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

[tetrasodium]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

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]

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.