Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 8970988" data-attributes="member: 6877472">It comes down to a few things.&nbsp; One, it messes with bounded accuracy by allowing you to boost your AC by a huge amount for 1 round.&nbsp; That's not a big deal at low levels, but it doesn't take long before you have a lot of level 1 slots and you're now doing much of substance with them, so there's really no cost to loading up on Shields.Two, it basically can take away a monster's turn as a reaction.&nbsp; It's generally only used when you would take a hit, and then you not only turn that into a miss retroactively, the +5 AC has a good chance to turn off their other attacks as well.&nbsp; Most enemies want to target your AC, and this means that Shield can be better than Counterspell, especially since it protects against OTHER enemies attacking you.And then there's just the general hatred some DM's have for being told &quot;um, actually&quot;, lol.&nbsp; Messing with their die rolls, forcing rerolls, or simply saying &quot;nuh uh, you miss!&quot; just rubs some people the wrong way (go find a Silvery Barbs debate if you want proof).And finally, it's easy to get the ability to use Shield even if you're not playing a class that gets it natively.&nbsp; I'm not defending any of these stances; personally, I have yet to use Shield because I want more mileage out of a spell slot than a one-turn safety net, and I don't have an issue with it, but these are complaints people have.&nbsp; I'm also not going to say my point of view is &quot;correct&quot;; it just doesn't suit my playstyle.I'd love to go back to Shield just being an AC buff for the combat instead of this weird &quot;counter attacks and oh magic missile too&quot; spell.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="James Gasik, post: 8970988, member: 6877472"] It comes down to a few things. One, it messes with bounded accuracy by allowing you to boost your AC by a huge amount for 1 round. That's not a big deal at low levels, but it doesn't take long before you have a lot of level 1 slots and you're now doing much of substance with them, so there's really no cost to loading up on Shields. Two, it basically can take away a monster's turn as a reaction. It's generally only used when you would take a hit, and then you not only turn that into a miss retroactively, the +5 AC has a good chance to turn off their other attacks as well. Most enemies want to target your AC, and this means that Shield can be better than Counterspell, especially since it protects against OTHER enemies attacking you. And then there's just the general hatred some DM's have for being told "um, actually", lol. Messing with their die rolls, forcing rerolls, or simply saying "nuh uh, you miss!" just rubs some people the wrong way (go find a Silvery Barbs debate if you want proof). And finally, it's easy to get the ability to use Shield even if you're not playing a class that gets it natively. I'm not defending any of these stances; personally, I have yet to use Shield because I want more mileage out of a spell slot than a one-turn safety net, and I don't have an issue with it, but these are complaints people have. I'm also not going to say my point of view is "correct"; it just doesn't suit my playstyle. I'd love to go back to Shield just being an AC buff for the combat instead of this weird "counter attacks and oh magic missile too" spell. [/QUOTE]

Verification