Shield spell houserule

[Malifice]

I'm thinking of a houserule to make the +5 only apply against the one attack.

Thoughts?

[JakOfAllTirades]

I think the Shield spell's duration is already short enough; it doesn't need any more limitations.

[Quintessence]

I'm not quite sure why you are trying to screw over shield spell, but this would hurt it considerably. At least let it last for all of the attacks the attacker can make.

[Santra]

It takes a spell slot and your reaction already for a brief boost to your AC. I'm not sure why you think it needs re-balanced.

[Ghost Nappa]

I'm thinking of a houserule to make the +5 only apply against the one attack.

Thoughts?

That turns Shield into one of the best Level 1 Spells into one of the worst Level 1 spells. I would be pissed as a Sorcerer.

[Mr.Moron]

I'm not quite sure why you are trying to screw over shield spell, but this would hurt it considerably. At least let it last for all of the attacks the attacker can make.

Well obviously because he thinks the spell is too strong, why else would you nerf it? Secondly you can't really "screw over" a spell it's a rule, it doesn't have feelings. It's a single spell among many.

I'd generally agree it's probably quite powerful as it drops attack rolls off the radar. Given the relative value of low level spell slots in the game you get a ton from power of it for resources invested. Since AC "Scales" against the damage and volume of attacks dealt in a round it grows in power in a way other uses of a 1st level slot don't. I'm not sure i'd personally nerf it but I can see the grounds for wanting to in many games. I don't think it's controversial that it's a bit overturned and kind of the king of the roost as 1st level spells go.

That said I think a single attack is probably overshooting. The suggestion here (even framed as it is) is probably a good one - which would give a duration of "until the end of the attacker's turn". Alternatively you could make it apply to X attacks and give it the following scaling.

"When you cast this spell with a higher slot increase the number of attacks the spell applies to by Y".

I actually like this option a bit better. You could give it a duration of 1 minute. Make it apply to 1-2 attacks by default and scale by +1 for each spell slot higher. This tamps down the power a bit while making it feel a bit more flexible, a proactive caster could even use it in advance. You get a lot value out of shield from a high level slot keeping a solid defensive option in the toolbelt. However you're not going to be getting the same 25% reduction in hit rate on all 6 of high-level monster's attacks with the same spell and slot as you used to get out of 1 or 2 attacks from a goblin.

[Specter]

Assuming you need to change it (which you don't IMO), I'd rather have it be a +3 bonus for one round than a +5 bonus to one attack. But that's just me.

[Arial Black]

It's just a bad idea. Even though a spell doesn't have feelings, the players of PCs who chose this spell sure do.

A full caster only has 4 lvl1 slots. Four rounds/day of +5 AC costing all four lvl1 slots is enough of a cost without making it worse.

[Hrugner]

What problems are you having with its current form?

I could see making the spell automiss for one, or increase cover by one level for a full round, but making it +5 for one attack is not much better than a cantrip.

[Slipperychicken]

I'm thinking of a houserule to make the +5 only apply against the one attack.

Thoughts?

Why, you think it's too strong?

[Pex]

At the risk of strawmanning but at least giving a different perspective, while it's understandable of 5E's desire to curtail spellcaster power compared to previous editions, they're still entitled to get Nice Things just as warriors should get them too. Shield is a Nice Thing that doesn't break the game into unplayability. There is no reason to take it away.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

I'm thinking of a houserule to make the +5 only apply against the one attack.

Thoughts?

:yuk:
I'm thinking of having a Paladin's plate mail and shield only apply to one attack per round.

Thoughts?

[Giant2005]

I actually think it is a fairly good change.
The proposed version is still superior to Defensive Duelist (it comes at a lower price, doesn't restrict weapon use, and provides a higher bonus for all but the highest levels which aren't even likely to be reached).
Defensive Duelist itself is already a very strong feat. Reducing a level 1 spell to still being better than a strong feat, yet by a lesser margin isn't exactly a terrible change. It sounds far more balanced than the alternative.

[Mr.Moron]

:yuk:
I'm thinking of having a Paladin's plate mail and shield only apply to one attack per round.

Thoughts?

Given they're a front line class ,have few other defensive options, it's a core class feature, a fundamental part of the class identity rather than a single entry on miles-long spell list, and can't give them AC values in excess of 20 it's probably hard to find much way to construct plate + shield as over-tuned.

In fact the two thing are so entirely incomparable I'm genuinely stumped as to how the OP's proposal could provide inspiration for yours.

[Socratov]

It's just a bad idea. Even though a spell doesn't have feelings, the players of PCs who chose this spell sure do.

A full caster only has 4 lvl1 slots. Four rounds/day of +5 AC costing all four lvl1 slots is enough of a cost without making it worse.
This, plus it takes away your reaction for the round. It's only AC. for one round.

Given they're a front line class ,have few other defensive options, it's a core class feature, a fundamental part of the class identity rather than a single entry on miles-long spell list, and can't give them AC values in excess of 20 it's probably hard to find much way to construct plate + shield as over-tuned.

In fact the two thing are so entirely incomparable I'm genuinely stumped as to how the OP's proposal could provide inspiration for yours.

well given that paladins can get shield of faith, a shield and plate they get to: 22. Even if they start out, at lvl 3 they can get to 20 easily using their starting chainmail and the first lvl spell.

For example a caster will have a primary casting attribute, secondary dex/con, depending on what they aim for. Let's set dex at 14 which is not unreasonable for a secondary/tertiary stat.

Mage armour+dex.mod=15 If you add the shield spell they get to 20 for one round, 4 times a say. Sure they can do this earlier then lvl 3, but this combo costs 2 spells known for a sorcerer or 2 spells prepared for a wizard. 2 spells and spellslots that won't be used debilitating the enemy or circumventing encounters. that is at lvl 1 all of the character's spellslots, and at lvl 31/3 of the available spellslots. I think that the shield spell is not broken at all and gives an approriate effect for an appropriate cost. I also think that nerfing it for the first attack action it encounters, let alone the first attack in a turn woudl make the spell irreparably bad.

[TheFlyingCleric]

Given they're a front line class ,have few other defensive options, it's a core class feature, a fundamental part of the class identity rather than a single entry on miles-long spell list, and can't give them AC values in excess of 20 it's probably hard to find much way to construct plate + shield as over-tuned.

In fact the two thing are so entirely incomparable I'm genuinely stumped as to how the OP's proposal could provide inspiration for yours.

They are very much comparable. The spell lists available to each class go a long way to determining that classes identity.

Example 1: Find familiar. Basically a class feature, disguised as a spell. Any wizard can pick it up when they level up. Other classes need to either take a feat, dip wizard, or take specific warlock features.
Example 2: Mage armor. This is very important to the two classes that have them (sorcerer and wizard), because they don't otherwise have armor proficiencies! If you were to nerf this spell, you make those two classes much less viable in combat.

Finally, we come back to Shield. Guess which two classes have this on their spell list? That's right, sorcerer and wizard. The classes that can't wear actual shields, despite having a spare hand they don't need for casting spells.
Shield is a very good spell, but overpowered it is not. The two classes that get it usually have a lower AC than other classes. Any level 1 cleric can wear scale mail and a shield for 18 AC, and cast spells fine. A wizard or sorcerer has to use a spell slot on mage armor, and still only gets 16 AC at level 1.
A wizard can use Shield to make their AC 21 temporarily, but it only last 1 round and costs them a spell slot. A spell slot is a very hefty cost for a class based around casting spells. Ideally a wizard or sorcerer doesn't want to cast Shield at all. It is just there so that they can survive longer than a single round should they end up in the middle of combat.

Perhaps we should nerf actual shields? They provide 40% of the benefit of Shield, but last for as long as you like, and don't even cost a spell slot or reaction!

[Estrillian]

I personally think Shield is fine, but I've noticed that a lot of responses here are treating it as a bonus for Sorcerers and Wizards only, whereas in fact Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight can have it too (as well as Bards of course). I think it is more problematic on Fighter and Rogue than it is on Wizard, despite their limited spell slots, as they can use it to not simply avoid common attacks, but make themselves almost impossible to hit for a round.

And then of course there is the Staff of Defence that many groups who started in Lost Mines of Phandelver may have, which will cast Shield for you all day long without using up your slots. (Yes it has limited charges, but given that you choose to use them only when Shield will make a difference it is as close to unlimited as my players ever seem to have needed).

[Scaleybob]

I've found Shield to be occasionally annoying as a GM, but not so much that I'd want to change it.

My Players have found it either life saving, or it doesn't do anything - either attacks miss, or the number I roll is so high there's no point in using it.

Easiest solution as a GM - roll higher on attacks. :smallsmile:

I doe have an Arcane Trickster starting to use it though, it is very good when the Character using already has a good AC. I suspect it would be very good/maybe excessive on an Eldritch Knight.

[JumboWheat01]

Maybe I've just been playing content that goes to 20, but we seem to not be mentioning the Wizard's special ability of turning any First and Second level spell into an at-will cantrip. Which spells do you most often see for those slots? Shield and Misty Step, because they don't scale and are extremely good for their spell levels. And exactly what is a Wizard going to be doing with their reaction anyway?

