What should happen? It should become a Class Feature for Wizards, possibly shared with Eldritch Knights and a few others, but not just any Arcane user.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Oct 24, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> However, in broader game context shield only really shines when the DM let's you see enemy rolls, when your other reactions aren't that useful and when you invest into AC and spell slots.



This is certainly true, but it's pretty common for those three to be the case these days.

I mean, of the four D&D groups I play with semi-regularly (including mine), only one DM doesn't show their rolls, and he only doesn't show the rolls offline, online he does. Anecdotal of course, but I get the feeling showing rolls is pretty much the norm now, especially for DMs who don't fudge much.

It's vanishingly rare to have a better use for a Reaction than "make an enemy probably miss me", given how important HP are.

And most people are at least trying to have a decent AC. If they manage to combine that with having Shield, that's where the fun starts, yes.


----------



## FrogReaver (Oct 24, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> This is certainly true, but it's pretty common for those three to be the case these days.
> 
> I mean, of the four D&D groups I play with semi-regularly (including mine), only one DM doesn't show their rolls, and he only doesn't show the rolls offline, online he does. Anecdotal of course, but I get the feeling showing rolls is pretty much the norm now, especially for DMs who don't fudge much.
> 
> ...



Okay. My comment wasn’t about the frequency of these events only about analyzing when the shield spell is good and when it is not.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Oct 24, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> Okay. My comment wasn’t about the frequency of these events only about analyzing when the shield spell is good and when it is not.



I mean, doesn't that factor in, in a major way?

To me, a spell that is extremely powerful in an ultra-niche situation, is not a "strong" spell, and indeed, if we look at how people talk about this, that seems to hold true. Niche or rarely-useful spells are not held up as "strong" spells except by eccentrics who tend to get laughed off the stage. Whereas a spell that's very often useful seems to me to be one that is, in reality, more likely to be "strong".


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 24, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> You keep asserting this in spite of the fact that many people have pointed out that in our opinion, it does include a significant action cost. I think a spell slot is a significant action cost, especially at low levels, and a reaction is a hugely important action cost, especially at high levels. I find it odd that you seem to see reactions as worthless. Has no one in your campaign ever taken _counterspell_?



This is a very strange post that seems to confuse resource cost & action cost but dtill talks about both as distinct things, the two are extremely different things. You may as well be citing the cost of gasoline in reference to the time a particular race car gets on the quarter mile at the track. 

Casters rarely have reaction options & even noncasters don't tend to have many absent things like the sentinel feat or niche archetype things like the cavalier. Burning a reaction that was going to burn itself by virtue of going unused is a technicality not a cost.  Burning a first level spell slot in s a resource cost, but at higher levels it deflates to a one of no meaningful consequence.


----------



## Clint_L (Oct 25, 2022)

Sorry, you are right about resource vs. action cost, though I think the underlying point - that you have been discussing Shield as effectively cost free - is very much in dispute. By the time the level 1 spell slot becomes less valuable the reaction becomes much more valuable. The value of having a reaction free is that it allows for contingencies, and handcuffing yourself by using it up is very much a cost. It may amount to nothing...or it may be incredibly important when that counterspell is needed. I know I keep harping on counterspell but you will find a wide consensus that it is one of the most consequential spells in the game and it is only an option if you have a reaction free. Who uses counterspell? Mostly the same folks who use Shield.

It seems like you just preferred how shield worked before, since the crux of your argument isn't that it is OP - I proposed a nerf for it at low levels - but that you don't like it running off a reaction.


----------



## ECMO3 (Oct 25, 2022)

I do not think it is too strong and you want to hit more people you should drop AC by reducing the AC for armor, Mage Armor and shields.

Making plate and shield cap out at 15 would make the shield spell a lot weaker (and make hit points far more important than they are now).


----------



## ECMO3 (Oct 25, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> Sorry, you are right about resource vs. action cost, though I think the underlying point - that you have been discussing Shield as effectively cost free - is very much in dispute. By the time the level 1 spell slot becomes less valuable the reaction becomes much more valuable. The value of having a reaction free is that it allows for contingencies, and handcuffing yourself by using it up is very much a cost. It may amount to nothing...or it may be incredibly important when that counterspell is needed. I know I keep harping on counterspell but you will find a wide consensus that it is one of the most consequential spells in the game and it is only an option if you have a reaction free. Who uses counterspell? Mostly the same folks who use Shield.
> 
> It seems like you just preferred how shield worked before, since the crux of your argument isn't that it is OP - I proposed a nerf for it at low levels - but that you don't like it running off a reaction.



