D&D 5E (2014) A Shield spell that Scales

[nevin]

For spontaneous casters maybe allow them to burn extra spell points to get higher damage or effects.
say when your burning hands maxes at 4 d you can burn another 1st level spell worth of energy to get 2 or 3 more dice?

 

[nevin]

so I'd think the shield spell would then just get more + at higher levels. Say +5, as a 5th level spell +8, 6th +10, 7th +12, 8 +14, 9 +16.

Now +16 is really high but your giving up a 9th level spell slot to cast it and it still only lasts 1rd.

 

[NotAYakk]

Question: Have you found this to be an issue in actual play, or is this just a concern about future play?

Yes, in actual play, I have seen modestly optimized AC gishes become unhittable, and seen DMs boost monster ATK values in later encounters to compensate, making lower AC characters become auto-hit and modest AC characters almost always get hit.

That was describing actual play experience.

I have seen people, including in this thread, advise people DMs to do exactly that (boost monster ATK until the high-AC character is hittable). So this isn't an aberration. I have seen DMs say they do just that.

Hell, AC-arms-race is something I've seen in most versions of D&D I have played! It doesn't happen in every game of each edition I've played, but it happens.

When someone finds a way to have AC so high that even tough monsters miss, magically the monsters to-hit abilities scale in return. And AC stops being "monsters hurt you less" and instead becomes "monsters hurt your allies more". 5e has the distinction that they addressed this issue head on -- that is one of the components of "bounded accuracy" -- and they did a pretty good job, so much so that I suspect fixing just the shield spell might be enough to make the problem go away.

It is very confusing to me that this common problem in D&D is being met with incredulity, as if "what, how could that ever happen?!".

 

[ph0rk]

Shield doesn’t need to scale, that’s why it is good.

 

[Ashrym]

I disagree that shield breaks bounded accuracy. +3 items are not readily available. Even with an artificer who hands out +1 infusions.

Bounded accuracy shows a DC 30 is meant to be nearly impossible so the description given in this thread would be the expectation. That level of AC does not break bounded accuracy; it illustrates what that looks like.

When fighting large numbers against whom the shield is blocking so many attacks the attackers outlast the 1st level spell slots. Those builds relying on the shield spell can easily burn through those slots in a single encounter, let alone 6 encounters in a day.

The hex blade example might be loaded out with rare magic items the DM Monty Hauled and short rest after every single encounter and use every slot up on shield during every single encounter? Nothing else with those pact magic slots? I think not. ;-)

1st-level spell slots do get used for other things. Often it's utility but there are other spells that increase in value just because DC saving throw goes up, like Tasha's hideous laughter, and absorb elements is direct competition.

The AC bonus is admittedly a bit large, but it essentially makes attacks against the character one DC category higher if we're looking at it in the bounded accuracy math.

 

[ph0rk]

The AC bonus is admittedly a bit large, but it essentially makes attacks against the character one DC category higher if we're looking at it in the bounded accuracy math.

And crits still do what it is that crits do.

 

[D1Tremere]

I think the issue with this topic is the idea that there is a problem that needs fixing, and that x is the best way to fix it.

I'm not sure if there is a problem to fix in general, as most people play with human beings who are there to enjoy a game and not some sort of competitive robot that ignores any issues which the DM may have with their play style. Even then, I just do not think that a character sacrificing spell slots, multi-classing, stacking defensive items (essentially doing nothing but turning themselves into a tank with little or no ability to get sticky) is really a danger of ruining the game over all.

So that brings us to the possibility that this is a specific problem to some games or environments. That is a possibility, but changing the spell or rules may not be the best way to fix it. A DM adapting the way they challenge those particular players may be a better solution than adding house ruled versions of spells or other mechanical fixes. I'm obviously not telling anyone what they can discuss, or what they should do in their games, I am just not convinced that this is an issue that needs this kind of fix personally.