I don't think making last a single attack is the greatest idea, since, if I'm remembering right (AFB) that pretty much makes the Magic Missile negation worthless. +3 to AC wouldn't be outrageous, as someone else suggested. It makes it a little stronger than your standard shield while stopping Magic Missile. Still useful enough to spend a Spell Slot on, and not so strong for a Wizard to spam it in the end.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

Given they're a front line class ,have few other defensive options, it's a core class feature, a fundamental part of the class identity rather than a single entry on miles-long spell list, and can't give them AC values in excess of 20 it's probably hard to find much way to construct plate + shield as over-tuned.

In fact the two thing are so entirely incomparable I'm genuinely stumped as to how the OP's proposal could provide inspiration for yours.

Sarcasm meter is nonfunctional on Mr. Moron.

[pwykersotz]

If there is a change to be made, I agree that making it last until the end of the attacker's turn is preferable to only against one attack. Or alternately, all attacks that round that come from the same facing (if you want to impose those rules). So two people in your face will hit your shield, but the enemy that sneaks up on you stabs you in the back without difficulty.

[Kryx]

3.5 and PF had shield at +4. I assume the change was made to +5 for the concept of 3/4 cover.

If anything I'd recommend dropping it to +4 and having it apply on Dexterity saves as well as a shield would help against disintegrate, fireball, etc.

[Giant2005]

3.5 and PF had shield at +4. I assume the change was made to +5 for the concept of 3/4 cover.

If anything I'd recommend dropping it to +4 and having it apply on Dexterity saves as well as a shield would help against disintegrate, fireball, etc.

I'm surprised you are against nerfing it so far as to even suggest buffing it; considering your aversion to bonuses that obstruct bounded accuracy.

[Specter]

I personally think Shield is fine, but I've noticed that a lot of responses here are treating it as a bonus for Sorcerers and Wizards only, whereas in fact Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight can have it too (as well as Bards of course). I think it is more problematic on Fighter and Rogue than it is on Wizard, despite their limited spell slots, as they can use it to not simply avoid common attacks, but make themselves almost impossible to hit for a round.

And then of course there is the Staff of Defence that many groups who started in Lost Mines of Phandelver may have, which will cast Shield for you all day long without using up your slots. (Yes it has limited charges, but given that you choose to use them only when Shield will make a difference it is as close to unlimited as my players ever seem to have needed).

Considering that a Fighter is 1) taking it instead of maneuvers like Precision Strike and Trip Attack; 2) using very limited slots to cast it; 3) needing to take War Caster to use it with a shield and weapon, it's not problematic at all.

[Ghost Nappa]

Maybe I've just been playing content that goes to 20, but we seem to not be mentioning the Wizard's special ability of turning any First and Second level spell into an at-will cantrip. Which spells do you most often see for those slots? Shield and Misty Step, because they don't scale and are extremely good for their spell levels. And exactly what is a Wizard going to be doing with their reaction anyway?


That's still a Level 18 ability. You get Level 9 spells before you have the ability to do that. Shield is a solid use of a Wizard or Sorcerer's reaction because they don't really have anything better to do with their reactions.

Shield is either a life-saver or useless, but the only characters that are truly capable of abusing it are Level 18+ Wizards (who are busy throwing around tuns of other spells like Wish) and Eldritch Knights who want to tank with their AC in Magic Armor and are stacking +3 Armor and Shields with the Shield spell.

In the case of the former, good for the Wizard you made it to Level 18. I hope you enjoy that power because you're going to need it. It's a strong ability by all means, but it isn't going to save them every time unless their a Bladesinger with Magical Gear.

In the case of the latter, it's the DM's fault for giving them +3 Armor and Shields. We're well into pushing ~33 AC now which should be reducing any enemy's ability to hit you down to what? 20% or less? What's the highest attack bonus you could have? +16?

[Socratov]

That's still a Level 18 ability. You get Level 9 spells before you have the ability to do that. Shield is a solid use of a Wizard or Sorcerer's reaction because they don't really have anything better to do with their reactions.

Shield is either a life-saver or useless, but the only characters that are truly capable of abusing it are Level 18+ Wizards (who are busy throwing around tuns of other spells like Wish) and Eldritch Knights who want to tank with their AC in Magic Armor and are stacking +3 Armor and Shields with the Shield spell.

In the case of the former, good for the Wizard you made it to Level 18. I hope you enjoy that power because you're going to need it. It's a strong ability by all means, but it isn't going to save them every time unless their a Bladesinger with Magical Gear.

In the case of the latter, it's the DM's fault for giving them +3 Armor and Shields. We're well into pushing ~33 AC now which should be reducing any enemy's ability to hit you down to what? 20% or less? What's the highest attack bonus you could have? +16?

+19 for twice proficiency + maximum str on a barbarian, +17 on a non barbarian, these are both before magic weapons/bardic inspiration/bless/battlemaster dice (or any other thing that helps you hit better). Oh, and by the way, at lvl 20 the wizard is still sitting on his theoretical maximum of 23 AC with a dex of 20 and shield popped. Sure it can go up with magic items and the wizard has other ways to make sure he doesn't get hit, but still, let's say they are fighting a BBEG who plays by the same rules as the PC's do, the enemy only needs a 4 (in case of barbarian) or a 6 on a d20 to succeed (respectively 85% and 75% chance of hitting on non advantage without any benefical effects to to-hit, on lvl 20). I hardly think even when at high levels Wizards get to cantrip their shield spell that it will actually matter much.

[R.Shackleford]

Shield is too good. Like, way too good. Casters already get all the nice things while martials are left with OMG HURRY UP STOP THINKING.

If we use this ideology consistently I would say remove shield as it slows down game play...

But that's also silly. Why play a game of you just want to hurry up and finish it...

I would just have the shield spell be a +2 bonus, 8 hour duration (as with mage armor), and take up an arm/hand. You don't need any proficiency for this shield but you must use your arm to use it. During the 8 hours you can turn it off and on as an action (but at least you can't lose it).

So a first level spell gives you proficiency with a shield (more or less) but is balanced with the rest of the game (more or less). It also falls in line with the rest of the game and keeps gameplay smooth. Yeah higher AC can make the game last longer but we don't have to deal with the reaction issues.

[Kryx]

I'm surprised you are against nerfing it so far as to even suggest buffing it; considering your aversion to bonuses that obstruct bounded accuracy.
I'm a bit on the fence on Shield. Not entirely sure what I think.

I think it's a bit too good by default - all the guides rate it the highest of 1st level spells. I'd take some off of it. Maybe +4 and on Dexterity saves is too much. Maybe 3? I'm not sure, really.

[Giant2005]

+19 for twice proficiency + maximum str on a barbarian, +17 on a non barbarian, these are both before magic weapons/bardic inspiration/bless/battlemaster dice (or any other thing that helps you hit better). Oh, and by the way, at lvl 20 the wizard is still sitting on his theoretical maximum of 23 AC with a dex of 20 and shield popped. Sure it can go up with magic items and the wizard has other ways to make sure he doesn't get hit, but still, let's say they are fighting a BBEG who plays by the same rules as the PC's do, the enemy only needs a 4 (in case of barbarian) or a 6 on a d20 to succeed (respectively 85% and 75% chance of hitting on non advantage without any benefical effects to to-hit, on lvl 20). I hardly think even when at high levels Wizards get to cantrip their shield spell that it will actually matter much.

There is no such thing as Expertise on attack rolls. The highest a Barbarian can get without magic items is +13

[Giant2005]

I'm a bit on the fence on Shield. Not entirely sure what I think.

I think it's a bit too good by default - all the guides rate it the highest of 1st level spells. I'd take some off of it. Maybe +4 and on Dexterity saves is too much. Maybe 3? I'm not sure, really.

Have it apply to Dexterity too, but remove the Reaction cost (so it costs no action to use) and have it only apply against a single attack or save. That way the caster has the freedom to get even more use out of it than they currently do, but the price would be increased.
Of course, that would be a straight buff to a level 18 Wizard or someone with the Boon of Spell Mastery.

[Tiber]

I will say that Shield was very good on my Arcane Trickster, though its power fell off a bit once I got the class feature that let me halve the damage of an attack with no spells required.

That said, if you *really* think it's too powerful, here's a thought for a nerf. Shield grants you +5 AC until your next turn, as a reaction, as usual. However, after each attack, The AC granted by Shield reduces by 1, and the spell ends when it reaches 0. So you'd have +5 AC against the 1st attack, +4 AC against the 2nd attack, +3 against the 3rd, and so on. I admit that this idea does go a bit against the trend of simplicity for 5e, but it still allows the spell to be good as an emergency button, and I like the flavor of a weakening shield.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

Shield could only ever be a problem if the DM is allowing the party to rest too much. It burns up level 1 slots quick if the caster is being targeted.

[pwykersotz]

Shield could only ever be a problem if the DM is allowing the party to rest too much. It burns up level 1 slots quick if the caster is being targeted.

This is actually my favorite part of Shield. The player in me loves the ability to deflect incoming attacks in an awesome and effective way. The GM in me loves the ability to force resource burn or cause damage. It's a win/win.

