D&D (2024) Is Shield to strong of a spell? Should and how would it be changed for OneD&D?

[Kobold Avenger]

In a lot of peoples mind Shield is quite strong, and that monsters that could cast Shield were also considered for potentially having a higher CR. The +5 AC bonus for until the next turn does it make it really good for those who want to "Tank", and it doesn't even use concentration because it's a reaction spell. Obviously better for someone with already high AC like an Eldritch Knight or any caster that already has Medium Armor with a Dex of 14+ holding a shield (equipment).

So with Shield being that must have spell for those situations, is it too strong that it might get nerfed in OneD&D? How would it get nerfed?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

yes and no... with bounded accuracy it is basicly 'negate a hit' the problem is the resource it eats up... at 1st level it is 1/3 the casters spell slots, at 20th it is not even noticeable... but at every level it is useful.
if it were 4th level spell people would consider casting it. if it was a 3rd level spell people would weigh it against fireball and counter spell and still see it played...

 

[tetrasodium]

In a lot of peoples mind Shield is quite strong, and that monsters that could cast Shield were also considered for potentially having a higher CR. The +5 AC bonus for until the next turn does it make it really good for those who want to "Tank", and it doesn't even use concentration because it's a reaction spell. Obviously better for someone with already high AC like an Eldritch Knight or any caster that already has Medium Armor with a Dex of 14+ holding a shield (equipment).

So with Shield being that must have spell for those situations, is it too strong that it might get nerfed in OneD&D? How would it get nerfed?

Make it treat any shield like an animated shield that doesn't require hands for 8 hours & nothing else. If it needs to be better it could give half the AC bonus for a non-proficient self targeting caster or allow upcasting to let it to be used on others like a two handed weapon wielding raging barbarian sporting a floating tower shield

edit: in the past it was a preemptive cast spell & the target might choose to attack someone else, making it reaction to getting hit gives it much higher value & the big bonuses are no longer justified for a low level slot

 

[Arilyn]

It's a good spell. I don't think it's too strong. It'll probably negate one attack and then it's done. Magic should feel like it's actually doing something amazing, after all, but as a limited resource.

 

[tetrasodium]

It's a good spell. I don't think it's too strong. It'll probably negate one attack and then it's done. Magic should feel like it's actually doing something amazing, after all, but as a limited resource.

It's not one attack, it's all attacks till the start of the caster's next turn. Given the low odds of monsters hitting & flat multi-attack bonuses imposed by bounded accuracy the shield spell tends to be much closer to all attacks for that duration.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It's not one attack, it's all attacks till the start of the caster's next turn. Given the low odds of monsters hitting & flat multi-attack bonuses imposed by bounded accuracy the shield spell tends to be much closer to all attacks for that duration.

yeah too often I see wizard back line and our front line have LESS then a 5pt spread of AC, meaning the round of shield the backline wizard is harder to hit then the front line tank.

I have seen front line tanks use shield to go from a 21 or 22 to a 'you need a 20' AC

 

[James Gasik]

I'm an outlier, I know, but I've never prepared or cast shield. In all the time I played 5e, I found that, as a spellcaster, there are other, better ways to deter enemies from attacking you, like careful positioning, not moving to the front line of combat, use of terrain and cover, and of course, control spells. Also, barring a critical hit, which the spell does nothing against, a single attack is rarely the end of the world.

The best use of shield, then, is to defend against a multiattack or multiple foes swarming you; and guess what, you're still going to be in that situation next turn, so shield isn't really all that useful to me by itself.

Most players who take shield seem to take great delight in being able to go "haha, no, you missed me!" to the DM (and most DM's who hate the spell are ones who are easily vexed by such antics, rather than taking the long view and realizing they have many more attacks to make against the PC's to come).

I would rather use a proactive defense spell with a duration than a one-shot spell that is only very likely to protect me from harm for a single turn. Heck, I think imposing disadvantage to an enemy attacker is better than a +5, since it makes it far less likely that you're suffer a critical hit (some monsters throw a truly insane amount of dice at you with their critical attacks!).

Another issue is that AC isn't exactly hard to get in 5e. Just about anyone can figure out how to get a 17+ AC, and most monsters don't have great chances to hit, as a consequence of bounded accuracy. So the actual benefit of shield could very well be superfluous; sure, you can negate that freak outlier high roll, but you could easily build your character in such a way that the rest of the attacks you take that turn would probably miss anyways, especially once you get access to better defense spells like blur. Heck, I'd argue that silvery barbs is better than shield for that purpose, and the spell is much more versatile, since the only other thing shield can do is protect you from magic missile- and how often does that come up?

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Its too strong, because it makes most weapon and spell attacks miss for 1 round, at a (eventually) minimal cost over an adventuring day.

To balance things out, I'd make it use a Bonus Action, so its still powerful, but you must use it preventively, not just in case your are attacked.

or make it different than a boring AC buff:

Shield
Duration: 1 Minute
No attack roll has advantage against you and you take no damage from magic missile for the duration of the spell.

 

[Arilyn]

It's not one attack, it's all attacks till the start of the caster's next turn. Given the low odds of monsters hitting & flat multi-attack bonuses imposed by bounded accuracy the shield spell tends to be much closer to all attacks for that duration.

It's still only 1 round. If I'm casting Shield, I do want to be pretty unhittable for that round, otherwise it wouldn't be a particularly interesting spell.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I've never felt shield was all that great in 5e. Sure you can be super defensive for a round, but then the next round the enemies are still there and now you are one spell down.

A better use of a spell is to prevent the attack in the first place by killing the enemy or keeping the from attacking you entirely.