D&D (2024) How to balance the shield spell?

[Clint_L]

lolwut? You're relying on something that happens 5% of the time, and within a specified time frame.

Shield OTOH affects 25% of all attack rolls against you. That's a much higher frequency of meaningful effect.

It's not hypothetical. It's pure math. You're the one arguing hypotheticals here.

Your claim is false, as proven above. Mathematically so.

Shield has broken every game I've ever played in. See, I can cite anecdotal evidence, too.

Edited: I think we're done. I wish you well.

 

[Clint_L]

A +14 attack vs AC 20 is very different from a +14 attack with Disadvantage vs AC 30.
IME attacks vs AC remain very common at all levels in 5e, with saving throws getting somewhat more common but never dominant. Generally the PCs are putting out more saving throw attacks than they are receiving, even at Epic-20th (level 20 with Boons). Monster attack bonus goes up to +19, for which AC 30 & Disadvantage remains highly effective.

IMCs I cap AC at 30 and to-hit at +20; very few PCs approach +20* to hit but AC 30 is quite easy to attain.

*PB +7 say from the Ioun Stone, +10 attribute from DMG Epic Boons, +3 weapon gets you to +20. Archery fighting style would get it to +22. Without Epic Boons I think the highest per RAW is girdle of storm giant strength +9, Ioun stone for PB +7, and +3 weapon gives +19, the same as a CR 27-30 monster with +10 attribute & +9 PB.

The most powerful active PC IMCs is an Epic Barbarian-20 with PB+6, STR +10 (base STR 24 for BBn-20, with 3 Boons) and a +2 weapon for total +18. He likes to chug Potions of Speed (ca 20,000gp per potion in the City of Brass) before he goes hunting ancient dragons, which raise his AC from 28 to 30.

So, I'm not following your argument. I'm arguing that shield is more powerful at low levels. Your example reinforces this point. Are we arguing the same point? I think we both agree that being able to pop your AC to 24 at a very low level is more impactful than being able to pop it to 30 at a very high level, yes?

Shield is unusual in that it remains a good, useful level 1 spell even at high levels, even though it can't be upcast, but at those levels it is one thing in an arsenal of options, against opponents who also have an arsenal of options - I presume in the example cited above those hyper-optimized PCs are also running into hyper-optimized NPCs, right?

I think shield is overtuned, and should be +3 AC, not +5. I don't think it is a game-breaking spell, and I think the fact that 5e has been running just fine with it for a decade without a massive outcry for it to be nerfed indicates that it is more one of those spells that, like fireball, is a little too good.

For me, a game-breaking spell or ability is one that fundamentally alters the game in a profound way. Healing word is a game breaking spell - without it, 5e plays completely differently not just in terms of mechanics but in terms of narrative structure. Moon druid wild shape is game breaking at low levels - 5e was not designed for tanks that potentially have almost 100 HP at level 2. Shield isn't like that. It's just a very good spell, probably a bit too good. 5e is not being broken by Eldritch Knights saving their few spell slots for shield; rather, it's one of the things that makes them a competitive sub-class...and I'd still rather have a Battlemaster. Paladins are not all multi-classing willy nilly to get shield.

Similarly, my son's Eldritch Knight never ever takes Opportunity Attacks, never uses his Reaction, precisely so that he always has Shield available. Paladin really seems one of the weaker classes to multiclass to get Shield, given how valuable their spell slots are. Eldritch Knightm Bladesinger Wizard & Sword Bard seem like obvious major beneficiaries, no multiclassing needed.

Case in point. Your son is foregoing offence for defence, just as a paladin using up spell slots for shield is doing, or a wizard who takes a bunch of feats to get armour, and so on. Eldritch knights, Bladesingers and melee Bards are not considered S tier builds; everyone is not rushing out to make one. So, again, I don't see how shield is breaking the game. In fact, although I think it needs a bit of a nerf, I am hesitant because of sub-classes like those that kind of rely on it for melee viability.

 

[S'mon]

So, I'm not following your argument. I'm arguing that shield is more powerful at low levels. Your example reinforces this point. Are we arguing the same point?

I'd say shield is most powerful when your AC is already high and when you have a lot of spell slots, ie at high level. AIR I disagreed with your view that AC matters less at high level.

 

[CleverNickName]

It breaks the game because it gives the Wizard AC against multiple attacks that should be reserved for martial characters. It's just another example of casters ruling over martials and doing martial things better than martials do.