I haven't played/GM'd at level 18 yet, so I don't know how I'll feel about it as an at-will.

[R.Shackleford]

I will say that Shield was very good on my Arcane Trickster, though its power fell off a bit once I got the class feature that let me halve the damage of an attack with no spells required.

That said, if you *really* think it's too powerful, here's a thought for a nerf. Shield grants you +5 AC until your next turn, as a reaction, as usual. However, after each attack, The AC granted by Shield reduces by 1, and the spell ends when it reaches 0. So you'd have +5 AC against the 1st attack, +4 AC against the 2nd attack, +3 against the 3rd, and so on. I admit that this idea does go a bit against the trend of simplicity for 5e, but it still allows the spell to be good as an emergency button, and I like the flavor of a weakening shield.

For me it's less that it needs a nerf, though it does, and more that for a core spell designed by WotC... It really should fit in with the game better.

Much how barkskin needs to fit within the game better.

[Christian]

Shield is a solid use of a Wizard or Sorcerer's reaction because they don't really have anything better to do with their reactions.


Usually.

[Evil DM Tricks]

DM: Touching the idol triggered a trap, and a volley of poisoned spears flies at you! Gandalf, does 18 hit your AC?

Player: Not after my Shield spell goes up!

DM: OK ... [Attacks, damage, and saving throws versus poison for the rest of the party.] ... But wait! Even as the spears fly past, the second part of the trap goes off, and a 30' pit opens up beneath your feet, razor-sharp poisoned spikes gleaming at the bottom!

Player: Heh. Good thing I have Feather Fall prepared. The whole party will float down gently and safely. Nice having a wizard in the party, isn't it?

DM: Sure is! Too bad you already used your reaction this round.

Player: :smalleek:

[/Evil DM Tricks]

[JNAProductions]

I think it's too much as an at-will spell (making a Wizard tankier than most actual tank classes) but as a limited resource? It's no big deal.

[R.Shackleford]

Usually.

[Evil DM Tricks]

DM: Touching the idol triggered a trap, and a volley of poisoned spears flies at you! Gandalf, does 18 hit your AC?

Player: Not after my Shield spell goes up!

DM: OK ... [Attacks, damage, and saving throws versus poison for the rest of the party.] ... But wait! Even as the spears fly past, the second part of the trap goes off, and a 30' pit opens up beneath your feet, razor-sharp poisoned spikes gleaming at the bottom!

Player: Heh. Good thing I have Feather Fall prepared. The whole party will float down gently and safely. Nice having a wizard in the party, isn't it?

DM: Sure is! Too bad you already used your reaction this round.

Player: :smalleek:

[/Evil DM Tricks]

Sounds more like a jerk DM that wants to punish players for using their resources rather than craft a story for the players.

[Christian]

"Evil" is pithier.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Sarcasm meter is nonfunctional on Mr. Moron.

I'm pretty sure sarcasm is Mr. Moron's raison d'etre. (Poe's Law, anyone?)

[georgie_leech]

"Evil" is pithier.

As a slightly less evil trap, have them happen simultaneously. The lit opens at the same time as the flying projectiles, and it's made clear that's happening. Alright players, choose how you decide to deal with this, no rug pulled from beneath you needed.

[R.Shackleford]

As a slightly less evil trap, have them happen simultaneously. The lit opens at the same time as the flying projectiles, and it's made clear that's happening. Alright players, choose how you decide to deal with this, no rug pulled from beneath you needed.

Bingo.

Way too many DMs use "gotcha" moments, gotcha aren't evil, they are just jerkish.

Evil is having the players make anvhoice between two situations and then not knowing which one is better for them.

[JumboWheat01]

Evil is having the players make a choice between two situations and then not knowing which one is better for them.

I always thought evil was a cat. You just can't trust cats.

Still, it isn't the smartest idea to have everyone group up in the same area when triggering something, "evil" DM or no.

[lperkins2]

I do like the idea of making the shield spell basically an instant pavise. Sort of a 3/4 cover height wall of force. Give it a 5' range and you could drop it to cover a nearby ally, but at the same time multiple enemies would be able to flank you, or possible even use the shield as cover against your allies. It makes it more mechanically interesting and versatile (e.g. cast it horizontally to shore up a weak spot in the floor while your friends run across), while keeping it from being the 18th level wizard's staple reaction.

[Joe the Rat]

"what would happen if I turned shield sideways?" is how we ended up with the floating disk spell.

The idea of a one-round, 5' diameter stationary force disk spell does have an appeal.

[lperkins2]

Aye, only the floating disk spell has a longer duration at the expense of only being horizontal.

[R.Shackleford]

Aye, only the floating disk spell has a longer duration at the expense of only being horizontal.

Hoeizontal, vertical, man, it's all a frame of mind.

[djreynolds]

I guess it depends on the game.

If you are using the standard array, its along time till a bladesinger is able to max out his intelligence and dexterity for this to be a problem.

Most wizards will have around a 15 to 16 AC, 21 with the shield spell. And it eats up a spell slot. If its a problem blast the wizard with an AoE.

It could be allowing too many long rests, because afterwhile the wizard should have to use a 2nd and 3rd level spell slot.

[Malifice]

I guess it depends on the game.

If you are using the standard array, its along time till a bladesinger is able to max out his intelligence and dexterity for this to be a problem.

Most wizards will have around a 15 to 16 AC, 21 with the shield spell. And it eats up a spell slot. If its a problem blast the wizard with an AoE.

It could be allowing too many long rests, because afterwhile the wizard should have to use a 2nd and 3rd level spell slot.

Im finding it to be a no-brainer 1st level spell. And I do enforce the 6-8/ 2 short rest AD.

To be fair, its most frequent use is on the Fighter (EK) 5/ Evoker 5 (who is already in Demon armor with an AC of 19). 1st level slots are Shield, 2nd level are mirror image (and shield), and his 3rds are used for fireball and haste (and shield).

After that its NPC mages. Each time I dont give it to them, I feel like I'm intentionally crippling myself.

The verdict seems to be to leave it alone I guess.

[Giant2005]

The verdict seems to be to leave it alone I guess.

It is a case of people not wanting their favorite toys to be taken from them, and coincidentally their favorite toys are the ones they play with most - the ones that have the greatest positive impact ie the overpowered ones.

Defensive Duelist is an incredibly powerful feat - in tests to see how much damage one can inflict in an amount of time it takes for their own hit points to reach zero, Defensive Duelist always comes out on the top of the pile when it comes to feats (unless the class has something better to do with their reaction, or some means of survival that doesn't include AC).
Your version of Shield is even more powerful than Defensive Duelist and the price of a spell slot and a spell selection is much cheaper than that of a feat/ASI. Obviously the official version is even more unbalanced.

Objectively, you are absolutely right to make the change regardless of what anyone says. As you said, it is a must have ability (or a "tax" as such things are commonly referred) and that is just plain bad game design. In fact, the thing I find strangest is that people are generally vehemently opposed to such taxes being in the game, but the Shield spell seems to be the exception. I'm just not sure why exactly the Shield spell is the exception.

[Kryx]

In fact, the thing I find strangest is that people are generally vehemently opposed to such taxes being in the game, but the Shield spell seems to be the exception. I'm just not sure why exactly the Shield spell is the exception.
People don't like change. You'll see this in every post in every edition. It isn't a matter of Shield or any other specific ability.

It also comes back to your first point - people like their toys, even if they know that they are OP.

[krugaan]

People don't like change. You'll see this in every post in every edition. It isn't a matter of Shield or any other specific ability.

It also comes back to your first point - people like their toys, even if they know that they are OP.

probably because shield is the only real out of it's type for mage characters. Defensive duelist is a great feat, sure, but I don't think it's taken very often because finesse classes necessarily have high dex and probably a high AC.

Classes who would cast shield generally don't, with the exception of the bladesinger and the EK, which just boosts them into unhittable ACs ... for one turn.

THATS why people don't like giving shield up, unless you replace it another panic reaction spell.

[Giant2005]

People don't like change. You'll see this in every post in every edition. It isn't a matter of Shield or any other specific ability.

It also comes back to your first point - people like their toys, even if they know that they are OP.

That makes more sense than my theory. I was starting to form the impression that people just don't consider defensive options with the same scrutiny that they give offensive ones.

[Kryx]

THATS why people don't like giving shield up, unless you replace it another panic reaction spell.
Thanks for proving my point. :P You have a nice toy and don't want to lose it.

Let's compare some ACs:
Bard (caster): 12 (Studded leather) + 2 (dex) = 14
Cleric (caster): 14 (Scale mail) + 2 (shield) = 16
Druid (barkskin): 16
Ranger: 12 (Studded leather) + 3 (dex) = 15
Rogue: 12 (Studded leather) + 3 (dex) = 15
Sorcerer: 13 (mage armor) + 2 (dex) = 15
Wizard: 13 (mage armor) + 2 (dex) = 15
Warlock: 12 (Studded leather) + 2 (dex) = 14

So the typical Bard and Warlock have less AC than a typical Wizard or Sorcerer at first level while a Ranger and Rogue match the AC of the Wizard. The scaling only matters for a Ranger or a Rogue. The others will always have less AC than a Wizard or Sorcerer.

