I didn't shift the goalpost. The thread is talking about the spell being overpowered. About it breaking the game's combat mechanics. I think if you read this thread more closely, you will see this discussion.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.
It breaks the game because it gives the Wizard AC against multiple attacks that should be reserved for martial characters. It's just another example of casters ruling over martials and doing martial things better than martials do.I didn't shift the goalpost. The thread is talking about the spell being overpowered. About it breaking the game's combat mechanics. I think if you read this thread more closely, you will see this discussion.
But again, I am asking how it makes them "too good at everything." So the wizard has an 18 AC (or it could be a 17) for less than one round. Please give me an example of an adventuring day where this breaks the game's combat mechanics. Is it good? Yes. Is it useful? Yes. Is it powerful? A bit. Does it break the game? No. If it does, please give me examples.
The Paladin is getting AC 26 with Shield. Simple math: 18 (plate) + 2 (physical shield) + 1 (Defense) + 5 (Shield spell).As for the paladin, it is the same thing. So you lose an entire level of paladinhood in order to gain (in most cases) an AC of around 22-25. For our example, we'll say you take it at fourth level. So you lose an extra attack, you postpone your aura, and you give up extra hit points to get a much better AC for less than four rounds a day. It does nothing to help spell saves. It does nothing to stop foes from changing targets. It does nothing to help your allies. It just makes you really hard to hit for a very limited amount of time. Again, in this example, I really do not see it as breaking the game's combat mechanics.
Yes, I am quite aware of how often critical hits happen, and took that into account. Unlike you, I am not arguing about hypotheticals. Do you care to address the substance of my claim, that paladins using smite on criticals has impacted far more games than paladins using shield spell? Or is it such an obvious truth that all you had left was mentioning some well known facts about how criticals and shield spell work?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.
lolwut? You're relying on something that happens 5% of the time, and within a specified time frame.Yes, I am quite aware of how often critical hits happen, and took that into account. Unlike you, I am not arguing about hypotheticals.
Your claim is false, as proven above. Mathematically so.Do you care to address the substance of my claim, that paladins using smite on criticals has impacted far more games than paladins using shield spell?
Shield has broken every game I've ever played in. See, I can cite anecdotal evidence, too.Or is it such an obvious truth that all you had left was mentioning some well known facts about how criticals and shield spell work?
It doesn’t break the game. It’s OP at low levels, but I have run many hundreds of games and shield spell did not break them. Period.
If the Paladin takes Shield, it's not going to smite with 1st-level slots.A pally using his slots for shield is a pally not using that slot to smite. Pallys run out of slots very fast when they smite, there's no guarantee they have enough slots to use on shield. It's a strong spell, but there are strong spells for most levels. Shield,pass without trace,spirit guardian, and so on. I'm cool with it. Most players dont obsess over this like people on these boards. Im just happy when my player pays enough attention to use the shield spell.
That's my point. The pally can use more than one smite a round for now and that's up to 4 smiles he wont have. That will encourage him to hoard his other sites for big fights. Is it a straight equal exchange, no. But I'm fine with it. That pally had to trade something to get that spell whether it's a feat or a level dip.If the Paladin takes Shield, it's not going to smite with 1st-level slots.
I'm pretty sure you're overestimating here.Shield OTOH affects 25% of all attack rolls against you. That's a much higher frequency of meaningful effect.
If the Paladin takes Shield, it's not going to smite with 1st-level slots.