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

[Clint_L]

It's certainly powerful, and we also have to take into account that the new level 1 feats look like they will make it much easier for spell casters to have higher armour classes to begin with, which could make Shield extraordinarily strong in OneD&D.

There's also the fact that it is a level 1 spell, and AC is much more important at low levels.

On the other hand, it's a fun, consequential spell that makes reaction relevant for classes that often have little to do with their reactions, especially at low levels (this obviously changes when counterspell becomes available).

Suggestion: scale the effect. Instead of a flat +5, have it add the caster's proficiency bonus. This makes sense - as spell casters gain proficiency, their shield becomes stronger.

 

[gorice]

Based on extensive actual play at higher levels, I think shield is extremely powerful, especially on characters with good dexterity and/or protective items as well (which they generally do have).

The typical scenario in which it's a problem is when a full caster is out of position and attacked by one powerful enemy, or dogpiled by many smaller ones. Instead of eating a bunch of damage, they instead use shield to greatly reduce damage over the entire round. Basically, casters with shield and a decent AC can't be effectively punished for bad tactical play, at least not with anything that requires an attack roll.

Another effect of this is that I never see anyone cast other first-level spells, since they're always hoarding their shields.

I think keeping the reaction (which is fun) but limiting its effect to a single attack (and maybe also advantage on a saving throw instead?) would make the spell much more reasonable.

 

[tetrasodium]

It's certainly powerful, and we also have to take into account that the new level 1 feats look like they will make it much easier for spell casters to have higher armour classes to begin with, which could make Shield extraordinarily strong in OneD&D.

There's also the fact that it is a level 1 spell, and AC is much more important at low levels.

On the other hand, it's a fun, consequential spell that makes reaction relevant for classes that often have little to do with their reactions, especially at low levels (this obviously changes when counterspell becomes available).

Suggestion: scale the effect. Instead of a flat +5, have it add the caster's proficiency bonus. This makes sense - as spell casters gain proficiency, their shield becomes stronger.

All that would do is return to basically the same problem about the same time the cist of burning a first level slot is basically zero. The spell needs tp be completely reworked

 

[Clint_L]

All that would do is return to basically the same problem about the same time the cist of burning a first level slot is basically zero. The spell needs tp be completely reworked

Well, no, the spell would be effectively nerfed until very high levels. Instead of +5, Shield would only be +2/+3 for the levels that make up the vast majority of gameplay, according to WotC's data. By 13th level, when it would get to +5, it is much less powerful because AC scales poorly with level, and casters will also have some alternate choices to keep in mind, such as keeping that reaction open for a counterspell.

 

[tetrasodium]

Well, no, the spell would be effectively nerfed until very high levels. Instead of +5, Shield would only be +2/+3 for the levels that make up the vast majority of gameplay, according to WotC's data.

+4 at late tier2 (level 9) when burning first level slots is of no meaningful opportunity cost is absolutely the same basic problem because 5e made shield into a reaction spell that lasts till the start of the caster's next turn rather than the proactive 1min/caster level it was in 3.x or proactive 5 rounds/caster level it was in 2e.

 

[Clint_L]

So, it would be +4/ not +5, and you don't get it that strong until a level where AC is significantly less powerful than at level 1. So that's already a nerf. +4 is less than +5. Secondly, the opportunity cost of shield is significantly higher as characters gain levels because reactions become more crucial. Once counterspell (in particular) is available, the main opportunity cost of Shield is using up your reaction, not your spell slot (which is not "meaningless" but certainly less impactful as you level).

I think Shield as it exists in 5e is more interesting than the older versions. I like the concept. I just think it is OP at low levels, when AC is extremely powerful and there aren't many other reactions competing against it.

I get the impression that you prefer those other versions of Shield. I don't. I really like it as a reaction. Players getting to do things on someone else's turn is fun.

Edit: What I mean by AC being less valuable at higher levels is illustrated by what happens when you cast a Shield spell. Take a typical level 1 encounter - say, a goblin. It has +3 on its attack roll, so against shield it has a net -2. A typical mob you might run into at level 9 might be something like an elemental, +8 to hit, so a net +3 against Shield. In other words, Shield already naturally gets less powerful as you level up, even setting aside the fact that using up a reaction on it becomes more problematic as you acquire more options. I think it just starts much too powerful - it makes spell casters all but un-hittable by common low level mobs.