Wizards and Sorcerers have access to spells like blur, misty step, etc to avoid damage. The other classes have none of that.

It's already better than all the other casters. I don't know what is the best route for Shield is, but the justification that it is needed isn't so.

[Lombra]

By my personal experience, even at low levels where shield is supposed to work at its finest, mages can still get hit by enemies even with shield up. Plus, at low levels every slot is useful, and giving one up because of bad positioning hurts quiet a bit the adventure day. I wouldn't say that it's OP, it's just useful.

Edit: I mean you are giving up a use of tasha's hideus laughter! Now that's quiet a strong spell at these levels.

[Kryx]

even at low levels where shield is supposed to work at its finest, mages can still get hit by enemies even with shield up.
Sounds like you have some bad RNG, friend.

A Wizard at 1st level has 15 AC. The average (and DMG recommendation) to-hit of CR 1 enemies is +3. That's a 45% chance to hit. Add on shield and that's an average of 20% chance to hit. (anydice (http://anydice.com/program/8ba2))

So on average the Wizard, if they use their shield spell, would be hit 1/5 of the time he is targeted by an attack.

Any of the other casters are getting hit 1/2 of the time they are targeted by an attack. Huge difference.

[krugaan]

Thanks for proving my point. :P You have a nice toy and don't want to lose it.

This is beneath you.




Let's compare some ACs:
Bard (caster): 12 (Studded leather) + 2 (dex) = 14
Cleric (caster): 12 (Studded leather) + 2 (dex) = 14
Druid (barkskin): 16
Ranger: 12 (Studded leather) + 3 (dex) = 15
Rogue: 12 (Studded leather) + 3 (dex) = 15
Sorcerer: 13 (mage armor) + 2 (dex) = 15
Wizard: 13 (mage armor) + 2 (dex) = 15
Warlock: 12 (Studded leather) + 2 (dex) = 14

So the typical Bard, Cleric, and Warlock have less AC than a typical Wizard or Sorcerer at first level while a Ranger and Rogue match the AC of the Wizard. The scaling only matters for a Ranger or a Rogue. The others will always have less AC than a Wizard or Sorcerer.

Wizards and Sorcerers have access to spells like blur, misty step, etc to avoid damage. The other classes have none of that.

It's already better than all the other casters. I don't know what is the best route for Shield is, but the justification that it is needed isn't so.

Bard not using a shield?
Cleric not using at least chain and a shield?
That's hardly fair or realistic.

They have all those other spells that require spell usage and/or concentration.

I don't mind shield and I don't even play a wizard or use the spell. Typically isn't a wizard is already one slot short from mage armor?

Again ... I don't think you've proved anything with the examples given.

[Kryx]

This is beneath you.
Woah, woah, woah. Let's take a step back here. I was not intending to insult you.



Bard not using a shield?
Cleric not using at least chain and a shield?
Caster bards have no access to a shield.
Though you're right about Cleric - I was misremembering. My mistake on them. I'll edit them out.


They have all those other spells that require spell usage and/or concentration
Every class has concentration spells. This seems irrelevant. A cost of a spell slot doesn't make it bad in comparison to classes who can not do it, even at the cost of a spell slot.


I don't think you've proved anything with the examples given.
See the typical hit chance above.

[djreynolds]

Im finding it to be a no-brainer 1st level spell. And I do enforce the 6-8/ 2 short rest AD.

To be fair, its most frequent use is on the Fighter (EK) 5/ Evoker 5 (who is already in Demon armor with an AC of 19). 1st level slots are Shield, 2nd level are mirror image (and shield), and his 3rds are used for fireball and haste (and shield).

After that its NPC mages. Each time I dont give it to them, I feel like I'm intentionally crippling myself.

The verdict seems to be to leave it alone I guess.

You're a smart dude, and have plenty of DMing experience, so there must be cause.

Here is a solution.

How about, 1st level shield spell casting is for one attack
2nd level slot is for two and so forth

Could that work?

[Kryx]

How about, 1st level shield spell casting is for one attack
2nd level slot is for two and so forth
In my experience the first attack is the most important. Second attacks only matter later when enemies get big damage attacks as multiattacks.

Making it only apply on 1 attack doesn't solve the issue.

[djreynolds]

In my experience the first attack is the most important. Second attacks only matter later when enemies get big damage attacks as multiattacks.

Making it only apply on 1 attack doesn't solve the issue.

Then what about just making the shield spell's + to ac equal to your current proficiency score.

Or 1/4 your level rounded up. So from 1st to 4th its +1, and 5th to 10 its +2, or 1/5 your level.

I'm surprised shield doesn't or couldn't scale in AC given with higher spell slots used if you did it this way.

[Kryx]

Then what about just making the shield spell's + to ac equal to your current proficiency score.
No other spell scales on proficiency bonus. It would also have the consequence of growing stronger while every other 1st level spell remains at the same power level.

If anything you'd have it scale based on spell level. 2 AC + 1 AC per spell level above 1st could be an option.

You could also expand it's usage to include dex saves. So 2 AC/Dex saves + 1 per spell level above 1st.

[krugaan]

Caster bards have no access to a shield.

Whoops, i play a valor bard, I'm used to running around with a shield, my bad.



Every class has concentration spells. This seems irrelevant.


I don't know, it seems unrealistic that mages and sorcs (and to a lesser extent warlocks, i suppose, although armor of agathys) have to waste concentration slots to not be immediately. Again, they have no real offense aside from spells, and if they are concentrating on control spells (which they usually should be) it precludes the use of blur / blink / invisibility.

Sorcs and Sages (and i guess lore bards ... although cutting words) are fairly unique with this problem; even druids can cast and dive into a form for a huge buffer to HP.




See the typical hit chance above.

Lore bard gets cutting words, which is better.
Ranger ... geez, i didn't even realize rangers were so bad.
Rogues hide and get uncanny dodge, plus bonus action disengage, dash, etc.
Warlock has armor of agathys, and possibly mage armor (free), although im not quite sure this equals shield.

[krugaan]

No other spell scales on proficiency bonus. It would also have the consequence of growing stronger while every other 1st level spell remains at the same power level.

If anything you'd have it scale based on spell level. 2 AC + 1 AC per spell level above 1st could be an option.

You could also expand it's usage to include dex saves. So 2 AC/Dex saves + 1 per spell level above 1st.

How about making shield concentration? That seems like a fair, simple tradeoff.

edit: as in, just add the concentration tag and leave everything else exactly the same.

[djreynolds]

No other spell scales on proficiency bonus. It would also have the consequence of growing stronger while every other 1st level spell remains at the same power level.

If anything you'd have it scale based on spell level. 2 AC + 1 AC per spell level above 1st could be an option.

You could also expand it's usage to include dex saves. So 2 AC/Dex saves + 1 per spell level above 1st.

I'm just thinking the highest it would get is +6 at 17th level.

You could use it and scale it like a normal spell. Cast in a 1st level slot its +2, and then in a 2nd its +3, up to a 4th level slot used to be +5. That way EK can still use it.

Honestly I've never realized how powerful it is at early levels, I have to remind my kid to use her reaction.
But I think scaling it to proficiency, might make the math easier, and tracking. It might keep the fights competitive as you face high CR monsters as you level up.

[Lombra]

Sounds like you have some bad RNG, friend.

A Wizard at 1st level has 15 AC. The average (and DMG recommendation) to-hit of CR 1 enemies is +3. That's a 45% chance to hit. Add on shield and that's an average of 20% chance to hit. (anydice (http://anydice.com/program/8ba2))

So on average the Wizard, if they use their shield spell, would be hit 1/5 of the time he is targeted by an attack.

Any of the other casters are getting hit 1/2 of the time they are targeted by an attack. Huge difference.

Where in the plane of existence does a wizard have 15 AC as a standard? 16 dex is already pretty high for a wizard since the focus should be on intelligence, which leads to a 25% chance of getting hit for a turn at the cost of a valueable slot.

[djreynolds]

Where in the plane of existence does a wizard have 15 AC as a standard? 16 dex is already pretty high for a wizard since the focus should be on intelligence, which leads to a 25% chance of getting hit for a turn at the cost of a valueable slot.

I think this becomes a problem when you have armored casters and bladesingers, I can see it. But you are right, you only have up 4 1st level spell slots

But scaling it like defensive duelist could work.

[krugaan]

Where in the plane of existence does a wizard have 15 AC as a standard? 16 dex is already pretty high for a wizard since the focus should be on intelligence, which leads to a 25% chance of getting hit for a turn at the cost of a valueable slot.

15 isn't unreasonable, really. The problem is it STAYS there as levels go up. All the other classes improve.

Also, after some thought, cutting words isn't exactly try like shield, so it's a little unfair to compare them, I suppose.

[Giant2005]

Where in the plane of existence does a wizard have 15 AC as a standard? 16 dex is already pretty high for a wizard since the focus should be on intelligence, which leads to a 25% chance of getting hit for a turn at the cost of a valueable slot.

