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


log in or register to remove this ad




Clint_L

Hero
This is certainly not my experience. In your higher level games, most attacks don't target AC?
It's math. +5 AC is far more powerful against a level 1 creature that might have +3 to its attack roll as opposed to a level 20 creature that might have +14. Not to mention that at very high levels melee attacks are often not the primary threat.
 

Clint_L

Hero
"One or two attacks"

That just tells me you've either (a) never played the game at all, or (b) never faced anything higher than CR2 where creatures have multiattack.
Really? Is that what it tells you? Does your reply tell me that you've never played with a DM who plays his mobs as smart enough to see that a shield is up and switch their plan of attack? I mean, since those are the only two possibilities that you can think of?

Shield is OP at low levels - I think it should be nerfed. I don't think it breaks the game, which was the claim. Paladins using smite after they crit have had a far bigger impact on far more games than paladins using shield.
 
Last edited:

Paladins using smite after they crit have had a far bigger impact on far kore games than paladins using shield.
IF you crit in the first place, and preferably within the first two rounds of combat where it would actually make a meaningful difference.

Crits only happen 5% of the time. Getting hit within the AC range where Shield will make a difference happens a lot more often than that.
 

"One or two attacks"

That just tells me you've either (a) never played the game at all, or (b) never faced anything higher than CR2 where creatures have multiattack.
Not everything is a blob monster with no brain. There is a chance targets change. Not always, but sometimes.

But let's just say your multi-attack does make a difference from my purely hypothetical, off-the-cusp statement of blocking "one or two attacks." Let's say there were three creatures, each with two attacks, and they used them all on the wizard (for some reason, even when three 6'6 barbarians are trying to cleave them in half and seems impervious to their blows! Let's just say these three non-thinking attackers (we'll say they are CR1 hippogriffins) all used their six attacks on this wizard. Three of those is a pretty easy fight for a second level wizard and his group of second level barbarians, especially with a shield spell that breaks combat mechanics.

So they all attack this wizard with a shield spell that breaks the game's mechanics. +5 to hit against our wizard's 17 AC. Six attacks at +5 going against a 17 AC. Heck, we'll give him a great dex too and make it 18. Six attacks against an 18 AC. There is still a 35% chance each one hits. That is close to a 90% chance this wizard gets hit once for 8-10 damage depending on whether it is beak or claws. There is close to a 50% chance the wizard gets hit twice, which will exceed his hit points.

That is a basic example of where I fail to see this spell breaking the game. There are so many examples I can think of that make this spell good, and useful, and fun, and strong... but not overpowered. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Which was my point - I simply asked for examples of how and when this breaks combat mechanics.

PS - To suggest I am a noob (I'm not. I have played since the Blue Box came out.) might be construed as insulting. But even if I were, why not explain it to the person asking for examples, rather than making them feel bad about not being as "experienced" as you? Wouldn't that be the better of option?
 
Last edited:

But let's just say your multi-attack does make a difference from my purely hypothetical, off-the-cusp statement of blocking "one or two attacks." Let's say there were three creatures, each with two attacks, and they used them all on the wizard
OK but we were talking about Paladins dipping to get Shield. So, nice job shifting the goalposts.

P.S. I don't think Wizards should have access to 18+ AC against multiple attacks in the first place without investing in Lightly and Moderately Armored feats. It just makes them too good at everything, which is a problem with 5e to begin with.
 
Last edited:

S'mon

Legend
It's math. +5 AC is far more powerful against a level 1 creature that might have +3 to its attack roll as opposed to a level 20 creature that might have +14. Not to mention that at very high levels melee attacks are often not the primary threat.

A +14 attack vs AC 20 is very different from a +14 attack with Disadvantage vs AC 30.
IME attacks vs AC remain very common at all levels in 5e, with saving throws getting somewhat more common but never dominant. Generally the PCs are putting out more saving throw attacks than they are receiving, even at Epic-20th (level 20 with Boons). Monster attack bonus goes up to +19, for which AC 30 & Disadvantage remains highly effective.

IMCs I cap AC at 30 and to-hit at +20; very few PCs approach +20* to hit but AC 30 is quite easy to attain.

*PB +7 say from the Ioun Stone, +10 attribute from DMG Epic Boons, +3 weapon gets you to +20. Archery fighting style would get it to +22. Without Epic Boons I think the highest per RAW is girdle of storm giant strength +9, Ioun stone for PB +7, and +3 weapon gives +19, the same as a CR 27-30 monster with +10 attribute & +9 PB.

The most powerful active PC IMCs is an Epic Barbarian-20 with PB+6, STR +10 (base STR 24 for BBn-20, with 3 Boons) and a +2 weapon for total +18. He likes to chug Potions of Speed (ca 20,000gp per potion in the City of Brass) :) before he goes hunting ancient dragons, which raise his AC from 28 to 30.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top