 

[Gadget]

I don't think it's too powerful, but is a tad on the high end of power for first level spells. What if it was moved to a second level spell? I would be tempted to move Blur down to level one in its place; especially since the devs seem to think Invisibility gives you the effects of Blur (plus some) even against someone with See Invisibility up. This does not solve the "Okay at low levels, more powerful at higher levels" issue though.

 

[James Gasik]

I remember when shield was such a rarely used spell that a minor artifact in 1e granted a continuous shield effect and it wasn't overpowered at all, lol (UK2 The Sentinel and UK3 The Gauntlet).

 

[tetrasodium]

So, it would be +4/ not +5, and you don't get it that strong until a level where AC is significantly less powerful than at level 1. So that's already a nerf. +4 is less than +5. Secondly, the opportunity cost of shield is significantly higher as characters gain levels because reactions become more crucial. Once counterspell (in particular) is available, the main opportunity cost of Shield is using up your reaction, not your spell slot (which is not "meaningless" but certainly less impactful as you level).

I think Shield as it exists in 5e is more interesting than the older versions. I like the concept. I just think it is OP at low levels, when AC is extremely powerful and there aren't many other reactions competing against it.

I get the impression that you prefer those other versions of Shield. I don't. I really like it as a reaction. Players getting to do things on someone else's turn is fun.

Edit: What I mean by AC being less valuable at higher levels is illustrated by what happens when you cast a Shield spell. Take a typical level 1 encounter - say, a goblin. It has +3 on its attack roll, so against shield it has a net -2. A typical mob you might run into at level 9 might be something like an elemental, +8 to hit, so a net +3 against Shield. In other words, Shield already naturally gets less powerful as you level up, even setting aside the fact that using up a reaction on it becomes more problematic as you acquire more options. I think it just starts much too powerful - it makes spell casters all but un-hittable by common low level mobs.

No not really because it's AC on demand when your own ac fails & does it at no meaningful cost. Bounded accuracy & monster tohit is tuned so monsters don't hit reliably at all & there's no iterative attack penalties that make some attacks extremely likely to hit.

It wouldn't be a big deal if it went back to 2e or 3.x style because there would be an action cost before the attack it blocks or a ticking clock if it gets cast before the combat. The 5e version uses a reaction, there are very few reactions a player could take & very few of those are things likely to compete with shield making it a no action cost since the reaction is almost certain to go unused anyways.

Spoiler: 2e shield

Shield
(Evocation)

Range: 0 Components: V, S
Duration: 5 rds./level Casting Time: 1
Area of Effect: Special Saving Throw: None

When this spell is cast, an invisible barrier comes into being in
front of the wizard. This shield totally negates magic missile attacks.
It provides the equivalent protection of AC 2 against hand-hurled
missiles (axes, darts, javelins, spears, etc.), AC 3 against small device-
propelled missiles (arrows, bolts, bullets, manticore spikes, sling
stones, etc.), and AC 4 against all other forms of attack. The shield
also adds a +1 bonus to the wizard’s saving throws against attacks
that are basically frontal. Note that these benefits apply only if the
attacks originate from in front of the wizard, where the shield can
move to interpose itself.

Spoiler: 3.5 shield

278

Shield
Abjuration [Force]
Level: Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: 1 min./level (D)



Shield creates an invisible, tower shield-
sized mobile disk of force that hovers in
front of you. It negates magic missile attacks
directed at you. The disk also provides a +4
shield bonus to AC. This bonus applies
against incorporeal touch attacks, since it
is a force effect. The shield has no armor
check penalty or arcane spell failure
chance. Unlike with a normal tower
shield, you can’t use the shield spell for
cover.

Spoiler: 5e shield

S h i e l d
1st-level abjuration
Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take when you are
hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell
Range: Self
Components: V, S
Duration: 1 round
An invisible barrier of m agical 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.

 

[Lycurgon]

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.