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

[CapnZapp]

I honestly don't think it is.

A few posters said it was utterly fine for a wizard with mage armor. Other posters have side it was fine for Eldritch Knights.

It seems the main problem people have with Shield, is when it is part of a highly defensive build that comes online about level 4. And, well, I'm usually not too concerned when "with this specific build they can..." arguments. Yeah, if you combine the right classes, feats and species with shield, you can make a character with very high AC. A level 1 fighter with chain mail, a shield, and defensive can start with 19 AC and that is nearly impossible to hit with monsters that have a +4 to hit. That's the point. That is what the player wanted.

Is it a little frustrating? Sure, a bit. But I play it up just like I play up my frustrations with the Barbarian just not dying or the rogue having a stealth result of 32 when they rolled an 8. The character is doing exactly what the player wanted, and if I truly, desperately needed to cause hp damage to a character with high AC who can use a daily resource to pump it higher temporarily.... Well, I think I can pull that off with minimal difficulty.

Why are you sidestepping the basic fact that if a player can trivially/cheaply attain the "cannot be hit" ability the game works (much) less well.

Why contort yourself around this issue when the simple (and correct) solution is to make it substantially more costly to attain this ability?

GMs should not have to work around a character that can only be hit on a 20. Characters should not be given this ability in the first place.

 

[CapnZapp]

For comparison: In Pathfinder 2, Shield is a cantrip that provides only a +1 bonus to AC. Once cast, it can't be cast again until 10 minutes later.

To be honest, that comparison is, if not outright apples to oranges, at least apples to pineapples.

First, that game cares MUCH more about balance than 5E.

Second, a +1 is more valuable in PF2 than 5E, partly because of how criticals work, partly because of the locked-down nature of that game.

Third, the comparison loses value if the PF2 character simply has access to something else. Meaning that just comparing spells that's named the same has incidental value at best.

Many factors contribute to how a +5 bonus isn't very disruptive in 5E for a cloth wizard, while a +5 bonus is unheard of in PF2, and would throw that game's math totally out of whack.

 

[Stalker0]

I also think the comparison of shield, like so much around spellcasters, comes back to a table average encounters per day.

The party that is dungeon-crawling with 6-8 combats a day, yeah shield is great, but suddenly the caster finds themselves bereft of slots in short order.

But for the 1-2 encounter wilderness exploration party? All shield all the time

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Because part of the fantasy of playing a magical healer is being able to heal people mid-combat. And that option was missing from the most iconic healing spell in the game.

This is a circular thing. You can heal in combat. Its not as good “usually” as killing things in the three to four rounds of combat.

When it is helpful it is clutch and dramatic. It sounds like that does not match your healer fantasy archetype. Ok. Cool.

Different strokes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Then watch some videos from the last 10 years and look up some statistics. DMs buy books.

And you don't think they want to push the players buying books, since there are so many more of them?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because part of the fantasy of playing a magical healer is being able to heal people mid-combat. And that option was missing from the most iconic healing spell in the game.

That's part of the class fantasy?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I honestly don't think it is.

A few posters said it was utterly fine for a wizard with mage armor. Other posters have side it was fine for Eldritch Knights.

It seems the main problem people have with Shield, is when it is part of a highly defensive build that comes online about level 4. And, well, I'm usually not too concerned when "with this specific build they can..." arguments. Yeah, if you combine the right classes, feats and species with shield, you can make a character with very high AC. A level 1 fighter with chain mail, a shield, and defensive can start with 19 AC and that is nearly impossible to hit with monsters that have a +4 to hit. That's the point. That is what the player wanted.

Is it a little frustrating? Sure, a bit. But I play it up just like I play up my frustrations with the Barbarian just not dying or the rogue having a stealth result of 32 when they rolled an 8. The character is doing exactly what the player wanted, and if I truly, desperately needed to cause hp damage to a character with high AC who can use a daily resource to pump it higher temporarily.... Well, I think I can pull that off with minimal difficulty.

It sounds like you're saying that so long as the individual player's happy, that's all that matters to you.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

We have an article now.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1762-4-key-changes-to-spells-in-the-2024-players

 

[Micah Sweet]

I find the theories highly suspicious...
...that because players outnumber GMs they more important (hint: with no GM there's no game)
...that players only care about "winning" or manifesting their awesomeness, and only the GM cares about balance and ability to run the game

Sorry, that's unconvincing.

One of the big concerns with the various online initiatives is that is can reduce the need for a GM ultimately.

And I'm sorry, but most players IME will throw a fit if you try to reduce their power in any way or take away anything they used to be able to do. Sounds like an obsession with winning to me, at least in aggregate.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why are you sidestepping the basic fact that if a player can trivially/cheaply attain the "cannot be hit" ability the game works (much) less well.

Why contort yourself around this issue when the simple (and correct) solution is to make it substantially more costly to attain this ability?

GMs should not have to work around a character that can only be hit on a 20. Characters should not be given this ability in the first place.

But now that they have it, you can't take it away without a huge debacle.