D&D 5E Suggested nerf to the Shield spell

[Shiroiken]

Stop doing 5-minute-work-days and shield is perfectly fine.

I find this to be the biggest "fix" to a lot of abilities.

In the last adventure I played in, we started things off at an inn. There were 2 social encounters, which revealed to us that it was run by werewolves. We had 2 combat encounters, plus a social encounter that revealed a shortcut to the BBEG. We took the shortcut with 1 more combat along the way. Against the BBEG, we couldn't nova, because we knew that we may have to fight our way back out (which we did). By the end, everyone was down to standard attacks and cantrips, because we couldn't even short rest once we killed the BBEG.

 

[ZenBear]

I've considered changing it to be +Proficiency to AC so it's less OP early game and scales into late game.

 

[Scott Thorne]

In my game, Shield grants +1d8 AC (rolled once) instead of a static value of 5 to reduce metagaming.

I changed several spells and abilities from static values to dice, including Lay Hands and (Life Domain's) Preserve Life, for the same reason.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

I've considered changing it to be +Proficiency to AC so it's less OP early game and scales into late game.

Ditto. I like the idea of spells scaling via proficiency bonus and Shield seems a logical application for it IMO.

 

[Blue]

I've considered changing it to be +Proficiency to AC so it's less OP early game and scales into late game.

I'm actually pretty hard against this.

First, spells (not cantrips) in 5e shouldn't scale without upcasting. That's one of the design truisms that worked towards getting rid of the linear fighter/quadratic wizard issue. So I'm strongly against it for that.

Second, 5e with bounded accuracy doesn't race to-hit up a huge deal, it intentionally scales HPs instead. So a +5 to AC will have about the same effect in terms of misses at low levels or at high, and it already scales at high levels because it prevents attacks that do more damage. So scaling it by preventing even more hits will literally raise it's use exponentially. I am strongly against it just on this alone.

Third, because of range of proficiency, what this really is doing is nerfing it at lower levels. Low level character already have harder time surviving, especially arcane casters getting attacked. At that level they have fewer spell slots as well, so casting shield is using p a corresponding larger amount of their resources in the first place, at a time it's more critical, and then you want to nerf it for them but not for high level casters? This is the exact opposite of the design I want, it actively heads in the wrong direction. So I'm strongly against it for this.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

The only balance problem with shield is when there's only 1 or 2 PCs. If there are 3+ PCs, I simply make my monster attack the ones not affected by the spell this round. So at most shield is useful for a single attack. Even if the whole work day only has one encounter, I can get in more than four attacks. Not to mention that shield is useless against spells that don't require an attack roll (except MM).

 

[CapnZapp]

In my opinion, Shield is one of the strongest spells in all of fifth edition. For a level 1 spell slot and your reaction, it grants you +5 AC for a whole round, and since you cast it after you know you've been hit, it's not wasted unless the roll beats your AC by 5 or more.

The spell is balanced for its primarily intended usage, a "squishie" Wizard.

It gets unbalanced when used by characters that already have high to very high AC.

Therefore I would not nerf it generally. While you might not have any Wizards in your party, your nerf is not suitable for general use.

What I could suggest, however, is this:

Shield doesn't stack with physical armor. (Meaning, it stacks with Mage Armor but not Plate Armor.)

Of course, characters should then be allowed a free re-do of their spell choice.

 

[CapnZapp]

So...to actually help the OP instead of just telling them their wrong.

I wish more of the forum were like this.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

I wish more of the forum were like this.

But telling them there's nothing wrong with [whatever they complain about] is helping them.

 

[CapnZapp]

But telling them there's nothing wrong with [whatever they complain about] is helping them.

I suggest you critically reflect on that attitude. After all, very few posters start threads here because they want to be told to do nothing.

This forum can at times come across as unrelentingly reactionary and conservative, as if 5th edition was handed down on stone tablets by God.

Discussing at length whether changing X should even be attempted is only derailing any attempts to change X, as I'm sure you agree. Far from helping, it is ruinous to the value of these forums and should in my opinion be moderated.

Also, as any good DM would tell you, consider the difference between saying "no" and "yes, but". Not only is the latter more helpful, it also comes across as constructively encouraging.