THis is true but a lot of times you have information to make a good judgement here, I would say most of the time.

I mean for example - the bad guy hit you and you go next ...... or you have 1 hp and the bad guy hit you ..... or I am fighting a bunch of melee mooks with no other options- obvious that you use it in those situations and they happen a lot.

When it becomes an opportunity cost is early in the initiative on or shortly after your turn when there are other possible uses for your reaction.  The biggest two honestly IME is when there is a dragon on the field and you might get breathed on (and need absorb elements) or when you might want to make a Warcaster AOO.  Counterspell is usually predictable for a few reasons, first when counterspell is in play usually melee heavy opponents aren't or they don't matter enough to use your reaction on them.  Not always but typically.  Second, often you are not in position to use counterspell because it only has a 60 foot range.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 25, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> Sorry, you are right about resource vs. action cost, though I think the underlying point - that you have been discussing Shield as effectively cost free - is very much in dispute. By the time the level 1 spell slot becomes less valuable the reaction becomes much more valuable.



It depends on which class you want it for. Wizards basically have four big reaction spells - Shield, Absorb Elements, Counterspell, and Silvery Barbs (arguably also Featherfall but that's not normally in competition). They don't carry weapons to make opportunity attacks. The base class doesn't have any non-spell uses for reactions, and only about half the subclasses do. So it's almost literally "You can't shield and counterspell in a turn" as the limitation for wizards and sorcerers.


----------



## Gorck (Oct 25, 2022)

I guess the big question is: has anyone here witnessed this situation occurring that has led you to feel that Shield is "too strong of a spell" in actual real-life gameplay?  I've heard a lot of theory-crafting in this thread, but I, personally, have yet to have an issue with it in any of my campaigns, nor have a seen it be a problem on the various streams I watch.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Oct 25, 2022)

Gorck said:


> I guess the big question is: has anyone here witnessed this situation occurring that has led you to feel that Shield is "too strong of a spell" in actual real-life gameplay?  I've heard a lot of theory-crafting in this thread, but I, personally, have yet to have an issue with it in any of my campaigns, nor have a seen it be a problem on the various streams I watch.



The only direct evidence I have heard about banning shield is that Treantmonk banned Shield because he was tired of seeing the same builds over and over again to exploit shield. That was after allowing for years. In that video he did not think it a general problem but wanted to a particular group of players to consider different approaches to character creation.


----------



## Arilyn (Oct 25, 2022)

I have never seen this spell be a problem. Nobody has saved all their low level slots to cast it multiple times, and even if they did, high level wizards get five 1st level slots (if you include arcane recovery), so that's five rounds of safety in a day, which won't help vs. saving throw damage. Nothing I'm going to lose sleep over. For the warrior/magic characters, they'll be even less opportunities, as they have far fewer slots. And the players I know would prefer to cast a variety of spells anyway.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Oct 25, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> The only direct evidence I have heard about banning shield is that Treantmonk banned Shield because he was tired of seeing the same builds over and over again to exploit shield. That was after allowing for years. In that video he did not think it a general problem but wanted to a particular group of players to consider different approaches to character creation.




That is, again, perhaps showing that shield might be a problem for CharOp groups/builds but not the general game.

That's really the divide in this discussion.


----------



## gorice (Oct 25, 2022)

Gorck said:


> I guess the big question is: has anyone here witnessed this situation occurring that has led you to feel that Shield is "too strong of a spell" in actual real-life gameplay?  I've heard a lot of theory-crafting in this thread, but I, personally, have yet to have an issue with it in any of my campaigns, nor have a seen it be a problem on the various streams I watch.



Yes. As I said in a previous post, I have extensive experience running the game at high levels (10-15, with 3-4 full casters, no less), and shield becomes very powerful when combined with good dex + AC-boosting items or abilities. It's not game-breaking, but it is noticeable, especially in situations where you can't apply continuous resource pressure (which, at that level, is most of them). If I go with mostly AC-targeting enemies, the PCs waltz through unharmed. If I go with mostly attribute-targeting enemies, the martial players might feel like their armour is pointless. Grappling attacks work, but you can't make _every_ fight a wrestling match.

I think limiting shield's effect to a single attack, rather than all attacks in a round, would stop it from scaling so well at higher levels.


----------



## FrogReaver (Oct 26, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean, doesn't that factor in, in a major way?



It's alot more nuanced than that.  

As one example.  A factor like the DM hiding rolls is typically all or nothing.  It doesn't really matter how often that occurs in the general sense, it matters whether it occurred for your game.



