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

[FrogReaver]

I mean, doesn't that factor in, in a major way?

It's alot more nuanced than that.

As one example. A factor like the DM hiding rolls is typically all or nothing. It doesn't really matter how often that occurs in the general sense, it matters whether it occurred for your game.

To me, a spell that is extremely powerful in an ultra-niche situation, is not a "strong" spell, and indeed, if we look at how people talk about this, that seems to hold true. Niche or rarely-useful spells are not held up as "strong" spells except by eccentrics who tend to get laughed off the stage. Whereas a spell that's very often useful seems to me to be one that is, in reality, more likely to be "strong".

Similar to above, the problem as I see it is that what ends up being ultra-niche in one campaign may be common in another.

How spells actually get evaluated is important. Since the events of a campaign are not typically known beforehand, a player's evaluation of what is good is based on his experiences of how strong a spell was when used in various past situations coupled with observed frequencies of those situations and this coaleses into his Platonic Ideal of a D&D campaign by which he evaluates a spells power. Where you most often see disagreements about strength of D&D spells is usually related to where two players Ideal D&D campaigns diverge. It can also have to do with what they are quantifying.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Similar to above, the problem as I see it is that what ends up being ultra-niche in one campaign may be common in another.

I think at some point one has to accept there is a norm, or it is literally impossible to balance anything.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes. As I said in a previous post, I have extensive experience running the game at high levels (10-15, with 3-4 full casters, no less), and shield becomes very powerful when combined with good dex + AC-boosting items or abilities. It's not game-breaking, but it is noticeable, especially in situations where you can't apply continuous resource pressure (which, at that level, is most of them). If I go with mostly AC-targeting enemies, the PCs waltz through unharmed. If I go with mostly attribute-targeting enemies, the martial players might feel like their armour is pointless. Grappling attacks work, but you can't make every fight a wrestling match.

I think you are misdiagnosing the problem.

IMO, if your PC's are waltzing through unharmed with shield, it's also extremely unlikely they would be challenged simply by not using shield. They might lose a little more hp, but not enough to truly challenge them. As you aptly pointed out the reason they waltz through unharmed is because you can't or don't apply continuous resource pressure - which is fine, but not really a shield issue.

I think limiting shield's effect to a single attack, rather than all attacks in a round, would stop it from scaling so well at higher levels.

Not by much. You do face more attacks at higher levels - but shield still often only stops 1 attack per round that it's used. Note: I'm not actually against this change. It's more that I think if one perceives shield as an issue then this likely doesn't go far enough.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think at some point one has to accept there is a norm, or it is literally impossible to balance anything.

Perhaps what you call balance isn't what I would call balance.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Perhaps what you call balance isn't what I would call balance.

Ummmm perhaps but what I'm calling balance is pretty much what, y'know Jeremy Crawford calls balance.

 

[FrogReaver]

Ummmm perhaps but what I'm calling balance is pretty much what, y'know Jeremy Crawford calls balance.

Haven’t seen what he says on it.

 

[gorice]

I think you are misdiagnosing the problem.

IMO, if your PC's are waltzing through unharmed with shield, it's also extremely unlikely they would be challenged simply by not using shield. They might lose a little more hp, but not enough to truly challenge them. As you aptly pointed out the reason they waltz through unharmed is because you can't or don't apply continuous resource pressure - which is fine, but not really a shield issue.

That isn't my experience. PCs do not waltz through all fights unharmed, and I am absolutely able to apply resource pressure -- it just doesn't happen continuously in every case, which exacerbates the effectiveness of casters in general.

My party is at level 15. They have access to the kinds of magic items you would expect them to have at that level. The characters in my game who have access to shield have an AC of 15 (poorly-optimised single class), 18 (well-optimised single class), and 22 (multiclass). They generally face enemies with an attack bonus of +7 (minion, CR ~6) to +15 (CR >20), with +11 (normal for CR 15 or for a standard GMM leveled enemy) being the most common. I use both official enemies and those made with Giffyglyph's much more accurate and powerful Monster Maker.

A +7 bonus hits AC 15/18/22 exactly 65/50/30% of the time. With shield, this becomes 50/25/5%.

With a +11, this becomes 85/70/50% without shield, or 60/45/25% with.

At the rare and extreme +15, it's 100/85/70% without, or 80/65/45% with.

I don't think shield is a problem with the 15 AC character; it's clearly too powerful on AC 22 (not hard to do, with plate + a shield + 1-2 magic items). On AC 18, it is observably very strong.

Not by much. You do face more attacks at higher levels - but shield still often only stops 1 attack per round that it's used. Note: I'm not actually against this change. It's more that I think if one perceives shield as an issue then this likely doesn't go far enough.

This is incorrect:

An invisible barrier of magical force appears and protects you. Until the start of your next turn, you have a +5 bonus to AC, including against the triggering attack, and you take no damage from magic missile.

As an aside:

Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take when you are hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell

This means that shield only needs to be cast in those situations when a character has actually been threatened, then hit, and then the player has decided that they don't want to take damage. Whether or not damage is rolled first is not particularly important, since you generally know whether a monster is going to hit hard or not, and whether your health is low.

As I said before: it's not game-breaking. Like most things in 5e, it's poorly designed but can be finessed with a bit of work.

 

[mellored]

It's a bit OP because it scales. A level 1 spell slot negating a 20th level attack.

So, IMO.

Shield: reaction, when you are about to take damage.
Reduces any non-psychic damage taken by 5 modifier until the start of your next turn. If this reduces the damage to 0, you are not hit.
At higher level: increase the damage reduction by 5 for each slot above this.

Actually makes it more useful for wizards who might still be hit even with a +5 AC. And still not a bad level 1 spell at higher levels. But it puts it closer to healing word.
Also still completely negates even a level 9 magic missile.

 

[Blue]

It's not too strong. It seems like it is because the effect is obvious and easy to quantify while the cost is not.

What is the cost of the slot over the day? What is the cost of the Reaction at this point? I've pulled out Shield and then wished I'd had my reaction for Absorb Elements or Counterspell.

The real issue with spell slot attrition costs is that the designer calibrated for 5+ combat encounters a day, and with most DMs running fewer than that on average the cost of the resource expenditure is artificially lessened. If you never need an extra 1st level slot, it doesn't matter if you have four or zero. So we rarely hit the cost because the designers messed up in designing another part of the game.

 

[ECMO3]

The only direct evidence I have heard about banning shield is that Treantmonk banned Shield because he was tired of seeing the same builds over and over again to exploit shield. That was after allowing for years. In that video he did not think it a general problem but wanted to a particular group of players to consider different approaches to character creation.

So I get this, but I do not think it is a widespread problem, I think it is unique to his playing group. In the last year I have played in 16 different games with 9 different DMs and I can't say I have seen this over and over.

I play in a lot of games and I don't use shield spell over and over. While it is on most of my casters it is not ubiquotous. There is one guy I play with who always plays an Artificer-Wizard and he always has shield .... but I don't see that as bad that is what he likes . ..... just like every time I play a Ranger it is a Fey Wanderer with Goodberry and cause fear.