Is the shield spell too powerful?

[Destil]

Does it bother anyone else that it seems Multiclassing evenly between two or more classes is just no longer effective?

Less effective, more versitaile. A few feats and spells aimed towards multi classed casters would help a lot (non touch spells with increased damage, feats to increase caster level to overcome SR), but in general the're fine, IMHO.

I'm of the opinion that it's not the 3E system that makes the combination a bit 'weak', but rather the selection of spells. Being largly converted the spell lists don't cover anything beyond spells mainly intended for pure casters (since in old editions a multiclass caster / fighter was nearly as good as a pure caster at magic, anyway). If you allow custom research then a few inventive spells for fighter / mage types smooth the power diffrence over well, from my experience.

 

[Stalker0]

I think its too powerful, and too complicated. I like the +4 cover bonus against everyone, or even a +4 armor bonus could work. Then you'd have mage armor for normal long terms armor, and then shield for the magic missile block, which is I believe supposed to be the big selling point of this spell.

 

[ThomasBJJ]

I would just say the "shield" effect is visible (but transparent), so attackers know it's there, and probably know how it works if they are average or better Int. After that, 5' steps can help defeat it.

Another fix might be to reduce it's duration, or put a variable duration of 1d4 rounds plus 1 round per level (maximum 10 rounds total). It would still be a good spell to cast, but sometimes VERY short duration.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

The main problem I have with it is that every fighter wants to take one level of spellcaster just for that spell.

Wouldn't do that! That way, I have a nice bonus to AC, but only once per day (for 10 rounds, but that's enough for a fight). I would have to wear lighter armor, or the spell would fail often (in my experience, that occurs when you need the spell most), so I would not get a net 7 bonus, and the rest of the time it would even be worse than before. I'd give up some HP, one point of BAB (and therefore Power Attack), half a feat (or, with other classes, delay the progression of class features by one), and probably get an XP penalty. Doesn't seem worthwhile (unless you built the char around that one level of wiz...) and you can still be fooled by the famous 5-ft-step.

Dr. Zoom: There are several printings of the PHB which gives different rulings. My PHB states explicitely that the spell grants a cover bonus that does not prohibit AoOs, other PHBs state the opposite.

The semi official ruling from the FAQ states the "no cover, therefore AoOs".

....and no bonus to ref saves. But I think that one is a prima candidate for the revisions.

I will not change the spell in my games, I simply disallow multiclassing with one level just for that spell

Now I don't like that. Seems to be the cheap way out.