 

[MikalC]

What is “things that aren’t needed in Dungeons in Dragons?”

 

[Mistwell]

Yes, in actual play, I have seen modestly optimized AC gishes become unhittable, and seen DMs boost monster ATK values in later encounters to compensate, making lower AC characters become auto-hit and modest AC characters almost always get hit.

That was describing actual play experience.

I have seen people, including in this thread, advise people DMs to do exactly that (boost monster ATK until the high-AC character is hittable). So this isn't an aberration. I have seen DMs say they do just that.

Hell, AC-arms-race is something I've seen in most versions of D&D I have played! It doesn't happen in every game of each edition I've played, but it happens.

When someone finds a way to have AC so high that even tough monsters miss, magically the monsters to-hit abilities scale in return. And AC stops being "monsters hurt you less" and instead becomes "monsters hurt your allies more". 5e has the distinction that they addressed this issue head on -- that is one of the components of "bounded accuracy" -- and they did a pretty good job, so much so that I suspect fixing just the shield spell might be enough to make the problem go away.

It is very confusing to me that this common problem in D&D is being met with incredulity, as if "what, how could that ever happen?!".

OK I gotcha now.

For me I would just max out the AC you can get with the Shield spell at 25. But I can see if you don't want to do that, then your solution of just applying to one attack seems right. To scale, just let it apply to one more attack for each 2 levels above 1? So applies to 2 attacks for a 3rd level slot, 3 attacks for 5th level slot, 4 attacks for a 7th level slot, and 5 attacks for a 9th level slot?

 

[NotAYakk]

OK I gotcha now.

For me I would just max out the AC you can get with the Shield spell at 25. But I can see if you don't want to do that, then your solution of just applying to one attack seems right. To scale, just let it apply to one more attack for each 2 levels above 1? So applies to 2 attacks for a 3rd level slot, 3 attacks for 5th level slot, 4 attacks for a 7th level slot, and 5 attacks for a 9th level slot?

Yes.

Now, one of the rules of 5e is you want to make wording less annoying.

Wording it so that the spell only works on the triggering attack at level 1, but gets an extra attack for each higher level, makes the "at higher level" wording awkward.

At the same time, I don't want the cloth-casters to be significantly worse off than they where before either.

...

I'll try wording it:

An invisible barrier of magical force appears and protects you from attacks and magic missiles.

While this barrier is active you gain a +5 bonus to AC, have resistance against damage from all attacks, and are immune to damage from magic missile.

The barrier lasts until the triggering attack, or magic missile spell, finishes.

At higher levels: For every spell slot level higher than 1st used, the barrier lasts for up to one additional attack or cast of magic missile that targets you, or until the start of your next turn, whichever comes first.

I guess that isn't too bad wording wise. I was worried adding extra "stacks" would make at-higher levels suck. But it doesn't seem to.

Now the 1st level shield works against 1 attack or a magic missile spell. At higher levels it soaks up to 1 additional attack.

Getting resistance against the attack if it hits is added to make for it not working on more than 1 attack as a 1st level slot; while the times you'd cast it when it would make the attack miss are now not-as-good, the extra opportunity to use it to half-soak a critical hit makes it as good on average on a fragile cloth caster.

Attacks after the first you can't know if they'd have missed. This version soaks more damage per later attack than the original one does, it just doesn't last against as many attacks (even when upcast). This fits my goal of encouraging upcasting shield (making the spell scale with higher level slots).

This looks like a better spell overall for a non-AC optimizing spellcaster (a "cloth caster"), and for a (non-dip) hexblade warlock (their free higher slot levels are used; and a 5th level shield spell is now +5 AC for 5 attacks and resistance if it hits, better than a 1st level shield usually). It is a worse spell for a high-AC tank, but still good.

It also has a good "fiction feel"; the wizard who shoots up a defensive barrier, which is smashed through by the dragon, and the wizard gets hurt (but just less than they would without the barrier).