Also by level 4, a Variant Human or Custom Lineage Wizard has Lightly and Moderately Armored feats, getting a permanent AC of 19 from that (half plate + physical shield + DEX), then casting Shield on top of that for 24 AC whenever it wants. B-R-O-K-E-N.

The Paladin is getting AC 26 with Shield. Simple math: 18 (plate) + 2 (physical shield) + 1 (Defense) + 5 (Shield spell).

That's broken. Period.

I think it's balanced by requiring a spell slot, only affecting the caster, using a reaction to cast, and only lasting a single round. Things only start unraveling when feats, multiclassing, and other optional rules are introduced.

I think that fixing the Shield spell is just a bandage... I hope they fix the multiclassing rules.

 

[Scott Christian]

It breaks the game because it gives the Wizard AC against multiple attacks that should be reserved for martial characters. It's just another example of casters ruling over martials and doing martial things better than martials do.

So this seems to be your rationale for not liking it. You like your martials to shine, well, martially. And you don't need a wizard to shine like that. It's a valid point.

Also by level 4, a Variant Human or Custom Lineage Wizard has Lightly and Moderately Armored feats, getting a permanent AC of 19 from that (half plate + physical shield + DEX), then casting Shield on top of that for 24 AC whenever it wants. B-R-O-K-E-N.

What about the other forty wizard designs? What about my friend's wizard that was a Dragonborne without a dex bonus or feat? Is the spell broke for him? I believe it is a mistake to look at things with a microscopic lens when discussing a broken mechanic. Could it maybe break one character build? Possibly. That still does not mean it breaks the game's combat mechanics. It means that particular wizard has better protection than other wizards against melee attacks. And even then, according to the math, it's not an invincibility cloak. It is a simple improvement.

So I will ask again that you give examples of an adventuring day where this spell breaks the game's combat mechanics, or as you put it, show me it's B-R-O-K-E-N.

The Paladin is getting AC 26 with Shield. Simple math: 18 (plate) + 2 (physical shield) + 1 (Defense) + 5 (Shield spell).

I think this might be a point of contention. Calling something broken without equating it to a time frame, which is the entire crux of the D&D combat system, is shortsighted. In my examples, I gave incidences where this spell will help. But I also point out the negatives. I think that's where the balance is, specifically with the time frame itself. If you have a fourth level pally with a shield spell, they give something up each time they cast it. They also gave something up (an extra attack and other things) to get the spell. All for a spell, which may or may not, help them for a maximum of four rounds.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I think this might be a point of contention. Calling something broken without equating it to a time frame, which is the entire crux of the D&D combat system, is shortsighted. In my examples, I gave incidences where this spell will help. But I also point out the negatives. I think that's where the balance is, specifically with the time frame itself. If you have a fourth level pally with a shield spell, they give something up each time they cast it. They also gave something up (an extra attack and other things) to get the spell. All for a spell, which may or may not, help them for a maximum of four rounds.

I find this to be kind of absurd. 4 Rounds of combat is a lot of time, especially in a single combat. Being able to effectively make yourself untouchable during this time is incredibly powerful, especially for a spell-based martial. Sure, you're losing other options, but it increases your survivability dramatically and is just as effective in a 1st Level Spell slot as it is in any other. As a trade-off, it's not a huge one and I've played it out since I was a Forge Cleric with the playtest document and I was effectively unhittable for a while. Even with Paladin slots you're going to be damn difficult to touch, especially given how much D&D combats tend to nova out.



Honestly I think @mellored was on the right track, it just needed to be adjusted slightly.

Shield
1st Level Spell (Abjuration)

An invisible barrier of magical force appears and protects you. When attacked or in the path of an area of effect attack requiring a Dexterity, Strength, or Constitution Save effect*, you may spend a reaction to cast this spell after damage is rolled, gaining 15 temporary hit points against the attack. These hit points are gone after the attack is completed.

The spell may be upcast, gaining 5 Temp HP per level upcast. It may also be expanded: the spell may turn into a sphere extending out from the caster. It gains 5 feet of range at the cost of 5 Temporary HP off the normal effect. Anyone within the sphere, friend or foe, gains the temporary HP against the attack triggering it (most likely a blast or a cone).

*We can create more specific language here to be cut down on edge cases, but the general gist is against blast/line/cone attacks like Fireball, Lighting, or Cone of Cold.



Why use Temporary HP?

