Duration of Shield spell - too long?

[Grayhawk]

I'm in the process of finetuning certain spells for an upcomming campaign, and seem to remember some saying they felt Shield was too good as a 1st level, with it's current duration of 1 min/level.

Do you think that a duration of 1 round/level is more appropriate?

And if so, would it still be a usable spell at low levels?

(Or should it be something like 2 +1 round/level?)

With it's high bonus to AC, I like the idea of it being something you put up during a fight (and with a short duration, maybe giving you enough time to escape, chug a potion, etc) instead of something you buff yourself with in advance.

What do you think?

 

[Nine Hands]

By making the spell 1 round per level, no 1st level character will ever cast it. Heck until 3rd or 4th level, the spell just does not last long enough to be of any use.

My issue with the spell is that the AC bonus is too high, the whole cover bonus crap, and the placement of the shield.

Also its invisible, which makes it harder for the enemy to know where its placed to get around it.

 

[DanMcS]

The d20 modern version give a +4 cover bonus to AC, and is omnidirectional. I think the duration is the same, but you could check the modern SRD to be sure. This is probably what will be used in 3.5 as well.

What is the problem with it being a cover bonus?

 

[Aaron2]

From what I understand, the 3.5 shield is the same as the d20 modern one. +4 cover bonus to AC, no placement.


Aaron

 

[Spatzimaus]

Actually, I thought they were going to switch Shield's type, too, to act as a Shield bonus (they wanted to separate the two types of Armor AC), so that it wouldn't stack with a mundane shield. But yes, 4 AC to all.

As for the 3E shield, note that it was changed in the FAQ to only give Cover AC, NOT actual Cover. It doesn't block AoOs or give a bonus to Reflex saves any more, even though that directly contradicts what the spell says.

 

[Grayhawk]

So, if you go with the 3e version of Shield (as described by the FAQ), what would be a balanced duration?

I can imagine several situations here a +7 cover bonus to AC is worth a spell, even if it's only for a few rounds at lower levels.

But is 1 round/ level too harsh?

How else would you do it? (If, in fact, you too think that 1 min/level is too much.)

 

[Nine Hands]

The d20 modern version give a +4 cover bonus to AC, and is omnidirectional. I think the duration is the same, but you could check the modern SRD to be sure. This is probably what will be used in 3.5 as well.

What is the problem with it being a cover bonus?

Because it caused confusion. If its cover, then people can't make Attacks of Opportunity against me. Etc. Calling it a cover bonus is an understandable idea, it just caused confusion with newer players.

 

[Nine Hands]

So, if you go with the 3e version of Shield (as described by the FAQ), what would be a balanced duration?

I can imagine several situations here a +7 cover bonus to AC is worth a spell, even if it's only for a few rounds at lower levels.

But is 1 round/ level too harsh?

How else would you do it? (If, in fact, you too think that 1 min/level is too much.)

1 round per level makes the spell useless for a 1st level caster. There are other ways to balance the spell, make it a 2nd level spell and make the duration 1 rd/level.