Ruin Explorer said:


> To me, a spell that is extremely powerful in an ultra-niche situation, is not a "strong" spell, and indeed, if we look at how people talk about this, that seems to hold true. Niche or rarely-useful spells are not held up as "strong" spells except by eccentrics who tend to get laughed off the stage. Whereas a spell that's very often useful seems to me to be one that is, in reality, more likely to be "strong".



Similar to above, the problem as I see it is that what ends up being ultra-niche in one campaign may be common in another.

How spells actually get evaluated is important.  Since the events of a campaign are not typically known beforehand, a player's evaluation of what is good is based on his experiences of how strong a spell was when used in various past situations coupled with observed frequencies of those situations and this coaleses into his Platonic Ideal of a D&D campaign by which he evaluates a spells power.  Where you most often see disagreements about strength of D&D spells is usually related to where two players Ideal D&D campaigns diverge.  It can also have to do with what they are quantifying.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Oct 26, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> Similar to above, the problem as I see it is that what ends up being ultra-niche in one campaign may be common in another.



I think at some point one has to accept there is a _norm_, or it is literally impossible to balance anything.


----------



## FrogReaver (Oct 26, 2022)

gorice said:


> Yes. As I said in a previous post, I have extensive experience running the game at high levels (10-15, with 3-4 full casters, no less), and shield becomes very powerful when combined with good dex + AC-boosting items or abilities. It's not game-breaking, but it is noticeable, especially in situations where you can't apply continuous resource pressure (which, at that level, is most of them). If I go with mostly AC-targeting enemies, the PCs waltz through unharmed. If I go with mostly attribute-targeting enemies, the martial players might feel like their armour is pointless. Grappling attacks work, but you can't make _every_ fight a wrestling match.



I think you are misdiagnosing the problem.

IMO, if your PC's are waltzing through unharmed with shield, it's also extremely unlikely they would be challenged simply by not using shield.  They might lose a little more hp, but not enough to truly challenge them.  As you aptly pointed out the reason they waltz through unharmed is because you can't or don't apply continuous resource pressure - which is fine, but not really a shield issue.



gorice said:


> I think limiting shield's effect to a single attack, rather than all attacks in a round, would stop it from scaling so well at higher levels.



Not by much.  You do face more attacks at higher levels - but shield still often only stops 1 attack per round that it's used.  Note: I'm not actually against this change.  It's more that I think if one perceives shield as an issue then this likely doesn't go far enough.


----------



## FrogReaver (Oct 26, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> I think at some point one has to accept there is a _norm_, or it is literally impossible to balance anything.



Perhaps what you call balance isn't what I would call balance.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Oct 26, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> Perhaps what you call balance isn't what I would call balance.



Ummmm perhaps but what I'm calling balance is pretty much what, y'know Jeremy Crawford calls balance.


----------



## FrogReaver (Oct 26, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Ummmm perhaps but what I'm calling balance is pretty much what, y'know Jeremy Crawford calls balance.



Haven’t seen what he says on it.


----------



## gorice (Oct 26, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> I think you are misdiagnosing the problem.
> 
> IMO, if your PC's are waltzing through unharmed with shield, it's also extremely unlikely they would be challenged simply by not using shield.  They might lose a little more hp, but not enough to truly challenge them.  As you aptly pointed out the reason they waltz through unharmed is because you can't or don't apply continuous resource pressure - which is fine, but not really a shield issue.



That isn't my experience. PCs do not waltz through all fights unharmed, and I am absolutely able to apply resource pressure -- it just doesn't happen continuously in every case, which exacerbates the effectiveness of casters in general.

My party is at level 15. They have access to the kinds of magic items you would expect them to have at that level. The characters in my game who have access to shield have an AC of 15 (poorly-optimised single class), 18 (well-optimised single class), and 22 (multiclass). They generally face enemies with an attack bonus of +7 (minion, CR ~6) to +15 (CR >20), with +11 (normal for CR 15 or for a standard GMM leveled enemy) being the most common. I use both official enemies and those made with Giffyglyph's much more accurate and powerful Monster Maker.

A +7 bonus hits AC 15/18/22 exactly 65/50/30% of the time. With shield, this becomes 50/25/5%.

With a +11, this becomes 85/70/50% without shield, or 60/45/25% with.

At the rare and extreme +15, it's 100/85/70% without, or 80/65/45% with.

I don't think shield is a problem with the 15 AC character; it's clearly too powerful on AC 22 (not hard to do, with plate + a shield + 1-2 magic items). On AC 18, it is observably very strong.



