D&D (2024) Is Shield to strong of a spell? Should and how would it be changed for OneD&D?

[Gorck]

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]

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.

"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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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".