He already showed he was taking Mage Armor with 14 Dex as the assumption. Neither is particularly unreasonable.

[djreynolds]

Scaling it on proficiency would be a good houserule.

It is a very powerful spell, this would keep it a level playing field early on.

[Lombra]

He already showed he was taking Mage Armor with 14 Dex as the assumption. Neither is particularly unreasonable.

Missed that post, but getting both mage armor and shield seems odd for a pure caster unless it's an hybrid melee caster, which will be perfectly balanced because the character would sustain a lot of hits than can't just block with shield.

[Kryx]

Missed that post, but getting both mage armor and shield seems odd for a pure caster unless it's an hybrid melee caster, which will be perfectly balanced because the character would sustain a lot of hits than can't just block with shield.
Almost every pure casters takes Mage Armor and Shield. They are the highest rated spells of 1st level. And rightfully so.

[djreynolds]

So the issue is, +5 to AC is too much at lower levels in the game? Correct?

But for a class like an EK, for instance, if we make it that he has to cast the shield spell in a higher slot to obtain a higher AC, he would run out of spell slots quickly.

I think, when the game was created and spells, etc... multiclassing wasn't really worked out properly. The shield spell in the hands of a paladin/sorcerer coupled with heavy armor and shield of faith, he could be unhittable by 3rd level.

I think you have to scale it, the shield spells power. If you do it to caster level though, classes like the EK who use the shield spell as their bread and butter, lose out. And if we do it to character level, you then only need a one level dip.

Scaling it like defensive duelist would work. But I'm unsure of the ramifications.

[Giant2005]

I think that taking out the Action (Reaction) component of the spell, giving it a duration of only 1 attack, and having its duration increases by 1 attack for each slot level above 1st, fixes it nicely.
Lower AC characters have plenty of spell slots to sustain it when necessary, while higher AC characters have few spell slots to gains its benefit but can rely more on their natural AC.
It suitably increases the cost, while potentially having it last more than one round if cast in a higher level slot, and saving the use of the Reaction for something else in compensation.

[Kryx]

So the issue is, +5 to AC is too much at lower levels in the game? Correct?
I would argue that +5 AC is too much for a 1st level spell.


But for a class like an EK, for instance, if we make it that he has to cast the shield spell in a higher slot to obtain a higher AC, he would run out of spell slots quickly.
EK already has high AC. And EK + Shield is one of the main issues. So if EK could only add 2 then that's a solution, not a bug.



I think that taking out the Action (Reaction) component of the spell, giving it a duration of only 1 attack, and having its duration increases by 1 attack for each slot level above 1st, fixes it nicely.
Duration isn't the problem imo.


2AC/Dex and 1 per level after 1st seems like the best to me right now.

[Giant2005]

2AC/Dex and 1 per level after 1st seems like the best to me right now.

That would work too, I just think that solution would be much less appreciated by the player.

[Kryx]

That would work too, I just think that solution would be much less appreciated by the player.
Sure, but that's the toys topic, right?

As I outlined above the duration only matters when facing enemies that do lots of damage on multiple attacks. That doesn't impact the power of the spell until much higher levels. It doesn't fix the "too powerful" (subjective) issue.

[georgie_leech]

Sure, but that's the toys topic, right?

As I outlined above the duration only matters when facing enemies that do lots of damage on multiple attacks. That doesn't impact the power of the spell until much higher levels. It doesn't fix the "too powerful" (subjective) issue.

Or, you know, multiple attackers. Is it really so uncommon for, say, a pair of Golblins to attack the wizard in the same turn? Obviously not after vanilla Shield has been used, but without it?

[R.Shackleford]

Or, you know, multiple attackers. Is it really so uncommon for, say, a pair of Golblins to attack the wizard in the same turn? Obviously not after vanilla Shield has been used, but without it?

If your team (or yourself as a caster) is letting that happen then you are screwed already.

I'm a pretty dynamic DM and my groups are able to keep their casters safe from this happening.

[Kryx]

Or, you know, multiple attackers. Is it really so uncommon for, say, a pair of Golblins to attack the wizard in the same turn? Obviously not after vanilla Shield has been used, but without it?
Goblins aren't really worth using shield on unless there are a lot. If you've let yourself get surrounded by a horde of goblins then you've got problems. And that should be an exceptionally rare event.

Bugbears and heavy hitters are the best usage for Shield.

[georgie_leech]

Goblins aren't really worth using shield on unless there are a lot. If you've let yourself get surrounded by a horde of goblins then you've got problems. And that should be an exceptionally rare event.

Bugbears and heavy hitters are the best usage for Shield.

The point being, you can be attacked by multiple creatures in a round. Your enemies don't need Multiattack for a duration to be important.

[Kryx]

The point being, you can be attacked by multiple creatures in a round. Your enemies don't need Multiattack for a duration to be important.
But limiting the duration isn't going to balance the Shield spell in my perspective. In my experience it is powerful to avoid those big attacks, not multiple attacks.

[georgie_leech]

Ah, I misunderstood the objection. Carry on.

[Vogonjeltz]

I'm thinking of a houserule to make the +5 only apply against the one attack.

Thoughts?

This makes it inferior to Defensive Duelist, which can be used every turn ad infinitum.

For something that costs a single-use spell slot, I think it's reasonable that it is better than the always available single attack ability.


Im finding it to be a no-brainer 1st level spell. And I do enforce the 6-8/ 2 short rest AD.

To be fair, its most frequent use is on the Fighter (EK) 5/ Evoker 5 (who is already in Demon armor with an AC of 19). 1st level slots are Shield, 2nd level are mirror image (and shield), and his 3rds are used for fireball and haste (and shield).

After that its NPC mages. Each time I dont give it to them, I feel like I'm intentionally crippling myself.

The verdict seems to be to leave it alone I guess.

Considering the limited number of spell slots (2 at 1st level!), Wizards are probably only going to invest in 1 defensive spell at most, reserving the other slot for offense. That means Shield or Mage Armor; Mage Armor is +3 AC across many rounds, Shield is +5 AC across one round.

I think on balance Mage armor although slightly weaker on any one round, is actually better precisely because it applies to many rounds. (i.e. Shield will prevent 25% of attacks from landing for one round, Mage armor preventing 15% of attacks from landing across many rounds only has to operate for 2+ rounds to prevent more damage on average.


Thanks for proving my point. :P You have a nice toy and don't want to lose it.

That only shows they don't want to lose it, and perceive it favorably, that doesn't show that it's unbalanced, or even that the perception that it is necessary is correct.

In point of fact, Mage Armor is a better investment in terms of total average prevented damage over anything exceeding 1 round. And if the Wizard blows both spell slots on Mage Armor AND Shield they've given up any offense to speak of.


Let's compare some ACs:
Bard (caster): 12 (Studded leather) + 2 (dex) = 14
Cleric (caster): 14 (Scale mail) + 2 (shield) = 16
Druid (barkskin): 16
Ranger: 12 (Studded leather) + 3 (dex) = 15
Rogue: 12 (Studded leather) + 3 (dex) = 15
Sorcerer: 13 (mage armor) + 2 (dex) = 15
Wizard: 13 (mage armor) + 2 (dex) = 15
Warlock: 12 (Studded leather) + 2 (dex) = 14

So the typical Bard and Warlock have less AC than a typical Wizard or Sorcerer at first level while a Ranger and Rogue match the AC of the Wizard. The scaling only matters for a Ranger or a Rogue. The others will always have less AC than a Wizard or Sorcerer.

Wizards and Sorcerers have access to spells like blur, misty step, etc to avoid damage. The other classes have none of that.

It's already better than all the other casters. I don't know what is the best route for Shield is, but the justification that it is needed isn't so.

Bard starts with leather (AC 11 +2 dex = 13)
Clerics can start with chain mail if proficient AC 16 + shield for AC 18...the introductory adventure features a Cleric who does this.
Druid starts with leather armor + shield (AC 11 + dex + shield, so up to 16 without barkskin, lasts all day)
Rangers start with Scale mail (AC 16 if +2 dex) or leather (AC 11+dex; so 14)
Rogue starts with leather (AC 11 +3 dex = 14)
Warlock starts with leather (AC 11 + 2 dex = 13)

That all being said, these aren't great comparisons because Mage Armor and Shield have finite durations. There will be times where they aren't active and the Wizard is stuck with 10 + Dex AC, or 12 using the numbers listed. Within the grand scheme of 6-8 encounters, having an AC of 15 for maybe most of them and, at best, an AC of 20 for one round of one of 8 encounters is really not that great.

By way of comparison that Cleric can have an 18 AC every round of every encounter without having to use a single resource. And any Fighter could have an AC of 19 for the same. I wouldn't begrudge the Wizard the chance to, for a single round and at the cost of all their spellcasting resources, be just about as hard to hit as the others who have far more hit points and invested essentially zero effort.


Almost every pure casters takes Mage Armor and Shield. They are the highest rated spells of 1st level. And rightfully so.

That reduces their offense to just cantrips; and it prevents them from using spells like Sleep which are likely to have a substantially greater impact on a combat than either Shield or Mage Armor.