FrogReaver said:


> Not by much.  You do face more attacks at higher levels - but shield still often only stops 1 attack per round that it's used.  Note: I'm not actually against this change.  It's more that I think if one perceives shield as an issue then this likely doesn't go far enough.



This is incorrect:


> An invisible barrier of magical force appears and protects you. Until the start of your next turn, you have a +5 bonus to AC, including against the triggering attack, and you take no damage from magic missile.




As an aside:


> Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take when you are hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell



This means that shield only needs to be cast in those situations when a character has actually been threatened, then hit, and then the player has decided that they don't want to take damage. Whether or not damage is rolled first is not particularly important, since you generally know whether a monster is going to hit hard or not, and whether your health is low.

As I said before: it's not game-breaking. Like most things in 5e, it's poorly designed but can be finessed with a bit of work.


----------



## mellored (Oct 26, 2022)

It's a bit OP because it scales.  A level 1 spell slot negating a 20th level attack.

So, IMO.

Shield: reaction, when you are about to take damage.
Reduces any non-psychic damage taken by 5 modifier until the start of your next turn.  If this reduces the damage to 0, you are not hit.
At higher level: increase the damage reduction by 5 for each slot above this.

Actually makes it more useful for wizards who might still be hit even with a +5 AC.  And still not a bad level 1 spell at higher levels.  But it puts it closer to healing word.
Also still completely negates even a level 9 magic missile.


----------



## Blue (Oct 26, 2022)

It's not too strong.  It seems like it is because the effect is obvious and easy to quantify while the cost is not.

What is the cost of the slot over the day?  What is the cost of the Reaction at this point?  I've pulled out Shield and then wished I'd had my reaction for Absorb Elements or Counterspell.

The real issue with spell slot attrition costs is that the designer calibrated for 5+ combat encounters a day, and with most DMs running fewer than that on average the cost of the resource expenditure is artificially lessened.  If you never need an extra 1st level slot, it doesn't matter if you have four or zero.  So we rarely hit the cost because the designers messed up in designing another part of the game.


----------



## ECMO3 (Oct 26, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> The only direct evidence I have heard about banning shield is that Treantmonk banned Shield because he was tired of seeing the same builds over and over again to exploit shield. That was after allowing for years. In that video he did not think it a general problem but wanted to a particular group of players to consider different approaches to character creation.



So I get this, but I do not think it is a widespread problem, I think it is unique to his playing group.  In the last year I have played in 16 different games with 9 different DMs and I can't say I have seen this over and over.

I play in a lot of games and I don't use shield spell over and over.  While it is on most of my casters it is not ubiquotous.  There is one guy I play with who always plays an Artificer-Wizard and he always has shield .... but I don't see that as bad that is what he likes . ..... just like every time I play a Ranger it is a Fey Wanderer with Goodberry and cause fear.


----------



## ECMO3 (Oct 26, 2022)

gorice said:


> That isn't my experience. PCs do not waltz through all fights unharmed, and I am absolutely able to apply resource pressure -- it just doesn't happen continuously in every case, which exacerbates the effectiveness of casters in general.
> 
> My party is at level 15. They have access to the kinds of magic items you would expect them to have at that level. The characters in my game who have access to shield have an AC of 15 (poorly-optimised single class), 18 (well-optimised single class), and 22 (multiclass). They generally face enemies with an attack bonus of +7 (minion, CR ~6) to +15 (CR >20), with +11 (normal for CR 15 or for a standard GMM leveled enemy) being the most common. I use both official enemies and those made with Giffyglyph's much more accurate and powerful Monster Maker.
> 
> ...



I don't agree it is "too powerful"  and there are plenty of ways to damage PCs without relying on attack rolls.  There are also plenty of ways to steal reactions so they can't use shield.

Having a super high AC is very beneficial and the numbers you quoted can be buffed even further with spells like protection from evil and good or blur.  I played a bladesinger that went multiple levels without being hit with an attack at all in combat (like level 4-8 or something like that) and she was the primary front liner in the party taking more attacks than anyone. It was not uncommon for enemies to need double twenties (20 with disadvantage) to hit her.  At 13th level my bladesinger went toe-to-toe with Bel in melee 1-v-1 and was very effective.

That said a CR6 Vrock would take her to the cleaners with their scream and her weak con save.


----------



## pnewman (Oct 31, 2022)

Change it for One D&D by making it at +PB to AC, not +5. This keeps it weaker at most levels and follows the "everything is tied to PB in some way" fetish of WOTC's.


----------

