Is the shield spell too powerful?

[der_kluge]

Just like the subject says - is the shield spell too powerful?

I mean, it absorbs magic missiles, and grants a +7 bonus to AC (which stacks with armor and/or mage armor). That seems a little much for a 1st level spell.

Anyone else think so?

 

[Ravellion]

Sort of. It just doesn't seem to broken. I just hate it when used by Bladesinger's/Duelists to get even more AC, so that equal level fighters can hardly hit them - for straight wizards I don't think there is much of a problem.

Because I am playing a PbP currently however, I chose to use the D20 Modern version, which grants +4 AC all around - less bookkeeping, and perhaps slightly less powerful.

Rav

 

[Crothian]

Yes it is. Makes a good second level spell though.

 

[Dr. Zoom]

As written, it grants 3/4 cover, which blocks all AoO's, too. I believe this version is too powerful. The FAQ says just a +7 cover bonus to AC along with the MM defense, which is a good fix. I don't have a problem with the spell like that. I think it will be written either this way or like the d20Modern version in the revised PH.

 

[Xarlen]

Monte Cook's Alt.Sorceror moved it up to 2nd level, but then his reasoning was that the Sor was casting it Every Single Battle. He also created a spell that destroys the Shield spell...

 

[Ravellion]

As written, it grants 3/4 cover, which blocks all AoO's, too. I believe this version is too powerful. The FAQ says just a +7 cover bonus to AC along with the MM defense, which is a good fix. I don't have a problem with the spell like that. I think it will be written either this way or like the d20Modern version in the revised PH.

The official ruling actually is that it does not grant cover, just a cover bonus to AC. of course, we could talk about what "official" actually means...

Rav

 

[hong]

I powered it down to +4 AC and +2 Reflex saves for my campaign. Seems to work fine, and everyone still takes it.

 

[Dr. NRG]

I'll toss in a contrarian opinion here, as everyone just seems too agreeable.

Shield is only powerful if you don't know it's there. If you know, you simply go around the other side and pummel the overconfident shielded guy. Shielded opponents are rogue and monk heaven, simply move past (tumbling if necessary), and pound 'em.

As far as game balance and tactical intrigue go, I think shield is a plus as well. Common low-level tactics often consist of pin-cushioning spellcasters or pounding them toe-to-toe if you can get close enough. Shield blocks these predictable (some might say boring) tactics and demands that opponents (be they PCs or NPCs) come up with something at least a little indirect. Within reason, I am pretty much in favor of anything that spices up combat, particularly at low levels.

NRG

 

[shilsen]

I found it a little too powerful, plus I don't like the facing aspect, so I made some changes. And then discovered that d20M uses exactly the same thing as me. Great minds think alike

 

[Apok]

I don't have a real problem with it. It gives low-level spellcasters the opportunity to have a decent AC, and there's nothing wrong with that. Of course, anyone that mentions Potions of Shield to my face will be eating a baseball bat...