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

[TheSword]

It shouldn’t be able to raise AC past 20. Shield is balanced when used to protect a magic user or low AC character. When it’s used by a character who already has AC 20+ it makes them immune to the main form of damage for monsters in the game.

Limit the abuse and it’s otherwise fine as is.

 

[gorice]

Personally, I like that shield is a reaction. I hate buffing spells on principle (extra bookeeping in exchange for mushy modifiers), whereas the the reaction feels a lot more dynamic in play.

At high levels, any well-optimised spellcaster build is stacking multiple AC bonuses and can easily afford to spend 1st level slots. This is where I find it problematic.

 

[Clint_L]

No not really because it's AC on demand when your own ac fails & does it at no meaningful cost.

I guess I just totally disagree. To begin with, I do think a spell slot is always a meaningful cost, though obviously the value varies with levels. But more importantly, I think that as soon as counterspell, arguably the most consequential spell in the game (I put it up there with Healing Word), becomes available, a caster's reaction becomes very, very important in a lot of situations.

I agree that shield is much more powerful on a character like an Eldritch Knight, which is why I argue for nerfing it so that it is FAR less powerful at low levels - using proficiency would trade a spell slot + reaction for +2 AC at levels 1-3, for example, which I doubt anyone would find OP.

I don't like the old versions. Then it's just another version of mage armour or barkskin. In general, I think reactions are fun because they add more choices and make combat more dynamic. If you want to make it just another action cast spell, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Shield is never a problem on a low AC Wizard or Sorcerer. It might save them from a some attacks but they are still going to get hit by a reasonable number of attacks.

It becomes overpowered on a AC frontliner because it can easily make them unhittable to all but Crits. An Eldritch Knight or worse a Bladesinger (because of the number of slots they have to throw at it) can become almost untouchable. And if the DM ups the monsters attacks to be able to hit them more often, they they can become too powerful against the other frontliners that don't have shield, hitting them too often.
I have seen this happen, I have seen how an Eldritch Knight using blur and shield when needed is almost impossible to hit. I have been that Bladesinger that rarely gets hit, I am more of a tank than our Paladin. We have had situations when I stood in front and thr paladin hid behind me and used their polearm to attack. I know the DM doesn't want me to up my AC further so I don't even have 20 Int and am not going for it to avoid higher AC. The problem being the difference in AC of the PCs, my Bladesinger is already higher AC while Bladesinging than anyone else in the party before using Shield.

SO the DM is considering banning or modifying it for future games, at least for the high AC character.

I am curious, what ACs are you seeing? and how many encounters per long rest. Because I find I can get hit often enough unless really spend resources but then there will be fights with nothing in the tank. If I conserve resources, then it is a lot more tricky.

Note: I am about to bed so it may be some time before I respond.

 

[Yaarel]

Maybe the Shield spell remains as-is currently, except only works against a single Attack.

At low levels, it is effective. But the caster should still avoid getting ganged up on in melee.

However, at higher level it becomes less effective, because opponents are more likely to have Multiattacks and Extra Attacks. Shield will only be effective against one of the Attacks, because only one Reaction per round is possible.

So, Shield is still a good spell, but less of a game-changer.

 

[Azzy]

I had never heard of anyone take issue with this spell until this thread. I'm going to go with no, it's not too strong.

 

[Peter BOSCO'S]

Careful what you say. The current WotC design team has never met an arbitrary use of the proficiency bonus that they didn't fall madly in love with.

False. They can only fall in love Proficiency Bonus times per day. This means it takes them months to apply Proficiency Bonus to everything.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Wj

You're not going to incapacitate lots of stuff with a single 1st level spell past level 4 or 5 anyway. And anything that spends its turn missing you pretty much wasted its turn, so...

Why does the wizard have to cast a low level spell? Either they go first and cast a level appropriate spell that kills or incapacitates enemies, or they go after the bad guys and burn a 1st level spell to possibly live long enough to cast the spell they were going to anyway.

What has shield done that is so overpowered , let the wizard live an extra turn?

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I am of the opinion that Shield should be balanced against Uncanny Dodge and Defensive Duelist. As it currently is, Shield is by far and away stronger than the other two by virtue of lasting an entire round instead of a single attack. Not even a single turn = monsters will many attacks laugh.

Yes, Shield takes up limited spell slots (on a caster that, by definition, will almost always be in the back row). But you also get it at level 1 instead of 4 (at the earliest) or 5, the time when Shield is no longer cumbersome to use. And, as an opportunity cost, the feat and rogue are giving up more at this level than a level 5 caster is to hold onto Shield.

I also feel the same about Deflect Arrow, but I'm holding out to see what Monks look like first.

Uncanny dodge is way better than shield in my opinion. Shield has a good but not guaranteed chance of stopping one round of attack rolls versus the caster at the cost of a resource and a reaction.

Uncanny Dodge is guaranteed to halve damage from any one source of damage once a round for as many rounds as the rogue would take damage at the cost of a reaction.

 

[Njall]

Wj


Why does the wizard have to cast a low level spell? Either they go first and cast a level appropriate spell that kills or incapacitates enemies, or they go after the bad guys and burn a 1st level spell to possibly live long enough to cast the spell they were going to anyway.

What has shield done that is so overpowered , let the wizard live an extra turn?

It's a reaction.
It's not competing with other spells.
You can cast that other, level-appropriate spell with your regular action, incapacitate one opponent and then make yourself virtually unhittable by anything still standing for the rest of the round by casting shield (especially at higher levels, when low-level spells you can cast with your action aren't that useful anymore).
Or you can spam it on top of damaging spells when dealing with something you can't incapacitate (such as monsters with LR).

I don't really get why you seem to be comparing shield to high level spells, it can be cast on top of those (and is functionally a stun for anything that wastes your turn missing you).
It's a first level spell that doesn't require much commitment (as it can be cast out-of-turn, and only if something actually attacks you), lasts until the start of your next turn and provides a very significant bonus to AC even at high levels.

What it does that is so overpowered is, potentially, saving the wizard (or really, just about any class and subclass that can cast it... like, just to name a few, Bladesingers with their already insane AC, Valor bards medium armor+ shield, Eldritch Knights in plate armor+shield) a huge amount of damage for a trivial cost (a 1st level spell).
And yeah, in a game where combat is based on attrition, "fight (rather than "live") an extra turn" is kind of a big deal.