[krugaan]

That reduces their offense to just cantrips; and it prevents them from using spells like Sleep which are likely to have a substantially greater impact on a combat than either Shield or Mage Armor.

That's why I think making shield concentration is a more interesting tradeoff than a mere reduction in AC.

edit: by that, I mean that casting shield would potentially break critical concentration spells the wizard has running

[Xetheral]

Keep in mind that (at most) 25% of incoming attacks will fall into the range where they can be turned from a hit into a miss with shield. Spell slots are conserved by not needing to cast the spell unless it will work, but once that choice is made, it will only help against one quarter of the additional attacks you take that round. Depending on enemy tactics and knowledge of how the spell works, the spell may also affect enemies' targeting decisions (which could be good or bad depending on whether you're trying to tank at the moment) but unless you take a lot of subsequent attacks that round, the spell is only rarely going to actually turn a second hit into a miss.

Of course, judicious use of the shield spell can decrease incoming damage by a lot more than 25% under the right conditions (specifically, when enemies have a hard time hitting you anyway), but that doesn't change the fact that only on one attack in four will there be any benefit to casting the spell.

[R.Shackleford]

That's why I think making shield concentration is a more interesting tradeoff than a mere reduction in AC.

edit: by that, I mean that casting shield would potentially break critical concentration spells the wizard has running

You let the Sorcerer run the concentration spells while you, the wizard, drop some blasts.

I suggest Careful Web Sorcerer + Evoker Fireball Wizard for maximum fun :P

[krugaan]

You let the Sorcerer run the concentration spells while you, the wizard, drop some blasts.

I suggest Careful Web Sorcerer + Evoker Fireball Wizard for maximum fun :P

Then they just target the sorc instead...

Sorc and wizard are interchangeable for this conversation, lol.

[R.Shackleford]

Then they just target the sorc instead...

Sorc and wizard are interchangeable for this conversation, lol.

Yet another reason I love Subtle Spell, the enemies don't know which caster put the spell on their allies.

With a bit of role-playing they will think the wizard is concentrating on the spell. Performance or Deception should work.

[krugaan]

Yet another reason I love Subtle Spell, the enemies don't know which caster put the spell on their allies.

With a bit of role-playing they will think the wizard is concentrating on the spell. Performance or Deception should work.

Hah, fair enough, although really ... a wizard can cast concentration spells and still blast.

He'll just run dry extraordinarily fast. Not that mooks should really be able to know that though.

[JumboWheat01]

Yet another reason I love Subtle Spell, the enemies don't know which caster put the spell on their allies.

With a bit of role-playing they will think the wizard is concentrating on the spell. Performance or Deception should work.

Just hope the enemies never adopt the "kill the one in the dress" attack policy because they are squishy and potentially extremely dangerous.

Though that can be a great way for a barbarian to mess with an npc's head, deflecting blows with their pecs, then crushing their heads.

[georgie_leech]

They might also be a Monk. Or possibly a Druid, and are about to turn into a bear and claw faces off. Or possibly a Warlock with magical bound weaponry...

Come to think of it, there seem to be a lot of classes that can pull off the 'seeming vulnerable' look now.

[ClintACK]

Sounds like you have some bad RNG, friend.

A Wizard at 1st level has 15 AC. The average (and DMG recommendation) to-hit of CR 1 enemies is +3. That's a 45% chance to hit. Add on shield and that's an average of 20% chance to hit. (anydice (http://anydice.com/program/8ba2))

So on average the Wizard, if they use their shield spell, would be hit 1/5 of the time he is targeted by an attack.

Any of the other casters are getting hit 1/2 of the time they are targeted by an attack. Huge difference.

Just to be clear -- this 1st level wizard just blew *all* of his spells for the day to get a 20 AC for one round, and a 15 AC the rest of the day. He's got the other 7 1/2 encounters of the day to reconsider his life choices.

The defensive fighter with chain and shield has a 19 AC all day long. The life cleric, who is also a full caster, could have an 18 AC all day long -- without spending a single spell slot on getting it. The draconic sorcerer... you get the idea.

Heck, that cleric could get a 20 AC for as long as his concentration holds out (chain + shield + Shield of Faith) for the expenditure of only one spell slot to the wizard's two.

[krugaan]

Just to be clear -- this 1st level wizard just blew *all* of his spells for the day to get a 20 AC for one round, and a 15 AC the rest of the day. He's got the other 7 1/2 encounters of the day to reconsider his life choices.

The defensive fighter with chain and shield has a 19 AC all day long. The life cleric, who is also a full caster, could have an 18 AC all day long -- without spending a single spell slot on getting it. The draconic sorcerer... you get the idea.

Heck, that cleric could get a 20 AC for as long as his concentration holds out (chain + shield + Shield of Faith) for the expenditure of only one spell slot to the wizard's two.

cmon man, its not about the efficiency, its about having the most AC!!

[Saeviomage]

Almost every pure casters takes Mage Armor and Shield. They are the highest rated spells of 1st level. And rightfully so.

So what's the net effect of a wizard spending all of their spells lots on 'the highest rated spells of 1st level'? For 2 rounds a day, he beats the fighter's AC by 1 point.

Everything else about him will suck. He does low damage, has low hit points, has poor saves and has some of the least useful skills.

I would put it to you that those spells are rated where they are simply because there's no other uses at high level for level 1 spells that apply to combat, which is all the guides think happens during a campaign, not because one would actually choose them over having other spells memorized at low level.

[georgie_leech]

So what's the net effect of a wizard spending all of their spells lots on 'the highest rated spells of 1st level'? For 2 rounds a day, he beats the fighter's AC by 1 point.

Everything else about him will suck. He does low damage, has low hit points, has poor saves and has some of the least useful skills.

I would put it to you that those spells are rated where they are simply because there's no other uses at high level for level 1 spells that apply to combat, which is all the guides think happens during a campaign, not because one would actually choose them over having other spells memorized at low level.

Partial agreement. At low levels, anything you can do to mitigate how swingy the game is is a good thing. Spending 100% of your spells known though is taking it a bit far though, yeah. That's like a Fighter showing up with multiple suits of armor they bought with their starting gold, and no weapons.

[Socratov]

Yet another reason I love Subtle Spell, the enemies don't know which caster put the spell on their allies.

With a bit of role-playing they will think the wizard is concentrating on the spell. Performance or Deception should work.

So, basically this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zD5k2QI4tjc)?

[Kryx]

Keep in mind that (at most) 25% of incoming attacks will fall into the range where they can be turned from a hit into a miss with shield.
Out of 100 attacks 45 will normally hit. With shield usage you can ensure that 20 hit. That allows you to avoid 55% of all attacks that would normally hit you. And you can pick and choose after you know if it'll hit or not!

It's way better than "one attack in 4".




Just to be clear -- this 1st level wizard just blew *all* of his spells for the day to get a 20 AC for one round, and a 15 AC the rest of the day.
That's not what I proposed at all. Please don't strawman my argument.

[krugaan]

Fairly certain this thread is headed for deletion, but whatever. I still think shield is fine, as long as you're consuming the parties resources at a proper rate and providing challenging varied encounters which don't all end up with "fighters in front, casters in back".

If you're not, obviously shield will feel extra strong, if only because long rest classes are better at frontloading than short rest ones.

Enforce proper mage armor consumption (it lasts 8 hours, not all day) and shield will probably be fine.

[Kryx]

it lasts 8 hours, not all day
Your party adventures for longer than 5 mins!?!?

But seriously - I'd ask you to consider the following:
Your party is 11th level. Your Wizard now has 6th level spells and his Cantrips already do more damage than his 1st level spells. He has spent 1 spell on mage armor. He has 3 other 1st level spells, and 3 2nd level spells (and 3 3rd level if he wanted to use those, but those are far more valuable than 1st and 2nd).
That's 6 times throughout the day that he can use these 1st and 2nd level spells that have little value to him. Shield is by far the best usage for those 1st level slots and likely 2nd as well.

In my experience a Wizard is rarely hit by a big attack more than 6 times a day unless I specifically design the encounters to target him.

[R.Shackleford]

So, basically this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zD5k2QI4tjc)?

I don't think they were being very subtle about their power.

[djreynolds]

How many spells does he have left over before a long rest?

How often does actually cast the shield spell, or need to?

I mean an EK has probably used all of his slots up in a long fight because he is getting hack on.

It is a very good thread, I often recommend to players to dip sorcerer or wizard to obtain the spell

And do not kill me for this, but I've always felt cantrip attack rolls should be based upon dex for ranged and strength for melee.

[Xetheral]

Out of 100 attacks 45 will normally hit. With shield usage you can ensure that 20 hit. That allows you to avoid 55% of all attacks that would normally hit you. And you can pick and choose after you know if it'll hit or not!

It's way better than "one attack in 4".

I'm confused on where we disagree. Your own numbers show 25 of 100 attacks being turned from hit into a miss. That's exactly "one attack in 4".

My post acknowledged that the reduction in damage taken is higher than the percentage of incoming attacks against which shield is useful. But even in the best case scenario (when an enemy would normally hit on a roll of 15 or better and you use the spell to turn that into only hitting on a 20 or better, a decrease in expected damage of 83.3% that round) it still will only be worth casting on one attack in four.

