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

[Scott Christian]

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.

Four rounds of combat is a long time. But most adventuring days have more than one encounter. And, per my example, it doesn't make you unhittable. It makes you much harder to hit - by a melee strike. Our fifth level group just had three encounters: giant crabs, yuan-ti, and more yuan-ti. A shield spell would have done very little to help out our paladin, seeing as the yuan-ti spell casters are intelligent and targeted healers and spellcasters. So would it have helped you against the two fireballs? How about the counterspell they had? Hold person? Suggestion? It wouldn't. Would it have made you invincible against the giant crabs? Sure. Would it have stopped them from destroying the dock and letting you sink to the bottom of the bay? Nope.
If I remember correctly, in that adventuring day we had 12 rounds of combat, say + or - 1. 9 of those rounds were against the yuan-ti. I just fail to see how you, burning all your spell slots to be invincible for half of those rounds against only melee attacks, is breaking the game's combat mechanics.
This is an example I think shows you where it doesn't. I'm sure there are examples where it does. I am not that stubborn. But, for the fourth time, can you show me an adventuring day where it breaks the game's combat mechanics and doesn't allow the DM to challenge the PCs?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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'.

That’s an interesting take as well.

I think either that or creating a force shield that has HP that must be depleted in order to damage the protected creatures are the two best models I’ve seen.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Four rounds of combat is a long time. But most adventuring days have more than one encounter.

I mean, that's entirely debatable given how many people have described their games, and balancing around bunches of encounters just doesn't work; look at the failures of the current CR.

Further, using 4 Shields in a row is generally not necessary, but rather dependent on the damage you'll take. The bigger point is that you can, if necessary, become largely immune to attacks against AC, which are easily the most common type of attack in the game.

And, per my example, it doesn't make you unhittable. It makes you much harder to hit - by a melee strike. Our fifth level group just had three encounters: giant crabs, yuan-ti, and more yuan-ti. A shield spell would have done very little to help out our paladin, seeing as the yuan-ti spell casters are intelligent and targeted healers and spellcasters. So would it have helped you against the two fireballs? How about the counterspell they had? Hold person? Suggestion? It wouldn't. Would it have made you invincible against the giant crabs? Sure. Would it have stopped them from destroying the dock and letting you sink to the bottom of the bay? Nope.

Uh, Shield absolutely works against ranged strikes, too. You realize that, right? It doesn't work against blasts, but it just straight up raises your AC by 5 with no other specifications. So it'll stop plenty of spells in that fashion, too. Eldritch blast? Firebolt? Shocking Grasp? Melf's Acid Arrow? Those all get stopped.

Will it stop Fireball? No, but so what? That doesn't detract from the incredible utility of a power that will boost your AC by +5 for an entire turn. Just because it doesn't cover all bases doesn't make it any less powerful, it just means it not completely broken. You can try to ignore that all you want, but it covers the most common kinds of attacks, including from Yuan-Ti. There are plenty of monsters that don't have non-AC based attacks, and they make up the bulk of the MM. That there are ways of getting around it doesn't mean that the original isn't badly built in the first place.

If I remember correctly, in that adventuring day we had 12 rounds of combat, say + or - 1. 9 of those rounds were against the yuan-ti. I just fail to see how you, burning all your spell slots to be invincible for half of those rounds against only melee attacks, is breaking the game's combat mechanics.
This is an example I think shows you where it doesn't. I'm sure there are examples where it does. I am not that stubborn. But, for the fourth time, can you show me an adventuring day where it breaks the game's combat mechanics and doesn't allow the DM to challenge the PCs?

If you are relying on the ridiculous guidelines set by Wizards, then I hate to tell you but you're just not getting what it looks like in the wild. Trying to artificially cram in encounters to a day so that spell usage is balanced is inane and has basically lead to CR being broken and casters having too much power. I've had a few games where people have had 4 encounters in a day, but I've had many more where they had only one because trying to balance things around a number of encounters rather than how the game is actually playing out is foolish. And that's one of the big problems Wizards has in balancing: trying to rely on having multiple encounters every day, even just two encounters, is difficult because just tossing in encounters for balance is not good gamemastering. And trying to use that as a defense misses why stuff like CR is so damn broken as is.

