D&D (2024) 2024 Player's Handbook preview: "New Spells"

[CapnZapp]

Planning every encounter is the easy button for it. You can completely eliminate Shield's effectiveness very easily if you plan to. That takes no time at all and is trivial if you actually plan for it.

Dealing with it when you did not plan it or when you are running a published adventure "as written" takes a lot more creativity. But it is hardly the only, or even the worst "game breaking" things players do. It is simply the most common.

Sorry but dismissing every DM that's running adventures published by WotC and also every DM that doesn't find it "trivial" to "plan for" (whatever that means) the spell makes for a less convincing argument that you probably hoped.

 

[CapnZapp]

That is not to say there are not ways to completely nerf a Bladesinger in melee. They are reliant on magic spells, so things like Dispel Magic and Counterspell are very effective. Dispel Magic can eliminate their concentration spell, their temp hit points, their contingency and any other spell they have affecting them in one action.

Thank you for this post.

One comment though: believe it or not but many adventures and DMs still play the game as if magic is somewhat rare.

That is, a group of monsters might have 20 bruisers for every shaman. Princes and merchants don't have ready access to magic. And so on.

Just to say it's far from uncontroversial to suggest something like "just cast Dispel Magic".

And before anyone replies, yes I know WotC has basically left all these people in the dust and gone all-in on the gonzo magic explosion. That doesn't change the fact that many "solutions" offered aren't what these players want to use.

(Add link to the recent thread of feeling left out by recent D&D here: D&D General - D&D Editions: Anybody Else Feel Like They Don't Fit In? )

 

[CapnZapp]

What is every player has Shield?

Did you mean "what if"?

It means the DM needs to throw out hus work and replace monsters either with ones that hit harder or ones that doesn't target AC.

Either way, it's a bad idea to consider it a good solution to give the DM more work!

 

[Horwath]

You're basically saying "because our group made it work it's not a problem to anyone". Not very persuasive.

Also, I suspect your DM is working hard in order to set up those difficult fights, and a DM working that hard is a luxury few groups can enjoy.

Point is: do you want to argue you need Shield as-is to enjoy the game?

I suspect you would have just as much fun even without these extreme builds, your DM would need to work less hard to challenge you in combat, and many many people would be ridden of the Shield headache once and for all.

PS. I've played the 2014 edition both before and after Silvery Barbs was added. I am if the belief it detracts rather than adds to the game. No I don't believe "working around it" us the proper solution.

The proper solution is to not trivially allow players to force monsters to reroll their most key and crucial rolls.

I look forward to playing a 2024 game that not yet has Silvery Barbs in it. It was a mistake to add it; it disrupts and slows down play and steaks focus away from other - less problematic - strategies.

In the same way, I would have loved it if Shield was available only to the low AC builds it was created for.

Shield can be worked around and I agree that in some situations can be little overpowered if you only fight non intelligent meat sacks that bash on the 1st target in sight. but those were never a real problem to fight off.

Silvery barbs is only annoying because of re-roll mechanics that I personally hate. adding -5 to the d20 roll to anyone in 60ft as a reaction would be much cleaner.

having advantage or disadvantage BEFORE the roll is good, getting advantage or disadvantage AFTER the roll is bad.

and in reality, Silvery barbs is just a hotfix and a spell tax for your higher level spells. You need those save or suck spells to land and you are counting on those spell effects. This just pushes the math in your favor for a cost.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Shield is the biggest problem in mid level campaigns where low level spell slots are not at a premium when playing with who lack imagination in terms of combat tactics.


If you are an 8th level party and the DM insists on whacking on your 27AC with attacks it is a problem. At high level it is less of a problem because monsters will blow right through that 27AC. A low levels it is not a problem because there are not enough slots to make it a problem.'

Also you don't need to disengage, if he used shield, he does not have a reaction and you (and every other enemy) are free to just walk around him and beat up on the squishy character in the back.

An even better tactic for the shield problem characters is to walk away without disengaging BEFORE they cast shield, preferably right after their turn. Then if they take an AOO on you turn around and wail them while they do not have a reaction. This really puts their PC in a bind because most high armor + shield spell characters are designed to tank and tie up enemies, by leaving them without taking an AOO you are really bypassing what their build is supposed to do, byb taking an AOO you and everyone later in the initiative order can attack shield spell free.

Good ideas.

And to add insult to injury:
After provoking the AoO, you cast yout own shield and are protected for the rest of your turn.

 

[Sulicius]

I finished a campaign that went to level 20 where 3/4ths of the party had the shield spell, two of which were heavy armor users.

It was such a frustrating spell.

Next campaign? No-one took shield. Way more smooth of a play experience.

Whatever expert DM you might be, shield forces you to adapt so much for such little investment (picking the shield spell and casting it requires no high tactics). I would say that no 1st level spell should be so effective in every combat.

 

[Horwath]

I have one solution to shield:

Duration: 24hrs
+1 AC or +3 AC if you have a hand free(that free hand can be used for spellcasting and using spell focus)
Does not stack with mundane shield bonus to AC.

So it's like mage armor(+1 studded leather), this imitates +1 Shield

 

[Yaarel]

If needing to nerf the Shield spell (granting +5 AC), say it doesnt stack with carrying a shield. Someone with a shield (+2 AC) would only benefit an additional 3 from the spell. Someone carrying a +3 magic shield wouldnt benefit at all.

 

[Yaarel]

Do you have actual example 2024 stat blocks?

 

[TwoSix]

That's actually irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Please don't argue that having a disruptively high AC isn't a problem because the player could have been playing a wizard instead...

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand?

I wasn’t even talking to you. You weren’t even within 50 posts of the post I quoted.