(And how many enemy attacks will typically hit will, of course, vary wildly from table to table based on party composition, character builds, choice of opponents, and DMing style. But my disagreement with your use of a constant value in your calculation doesn't change the fact that your calculation supports my argument, rather than refuting it.)

[Kryx]

it still will only be worth casting on one attack in four.
It's a bit nit picky, but "only worth it 1/4 of the time" diminishes its value. A defensive spell isn't needed when the attack missed, of course!

Which is why I provided the numbers I did above - it allows you to avoid 55% of all attacks that would normally hit you.

[krugaan]

Your party adventures for longer than 5 mins!?!?

But seriously - I'd ask you to consider the following:
Your party is 11th level. Your Wizard now has 6th level spells and his Cantrips already do more damage than his 1st level spells. He has spent 1 spell on mage armor. He has 3 other 1st level spells, and 3 2nd level spells (and 3 3rd level if he wanted to use those, but those are far more valuable than 1st and 2nd).
That's 6 times throughout the day that he can use these 1st and 2nd level spells that have little value to him. Shield is by far the best usage for those 1st level slots and likely 2nd as well.

In my experience a Wizard is rarely hit by a big attack more than 6 times a day unless I specifically design the encounters to target him.

That's right, but at 11th level the average AC of almost all other classes is much higher. It is *highly unlikely* that the sorc/wizard improves their AC beyond first level.

I mean, i get the shield is an excellent spell, there's no disputing that. I'm just saying it's excellent because it fills an important survival niche that wizards don't have, to go along with their low hp.

I'll admit, with arcane recovery the amount of possible shield casts goes *way* up, but still...

Has anyone tried a shieldless campaign? I'm just curious how terribly casters will do without shield. I'm betting fairly badly. AC 15 is ridiculously low at higher levels, and even 20 is not remotely "hit proof".

Instead of a flat +5 bonus, it could give a flat AC of 18 (or whatever) for the same duration, which would still make it powerful at low levels while severely crimping it at higher levels, if that's so important.

[Kryx]

That's right, but at 11th level the average AC of almost all other classes is much higher. It is *highly unlikely* that the sorc/wizard improves their AC beyond first level.
It's equally highly unlikely that a caster Bard or Warlock has higher AC than 1st level as well. Yet they have no defensive options like this. Armor of Agathys is primarily a melee resource, burns way more resources, and mitigates far less damage. Lore bards can mitigate in a similar way with Cutting Words, though that isn't as reliable as it's a roll.


I'm not suggesting removing shield. I'm suggesting scaling it down so it's not as valuable as a 1st level spell. Making it lower by default and then scale by spell level would accomplish this. As I suggested earlier: 2 AC/Dex Saves and +1 for each spell level above

[Socratov]

I don't think they were being very subtle about their power.

I this case the person concentratin on the debuffs is Cartman's mom.

[djreynolds]

It's equally highly unlikely that a caster Bard or Warlock has higher AC than 1st level as well. Yet they have no defensive options like this. Armor of Agathys is primarily a melee resource, burns way more resources, and mitigates far less damage. Lore bards can mitigate in a similar way with Cutting Words, though that isn't as reliable as it's a roll.


I'm not suggesting removing shield. I'm suggesting scaling it down so it's not as valuable as a 1st level spell. Making it lower by default and then scale by spell level would accomplish this. As I suggested earlier: 2 AC/Dex Saves and +1 for each spell level above

To a max of +5 AC/ dex saves?

I like the idea. It has merit.

I prefer just using the proficiency bonus like defensive duelist. I think this is just easier to manage and should keep the DMs happy

You know you could just limit it to having no armor on, only mage armor or draconic.

I just feel the fighter gets enough flack, it would gimp EKs living on the front lines.

[Kryx]

To a max of +5 AC/ dex saves?
Probably best. I considered not doing it because if a Caster wants to blow a high enough spell... but should be limited, ya.



You know you could just limit it to having no armor on, only mage armor or draconic.

I just feel the fighter gets enough flack, it would gimp EKs living on the front lines.
EK in full plate with shield is a rather large problem, but that isn't the only issue that I'd be trying to solve. It's a value per resource imbalance that I perceive.
Though the way I propose it would make it less valuable for an EK as they have less slots and less higher level slots.

[kladams707]

My suggestion for nerfing (which I don't agree with) but...


Would making shield the equivalent of Dodge as a reaction be too much?

Confers disadvantage on attack against you until the spell's duration, & the npc/monster that caused the reaction would need to re-roll & take the lowest.


Of course, monks might have something to say about that.

[R.Shackleford]

My suggestion for nerfing (which I don't agree with) but...


Would making shield the equivalent of Dodge as a reaction be too much?

Confers disadvantage on attack against you until the spell's duration, & the npc/monster that caused the reaction would need to re-roll & take the lowest.


Of course, monks might have something to say about that.

Which essentially, though not always, would be a shield spell that increased your AC by +3....

But took away grits I guess.

[Kryx]

Giving the Attack disadvantage is actually a large nerf. Giving a flat number lets the caster know 100% if it'll work or not. Disadvantage is a reroll at the standard chance.

[Xetheral]

It's a bit nit picky, but "only worth it 1/4 of the time" diminishes its value. A defensive spell isn't needed when the attack missed, of course!

Which is why I provided the numbers I did above - it allows you to avoid 55% of all attacks that would normally hit you.

Rather than diminishing the spell's value, I think that the fact that the spell is only useful on one attack in four is an important perspective, because it shows exactly how often the spell can be used in a given campaign. A DM who knows how often the mage in question is attacked thus has an easy reference for trying to figure out whether the spell is balanced at that table.

Many combats the effective damage reduction will be more than 55% (for the round the spell is cast), and many it will be less. Importantly, though, the higher levels of effective damage reduction against a particular opponent only occur against enemies not likely to hit you anyway-- which usually are the less-dangerous opponents--significantly reducing the value of that high percentage.

[jas61292]

Giving the Attack disadvantage is actually a large nerf. Giving a flat number lets the caster know 100% if it'll work or not. Disadvantage is a reroll at the standard chance.

That depends on DM style. Nothing ever says the DM has to tell you what number was rolled. They just need to say you were hit. If your AC is 16, and they roll a 21, shield does nothing for you, but no rule says you would know that, meaning you could waste a spell. In that respect, it's no different from disadvantage.

Some DMs might tell you the exact number, but that is a style choice, not pay of the rules.

[Kryx]

That depends on DM style. Nothing ever says the DM has to tell you what number was rolled. They just need to say you were hit. If your AC is 16, and they roll a 21, shield does nothing for you, but no rule says you would know that, meaning you could waste a spell. In that respect, it's no different from disadvantage.

Some DMs might tell you the exact number, but that is a style choice, not pay of the rules.
True, technically they just need to say "you are hit".

I've played on roll20 where the player knows 100% so maybe that is where some of my opinion on it being too strong comes from.

[kladams707]

True, technically they just need to say "you are hit".

I've played on roll20 where the player knows 100% so maybe that is where some of my opinion on it being too strong comes from.


Again, that's gm style because roll20 has the oprion for a gm not to show the dice roll. /pedant

[Kryx]

Again, that's gm style because roll20 has the oprion for a gm not to show the dice roll. /pedant
I'm aware. I make the 5e Shaped sheet. But I'm not interested in hiding monster rolls simply to make shield less powerful.

I enjoy the transparency. And it prevents me from fudging.

[krugaan]

It's equally highly unlikely that a caster Bard or Warlock has higher AC than 1st level as well. Yet they have no defensive options like this. Armor of Agathys is primarily a melee resource, burns way more resources, and mitigates far less damage. Lore bards can mitigate in a similar way with Cutting Words, though that isn't as reliable as it's a roll.


Almost as unlikely, but not quite. Life bard and warlocks of all flavors tend to dip into other classes for synergy, where wizard tends not to, but I see the point. And yet, how often do you hear Bards and Warlocks complaining about shield? All the pathos seems to be coming from the DM side.

If anything, land druids are the caster class with the worst defensive options, it seems.



I'm not suggesting removing shield. I'm suggesting scaling it down so it's not as valuable as a 1st level spell. Making it lower by default and then scale by spell level would accomplish this. As I suggested earlier: 2 AC/Dex Saves and +1 for each spell level above

That seems incredibly unappealing at first level and incredibly expensive at 17th, but it's an idea...

[kladams707]

I'm aware. I make the 5e Shaped sheet. But I'm not interested in hiding monster rolls simply to make shield less powerful.

I enjoy the transparency. And it prevents me from fudging.

I was just being a doofus in that last post, hence the /pedant.

[Kryx]

That seems incredibly unappealing at first level and incredibly expensive at 17th, but it's an idea...
It applies on Dex and AC so it has that nice benefit. The result (enemy misses) is still the same, just the opportunities to use it are less.

Though I think it's a bit more clear that player certainty plays a part. In my games due to Roll20 and how we choose to play then players know 100% if it succeeds or not. Whereas other games the GM won't tell them if it works or not. That difference is huuuuuuge.

