D&D 5E The Shield Spell and Spell Points

[Blue]

Since all I did was repeat my original point in more specific detail, it seems you may have misunderstood my original post.

Ah, I found the miscommunication! I was calling out a specific point in the post that I found was incorrect, not making a general comment on your entire post.

So, to reiterate my point: You claimed that an extended aura of vitality was more useful then 3 shield spells because it healed more. I claimed this wasn't always the case because used judiciously those shield spells can bring additional value such as not dropping in combat. (Or avoiding other conditions besides just damage.)

I'm so glad we now get why we were talking past each other (or at least hope we both do). I don't have an issue with the rest of your post, I'm focusing on one point that I felt was wrong. After-combat healing and preventing damage in combat are not apples to apples. For after-combat healing your only rubric is HPs healed, while during combat there are other benefits as well.

 

[dco]

Shield is balanced in core because it's not a scaling spell. Once you're out of your 4 1st level spell slots, it becomes more expensive to cast. But that doesn't exist in a spell point system. A core Warlock with shield (from the Hex Blade spell list, or multiclassing) has 2 shields per short rest at level 5. A spell-point warlock, or really any spellpoint spellcaster, has far more.

Would this be a spell you'd think I should switch up? Changing it to +1 AC per spell point would be doable. It would be equal to core Shield as a 3rd level spell and be even better as a 4th or 5th, but as a 1st and 2nd level it would be weaker.

Thoughts?

It's not that good, a lot of times it is a wasted slot in our games, the DM says if the enemy hits you but not the roll, then you decide if you want to use shield, sometimes it can save you but other times you are hit and lost a lvl 1 spell slot.
Your game and your homerules, you'll know what's better for you, talk with players and try your new rules and if you or them are not happy change them later.

 

[Saeviomagy]

As others have pointed out, spell points on warlocks radically change their balance, making them powerhouses of utility and (if they get the right spells) damage too. Ordinarily a warlock simply never casts lower level spells unless they have good scaling, which is a significant limiting factor on them compared with regular casters. To make up for that, they have invocations and a higher proportion of upper level spell slots per day.

 

[Thurmas]

The OP's issue was that moving to the spell point system gave the warlock access to MANY shield spells.

This is is entire problem right here. The spell point system is great for normal casters that have multiple slots, because those spell points don't refresh until a long rest. It works contrary to the entire way that a Warlock casting spells is designed, however. A very limited number of spells (typically max 2) cast at the highest level the character can cast, refreshing on short rest. I can't think of any way that would work with a spell point system without rewriting the Warlock. Shield isn't the problem in this case. It's spell points on a Warlock.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Ah, I found the miscommunication! I was calling out a specific point in the post that I found was incorrect, not making a general comment on your entire post.

So, to reiterate my point: You claimed that an extended aura of vitality was more useful then 3 shield spells because it healed more. I claimed this wasn't always the case because used judiciously those shield spells can bring additional value such as not dropping in combat. (Or avoiding other conditions besides just damage.)

I'm so glad we now get why we were talking past each other (or at least hope we both do). I don't have an issue with the rest of your post, I'm focusing on one point that I felt was wrong. After-combat healing and preventing damage in combat are not apples to apples. For after-combat healing your only rubric is HPs healed, while during combat there are other benefits as well.

Sure. To say it is "often" a trap, tactically, or "rarely" useful, is to acknowledge the times when it isn't a trap.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

This is is entire problem right here. The spell point system is great for normal casters that have multiple slots, because those spell points don't refresh until a long rest. It works contrary to the entire way that a Warlock casting spells is designed, however. A very limited number of spells (typically max 2) cast at the highest level the character can cast, refreshing on short rest. I can't think of any way that would work with a spell point system without rewriting the Warlock. Shield isn't the problem in this case. It's spell points on a Warlock.

There is nothing wrong with spell points on a warlock. It works perfectly well. No game breakage. The warlock player has more fun with spells like Mirror Image not going obsolete, but he still doesn't overshadow druids or wizards. It just sort of lets the warlock keep up.

 

[Thurmas]

There is nothing wrong with spell points on a warlock. It works perfectly well. No game breakage. The warlock player has more fun with spells like Mirror Image not going obsolete, but he still doesn't overshadow druids or wizards. It just sort of lets the warlock keep up.

I'd expect he would have more fun. He goes from 2 spells a short rest to what, between 2 and 5, 2 and 10 per short rest depending on his level? That upsets the balance of the class and changes what makes it unique from other full casters. I'm not trying to tell anyone how to play their game, but trying to blame the spell for problems when it's how the class is being run is not right.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'd expect he would have more fun. He goes from 2 spells a short rest to what, between 2 and 5, 2 and 10 per short rest depending on his level? That upsets the balance of the class and changes what makes it unique from other full casters. I'm not trying to tell anyone how to play their game, but trying to blame the spell for problems when it's how the class is being run is not right.

I haven't seen any signs of upset balance. (Balance with respect to what?)

Wizards still wind up expending more spell points per day, on a broader and generally better spell list. Warlocks are still very constrained by spells known and by the fact that Mystic Arcana are totally inflexible at high levels.

 

[thethain]

It's not that good, a lot of times it is a wasted slot in our games, the DM says if the enemy hits you but not the roll, then you decide if you want to use shield, sometimes it can save you but other times you are hit and lost a lvl 1 spell slot.
Your game and your homerules, you'll know what's better for you, talk with players and try your new rules and if you or them are not happy change them later.

This isn't entirely true, if you have the lucky feat, the feat requires you to see what rolls are before the hit/miss is announced. The DM doesn't tell you the modifier that is added to the roll, but most sessions the roll itself is in the open.

 

[dco]

This isn't entirely true, if you have the lucky feat, the feat requires you to see what rolls are before the hit/miss is announced. The DM doesn't tell you the modifier that is added to the roll, but most sessions the roll itself is in the open.

Lucky is not Shield, it is an optional feat.
Lucky doesn't say you need to see the roll, only that you choose what roll to use.
Rolling behind a screen is not something new in RPGs, if there is any doubt the DMG talks about it.
Your game your rules, in any case if the DM rolls in the open players should not know the total, only the roll, the spell could still fail to parry the blow.