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

[UngainlyTitan]

You call them wrinkled, I call them stacking effects that exacerbate what is already a problem.

The difference between counterspell and shield is that shield works every time, every combat… just as planned

Whereas counterspell is only useful in the 20% of fights that contain a spellcaster and at higher levels requires guessing the level of spell cast. Get that guess too low and there’s only a chance it will work. Guess too high and you’ve just wasted a higher level slot.

I think I have said my piece and there is little point continuing this much more. There is an issue with these types of discussions that the specific ways different groups of players tackle combat encounter and build characters and the ways this interacts with DM styles and encounter building makes the number of variables. Plus we clearly have different view on very strong and overpowered.

 

[tetrasodium]

The answer there is not to let paladins have it, not to ban or nerf shield.

Pallylock with a single level of hexblaxe can cast it. Likewise with a single level of sorcerer or taking magic initiate & probability more options. It's not like getting shield on a Paladin is an involved pun pun type hurdle.

A level of wizard will work too but is probably the most costly option for nearly any pc because of the need to not dumostat intelligence while giving up the front loaded boons those other options give anyone not playing an artificer

The solution is not to restructure anything in the entire ruleset that can create problems like that on around preserving the problematic ability as written. The solution is to rethink & rebuild that one ability. In the process of rebuilding & rethinking it they can fix these kinds of problems and make something new that is more exciting for players than the current self only nosell that has no possibility of reciprocity.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Pallylock with a single level of hexblaxe can cast it. Likewise with a single level of sorcerer or taking magic initiate & probability more options. It's not like getting shield on a Paladin is an involved pun pun type hurdle.

A level of wizard will work too but is probably the most costly option for nearly any pc because of the need to not dumostat intelligence while giving up the front loaded boons those other options give anyone not playing an artificer

The solution is not to restructure anything in the entire ruleset that can create problems like that on around preserving the problematic ability as written. The solution is to rethink & rebuild that one ability. In the process of rebuilding & rethinking it they can fix these kinds of problems and make something new that is more exciting for players than the current self only nosell that has no possibility of reciprocity.

You see my initial reaction to a situation like this, is that I do not have an issue with a player trying this out for a campaign but if all players or one player over many campaigns was creating the same build to exploit shield as a paladin then I would have a discussion about it, depending on how that went I might or might not ban it.
If someone came up with a suitable replacement, I might also consider that, but I have not had an issue with it and do not want it banned or even severely nerfed.

 

[Staffan]

If they hit you 30% of the time, that's a roll of 15 or higher to hit. If you use Shield, that becomes a 20 to hit. It doesn't matter how many attacks they make, only successful ones matter - and you just dropped their successful attacks to one-fifth of what they would've otherwise been.

I was looking more at the slot expenditure. Unless your AC is exceptionally high, one attack in four will be one where shield would make a difference. So a multi-attacking creature will eat about one spell per two rounds.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

You're entitled to your opinion and I'm not going to argue that even if I disagree with it. That said, aren't you being a little lopsided in your portrayal here?

You make a point that Shield costs a resource and a reaction. Fair enough. But you avoid saying that Uncanny Dodge also costs a reaction, hinting as if its not a concern for that ability even as it is for Shield. The net difference is that Shield costs a low level resource. Limited resources versus spamming for free is a good point to make, though its a debatable one, given the nature of spellcasting versus martial endurance and the length of adventurer workdays.

Shield is not quite predicated on chance. You do get to activate the ability when you know it will absolutely negate an attack, so its not like you're wasting resources, which is an important point to make, even if its not one you mean to. With the potential for further negation.

You also don't mention that complete negation of an attack is worth two Uncanny Dodges. If we assume 50% chance of hitting (someone else can run real numbers from MM), reducing that by half again with Shield means that, for every two attacks that would land on the rogue, Shield blocking one of them on the mage. So, its evening out before we factor in the round long defense versus single attack-ness. Over the course of the battle, Shield at least equals UD in terms of damage negated.

Uncanny dodge does not halve damage from any one source for a round. It halves the damage from a single attack - that damage source can make more than one attack and stack more damage on that Uncanny Dodge has zero effect on. It also doesn't work against spells without attack rolls or traps. I'm not saying the others like Shield do, but that you're being inaccurate in your portrayal here. As you grow in level, multiattacks grow to be bigger and bigger concerns, so you're going to be hit by more attacks from a single source instead of a powerful single attack. So, the value of halving a singular attack decreases as you grow higher and higher in level when you face more and more multiasttacks, whereas Shield's round long defense actively grows in value. Granted, most games end before it becomes majorly noticable, but still.

Note: I literally said (typed I guess) in my last sentence for Uncanny dodge it costs a reaction.

But overall all I am going to reiterate is that your use cases for shield being overpowered are use cases that are rare at my table.

We never play at levels higher than early teens.

Wizards rarely get attacked by attack rolls. They are usually behind the line at low levels and flying out of reach at higher ones. Rogues also get rarely attacked as they are hiding.

When wizards do get attacked it's rarely by an entire enmy side it's one combatant. Enemies usually pair off against the available opponents they can reach.

My table doesn't frequently build optimized characters like paladins with level dips to bend the system to the pint of breaking. ACs in the 20s are temporary and rare.

So if you want to call shield broken I can't agree because shield is rarely used at my table. It doesn't cause a disruption in the game when it's used. It's not even a must take spell when available.