For a lot of reasons, really. First off, we no longer have do the "What was the to-hit roll?" check every time a hit gets rolled against you. Instead, the user just gets to choose whether or not to mitigate the damage. Currently I have it as "after the damage is rolled", but you can change it a bit if you like.

Secondly, it's a helluva lot easier to scale Temporary Hit Points in 5E than it is to modify armor values. With AC, you gotta really raise it to make it useful because ACs are generally low enough that monsters can blast well-past them. That has the problematic effect of making it very powerful for people who wear armor, as I well know having played the UA Forge Cleric and utterly frustrating my DM because of it. Temporary Hit Points allows for a lot more nuance, like being able to spread the effect to others around you.

Thirdly, I feel like this matches how people think of magical shield effects in fiction. People will put shields up and have them broken in fiction, which doesn't work in 5E because you aren't using it if it isn't going to work. That idea fits just much better conceptually. Plus it still fits the classic usage: at 15 HP and scaling up over time, a shield spell of equal level will always block a maximized Magic Missile spell.

Why scale it?

It makes it more interesting to use, less of an automatic 1st level spell slot, and opens up options in what you can do for it. Currently speaking it's a very dull spell because there's nothing else to do with it: you just keep it in that slot and you only use it on yourself.

Why make it so it can be used against blasts/expanded out to help others?

Part of it is thematic: the idea of creating a magical shield against blasts, dragon's breath, etc... is pretty powerful and commonplace. Also using a magical shield to protect your companions is pretty common imagery, to the point that (again) it's used in the Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Amongst Thieves film. Why not do it? It puts a new spin that makes it helpful to others around you and gives you a reason to use it in other places, as well as why to upcast the spell. Limiting it to one attack makes it so that you can't just outright neutralize an opponent with multiple attacks, but rather you can at least help nearby allies if you are all about to eat Dragon's Breath attack.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

One of the most discussed spell of 5E is the shield. It's either a good spell on a wizard or broken on a high AC fighter/wizard/EK combo. Or pala/sorc combo.

So how to make it more balanced and still useful and have it a use as a shield?

Shield:
1st level spell
1 Action cast
Duration 12hours(so sorcerers can have some use with extend spell)

you increase your AC by 1. If you have one empty hand or you use your spell focus in that hand, spells AC bonus increases to +3.
If you suffer a critical hit, you can end the spell to turn that critical into a normal hit.

if you use 3rd level slot, AC bonus is +2/+4 and you can block one crit without ending the spell as an reaction, 6th level slot is +3/+5 and you can block two crits without ending the spell as an reaction, and 9th level slot is +4/6 and you can block three crits without ending the spell as an reaction.

Tbh I’d rather keep it as a reaction spell, lower the bonus, and scale it by protecting multiple people.

But then, I’d really like for each of the three magic sources to have spells turned into soemthing you can just do if you have access to that source and can cast spells with spell slots, and shield would be one for arcane.

 

[mellored]

Tbh I’d rather keep it as a reaction spell, lower the bonus, and scale it by protecting multiple people.

Trigger: an attack, spell, or other effect within 5' would deal damage.
Reduce the damage the damage the effect deals by 10.
For instance, if a fireball would deal 26 damage, it instead deals 16. 8 on a successful save.
If the damage is reduced to 0, non-damage effects are also blocked.
At higher level: Reduce the damage by an additional 5, and increase the range by 5'.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Trigger: an attack, spell, or other effect within 5' would deal damage.
Reduce the damage the damage the effect deals by 10.
For instance, if a fireball would deal 26 damage, it instead deals 16. 8 on a successful save.
If the damage is reduced to 0, non-damage effects are also blocked.
At higher level: Reduce the damage by an additional 5, and increase the range by 5'.

I think you should start with 15, but if you want to spread it out you have to pay for it. Making it less powerful but with more people protected seems like a solid tradeoff when it comes down to it.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Like so many other things, the problems I've seen with the Shield spell are actually problems with multiclassing...but fixing that would be a very difficult chore for someone with my skill-set.

If I were going to make any changes at all, I'd just add a caveat to the spell description: "This spell fails if you are wearing armor of any kind." Not perfect, but it would keep it out of the hands of multiclassed Fighters and Paladins while leaving monoclass casters unaffected.

I have not seen multiclassing problems. I have seen problems with the abundance of long rests. Lesser long rests and shield is a quite balanced spell.