 

[Clint_L]

I mean, that's entirely debatable given how many people have described their games, and balancing around bunches of encounters just doesn't work; look at the failures of the current CR.

Further, using 4 Shields in a row is generally not necessary, but rather dependent on the damage you'll take. The bigger point is that you can, if necessary, become largely immune to attacks against AC, which are easily the most common type of attack in the game.



Uh, Shield absolutely works against ranged strikes, too. You realize that, right? It doesn't work against blasts, but it just straight up raises your AC by 5 with no other specifications. So it'll stop plenty of spells in that fashion, too. Eldritch blast? Firebolt? Shocking Grasp? Melf's Acid Arrow? Those all get stopped.

Will it stop Fireball? No, but so what? That doesn't detract from the incredible utility of a power that will boost your AC by +5 for an entire turn. Just because it doesn't cover all bases doesn't make it any less powerful, it just means it not completely broken. You can try to ignore that all you want, but it covers the most common kinds of attacks, including from Yuan-Ti. There are plenty of monsters that don't have non-AC based attacks, and they make up the bulk of the MM. That there are ways of getting around it doesn't mean that the original isn't badly built in the first place.



If you are relying on the ridiculous guidelines set by Wizards, then I hate to tell you but you're just not getting what it looks like in the wild. Trying to artificially cram in encounters to a day so that spell usage is balanced is inane and has basically lead to CR being broken and casters having too much power. I've had a few games where people have had 4 encounters in a day, but I've had many more where they had only one because trying to balance things around a number of encounters rather than how the game is actually playing out is foolish. And that's one of the big problems Wizards has in balancing: trying to rely on having multiple encounters every day, even just two encounters, is difficult because just tossing in encounters for balance is not good gamemastering. And trying to use that as a defense misses why stuff like CR is so damn broken as is.

If I’m up against a level 4 sword and board paladin using all their spell slots for shield spell, they and their average 4.25 DPR (assuming a 50% hit rate) are not exactly high on my priority list.

 

[Justice and Rule]

If I’m up against a level 4 sword and board paladin using all their spell slots for shield spell, they and their average 4.25 DPR (assuming a 50% hit rate) are not exactly high on my priority list.

If you aren't targeting them, then they aren't using them for Shield. It's not a proactive spell, it's a reactive one, so this argument falls apart because when you do try to do something about it you can't.

 

[mellored]

That’s an interesting take as well.

I think either that or creating a force shield that has HP that must be depleted in order to damage the protected creatures are the two best models I’ve seen.

There are plenty of ways to do it. But it needs to get away from AC and switch to damage.

A level 1 spell shouldn't be equally effective against a goblin and an accent red dragon.

Also, blocking a fireball is pretty iconic.

 

[mellored]

If you aren't targeting them, then they aren't using them for Shield. It's not a proactive spell, it's a reactive one, so this argument falls apart because when you do try to do something about it you can't.

Maybe it can be both?

If cast as an action, reduce damage by 20
If cast as a reaction, reduce damage by 10.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

There are plenty of ways to do it. But it needs to get away from AC and switch to damage.

A level 1 spell shouldn't be equally effective against a goblin and an accent red dragon.

Also, blocking a fireball is pretty iconic.

This part I disagree with. Level 1 spells should absolutely have among them spells that are just as effective throughout all 20 levels of play.

 

[mellored]

This part I disagree with. Level 1 spells should absolutely have among them spells that are just as effective throughout all 20 levels of play.

Reducing an ancient dragons breath by 10 damage is still useful.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Maybe it can be both?

If cast as an action, reduce damage by 20
If cast as a reaction, reduce damage by 10.

If it's proactive, I feel like that will just encourage GMs to not target the player. That's something of a victory, but at the same time it's less valuable.