 

[TheSword]

Note: I literally said (typed I guess) in my last sentence for Uncanny dodge it costs a reaction.

But overall all I am going to reiterate is that your use cases for shield being overpowered are use cases that are rare at my table.

We never play at levels higher than early teens.

Wizards rarely get attacked by attack rolls. They are usually behind the line at low levels and flying out of reach at higher ones. Rogues also get rarely attacked as they are hiding.

When wizards do get attacked it's rarely by an entire enmy side it's one combatant. Enemies usually pair off against the available opponents they can reach.

My table doesn't frequently build optimized characters like paladins with level dips to bend the system to the pint of breaking. ACs in the 20s are temporary and rare.

So if you want to call shield broken I can't agree because shield is rarely used at my table. It doesn't cause a disruption in the game when it's used. It's not even a must take spell when available.

Arcane casters can use it at without any shenanigans. That includes Bards, Sorcerers, Warlocks, Wizards, Eldritch Knights, Bladesingers etc.

Multiclassing is hardly bending the system to breaking, it’s a normal and well used part of the game. Multiclassing a combat class with a spellcasting class is also pretty normal.

Magic Initiate gives everyone a 1st level slot that can also be added to the spell list for all slots. With 5.5 that feat only becomes easier to obtain,

You might not have seen it in play, but believe me it’s out there and it’s coming for your monsters!

I’d be happy with one of the following:

• Limiting the max AC to 20
• Making it not stack with armour
• Used in cases when the monster has hit but you don’t know by how much. So there is some risk to using it. Or changed to be used before the attack roll.

 

[tetrasodium]

You see my initial reaction to a situation like this, is that I do not have an issue with a player trying this out for a campaign but if all players or one player over many campaigns was creating the same build to exploit shield as a paladin then I would have a discussion about it, depending on how that went I might or might not ban it.
If someone came up with a suitable replacement, I might also consider that, but I have not had an issue with it and do not want it banned or even severely nerfed.

I think you are overlooking how & why paladin came up. Paladin with shield wasn't brought up earlier in #61 because it was an edge case of extreme CharOp where shield becomes a problem, just one example of a cherry on top of the problem exhibited in the many problems reaction shield causes.


It seems like you are just tossing out 5e's favorite "let the GM handle it" universal solution in the quoted post. If that's the case then how do you justify expecting the problematic 5e changes to a previously utterly mundane spell taking precedence over 5.5/6e fixing it to the point that a GM should be expected to trial by fire each of the ways it becomes unreasonable "over many campaigns" & then reactively using the bully pulpit of being the GM to rework PC builds or perhaps not make that same build the next campaign. A spell that is so badly designed in the current 2014 rules needing to rely on "You are the gm, you fix it" type workarounds shines a spotlight with see it from space intensity on a problem that 5.5/6e needs to fix with a rebuild or reversion of the spell.

 

[Mephista]

Note: I literally said (typed I guess) in my last sentence for Uncanny dodge it costs a reaction.

But overall all I am going to reiterate is that your use cases for shield being overpowered are use cases that are rare at my table.

We never play at levels higher than early teens.

Wizards rarely get attacked by attack rolls. They are usually behind the line at low levels and flying out of reach at higher ones. Rogues also get rarely attacked as they are hiding.

When wizards do get attacked it's rarely by an entire enmy side it's one combatant. Enemies usually pair off against the available opponents they can reach.

My table doesn't frequently build optimized characters like paladins with level dips to bend the system to the pint of breaking. ACs in the 20s are temporary and rare.

So if you want to call shield broken I can't agree because shield is rarely used at my table. It doesn't cause a disruption in the game when it's used. It's not even a must take spell when available.

Fun fact- I never called Shield broken. I just said that I want it balanced with the martial features and the DD feat. I made no cases about in game or white room scenarios. Either you are confusing me with others or assuming things about me.


I mean you're also kinda contradicting yourself. Either UD is better than shield because it doesn't cost a spell slot (ergo balanced), or it never comes up in play so it doesn't matter. If it's the latter, why care? Doesn't impact your games at all.

Your subjective experiences do not negate others problematic experiences.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I think you are overlooking how & why paladin came up. Paladin with shield wasn't brought up earlier in #61 because it was an edge case of extreme CharOp where shield becomes a problem, just one example of a cherry on top of the problem exhibited in the many problems reaction shield causes.


It seems like you are just tossing out 5e's favorite "let the GM handle it" universal solution in the quoted post. If that's the case then how do you justify expecting the problematic 5e changes to a previously utterly mundane spell taking precedence over 5.5/6e fixing it to the point that a GM should be expected to trial by fire each of the ways it becomes unreasonable "over many campaigns" & then reactively using the bully pulpit of being the GM to rework PC builds or perhaps not make that same build the next campaign. A spell that is so badly designed in the current 2014 rules needing to rely on "You are the gm, you fix it" type workarounds shines a spotlight with see it from space intensity on a problem that 5.5/6e needs to fix with a rebuild or reversion of the spell.

Because I genuine do not think that it is that big of a problem and I really like the reaction shield. Are you proposing an alternative? or just banning it?

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

• Making it not stack with armour

Dare I say it?....Maybe go with the old Barkskin rules which sets the AC to 16?

As a Reaction, Shield sets your AC to 16 and makes your immune to magic missile until the start of your next turn.