[krugaan]

It applies on Dex and AC so it has that nice benefit. The result (enemy misses) is still the same, just the opportunities to use it are less.

I'm curious why you chose Dex, because it's thematically appropriate? Actually, I suppose that's a good a reason as any, although I would be leery of spreading around proficiency in a major save.



Though I think it's a bit more clear that player certainty plays a part. In my games due to Roll20 and how we choose to play then players know 100% if it succeeds or not. Whereas other games the GM won't tell them if it works or not. That difference is huuuuuuge.

Yes, but that's mostly a difference in efficiency, right? I'll agree the uncertainty is a gigantic part, although most players can generally make an educated guess about it.

[Kryx]

I'm curious why you chose Dex, because it's thematically appropriate? Actually, I suppose that's a good a reason as any, although I would be leery of spreading around proficiency in a major save.
Because it makes sense to have a shield protect you against say Fireball.



Yes, but that's mostly a difference in efficiency, right? I'll agree the uncertainty is a gigantic part, although most players can generally make an educated guess about it.
Not if they don't see the roll. Some GMs don't roll openly so then it's pure guess as you don't know the bonus to hit of the monster.

[krugaan]

Because it makes sense to have a shield protect you against say Fireball.

Fireball goes around corners, like most AOEs. Also it doesn't make much sense against things like grease, either. For things like lightning bolt it makes a lot of sense, though.



Not if they don't see the roll. Some GMs don't roll openly so then it's pure guess as you don't know the bonus to hit of the monster.

That would indeed be a huge nerf, but I don't know that I like the hidden roll mechanic. After all, you generally get to see the attack coming, so I'm assuming a wizard would be able to generally tell if a shield would be able to block it, no?

Well, hidden dice rolls are fine, I guess, but hidden adjusted hit rolls seems a bit much.

[Kryx]

Fireball goes around corners, like most AOEs. Also it doesn't make much sense against things like grease, either. For things like lightning bolt it makes a lot of sense, though.
The whole fluff of shield is rather ridiculous - I imagine it more as a circular barrier in all directions.

Dex to avoid avoid damage spells.




That would indeed be a huge nerf, but I don't know that I like the hidden roll mechanic. After all, you generally get to see the attack coming, so I'm assuming a wizard would be able to generally tell if a shield would be able to block it, no?

Well, hidden dice rolls are fine, I guess, but hidden adjusted hit rolls seems a bit much.
Rolling hidden isn't a nerf - that's how a lot of people play (not me). And in that system Shield is far less valuable than in an open roll or open roll+modifiers system.

[fbelanger]

Where in the plane of existence does a wizard have 15 AC as a standard? 16 dex is already pretty high for a wizard since the focus should be on intelligence, which leads to a 25% chance of getting hit for a turn at the cost of a valueable slot.

Human standard +1 all score can easily give a wizard with 16 int, 14 dex , 14 con.

[RickAllison]

If the DM can hide his rolls, then players should be able to as well. Since these abilities exist on NPCs as well, it would be unfair if they were able to use knowledge of the PC's rolls.

Personally, I am of the opinion that DMs can hide their rolls, but must report the value on the die (unmodified, so the PCs only know approximate ranges of modifiers if they feel like calculating) if requested. They can fudge the values beforehand, but it should not be fudged again in response to such a PC decision.

[Zalabim]

I was starting to form the impression that people just don't consider defensive options with the same scrutiny that they give offensive ones.

They generally don't. There are exceptions though. In a game where even death is a revolving door, it seems less likely for people to care about defenses.


It's equally highly unlikely that a caster Bard or Warlock has higher AC than 1st level as well. Yet they have no defensive options like this. Armor of Agathys is primarily a melee resource, burns way more resources, and mitigates far less damage. Lore bards can mitigate in a similar way with Cutting Words, though that isn't as reliable as it's a roll.

Every warlock patron gives a defensive ability by level 11, and there's some defensive Invocations worth considering too. The Lore Bard has gained the ability to even use inspiration in such a defensive manner as well as more uses of inspiration since they go from Cha/Long rest to Cha/any rest.


The whole fluff of shield is rather ridiculous - I imagine it more as a circular barrier in all directions.

Dex to avoid avoid damage spells.

Still leaves the Con save damage spells unaffected, like Cone of Cold.

Making it reactive cover would have some interesting scaling. 1/2 cover at 1st, 3/4 cover at 3rd, total cover at 5th? Of course that could include putting the shield as a thing on the battlefield temporarily.

[Kryx]

Every warlock patron gives a defensive ability by level 11, and there's some defensive Invocations worth considering too. The Lore Bard has gained the ability to even use inspiration in such a defensive manner as well as more uses of inspiration since they go from Cha/Long rest to Cha/any rest.
Do you mean level 6? I asssume you're talking about things like Archfey's Misty Step, or Fiend's Dark One's Own Luck?

And you're right about bard - the most common bard archetype can avoid attacks fairly well as well. I'm not a fan of that ability either (personal opinion).



Still leaves the Con save damage spells unaffected, like Cone of Cold.

Making it reactive cover would have some interesting scaling. 1/2 cover at 1st, 3/4 cover at 3rd, total cover at 5th? Of course that could include putting the shield as a thing on the battlefield temporarily.
Cover does not affect Con saves, only Dex.

[Malifice]

That would indeed be a huge nerf, but I don't know that I like the hidden roll mechanic. After all, you generally get to see the attack coming, so I'm assuming a wizard would be able to generally tell if a shield would be able to block it, no?

As a DM, I roll (in secret) and announce 'Hit' 'Miss' or 'Crit; with some kind of descriptive fluff attached.

From there the player can tell me if he wants to expend a reaction to uncanny dodge, shield or whatever or not. He has a second or two, and then I roll the damage.

[Vogonjeltz]

That's why I think making shield concentration is a more interesting tradeoff than a mere reduction in AC.

edit: by that, I mean that casting shield would potentially break critical concentration spells the wizard has running

I think it would have to prevent all damage that round to be worth such a cost. Both the shield slot AND a lost spell? That's super expensive.


Out of 100 attacks 45 will normally hit. With shield usage you can ensure that 20 hit. That allows you to avoid 55% of all attacks that would normally hit you. And you can pick and choose after you know if it'll hit or not!

It's way better than "one attack in 4".

Which would be fantastic if Shield applied for more than 1 round, meaning it applies to just 4 attacks out of that 100, whereas Mage Armor might actually apply to all 100.

Shield is fine, but not that fine.


Your party adventures for longer than 5 mins!?!?

But seriously - I'd ask you to consider the following:
Your party is 11th level. Your Wizard now has 6th level spells and his Cantrips already do more damage than his 1st level spells. He has spent 1 spell on mage armor. He has 3 other 1st level spells, and 3 2nd level spells (and 3 3rd level if he wanted to use those, but those are far more valuable than 1st and 2nd).
That's 6 times throughout the day that he can use these 1st and 2nd level spells that have little value to him. Shield is by far the best usage for those 1st level slots and likely 2nd as well.

In my experience a Wizard is rarely hit by a big attack more than 6 times a day unless I specifically design the encounters to target him.

I agree, the low level offensive combat spells get less useful once cantrip damage goes up. That doesn't remove many of the utility/control spells however.

i.e. Tasha's Hideous Laughter (remains just as effective), Feather Fall and Expeditious Retreat (bacon saving spells). There are more, but those are 3 equally worthy uses of that 1st level slot.

[Kryx]

Which would be fantastic if Shield applied for more than 1 round, meaning it applies to just 4 attacks out of that 100, whereas Mage Armor might actually apply to all 100.
100 was a way to show percentages. The actual number thrown at the Wizard would more likely be around 10. Many of which could be blocked.

But as pointed out above it is incredibly strong in my games as a result of the style I use.



I agree, the low level offensive combat spells get less useful once cantrip damage goes up. That doesn't remove many of the utility/control spells however.

i.e. Tasha's Hideous Laughter (remains just as effective), Feather Fall and Expeditious Retreat (bacon saving spells). There are more, but those are 3 equally worthy uses of that 1st level slot.
Ya, low level offensive spells have some problems that utility spells don't. It unfortunate. :(

[krugaan]

I think it would have to prevent all damage that round to be worth such a cost. Both the shield slot AND a lost spell? That's super expensive.

Theoretically, yes, it would be, which is sort of the point. At <5 levels you're not going to spending a lot of slots on concentration spells (fog cloud maybe?), and if you are it's extremely unlikely you're going to be hit by anything.

Then again I'm perfectly fine with the way shield is right now, I'm just trying to steer people away from blunt numerical solutions and apply more interesting restrictions.

[krugaan]

As a DM, I roll (in secret) and announce 'Hit' 'Miss' or 'Crit; with some kind of descriptive fluff attached.

From there the player can tell me if he wants to expend a reaction to uncanny dodge, shield or whatever or not. He has a second or two, and then I roll the damage.

That's what I'm getting at... the player should have SOME indication as to the roll. I'm not saying specifics, but some information is only fair.

[ClintACK]

A Wizard at 1st level has 15 AC. The average (and DMG recommendation) to-hit of CR 1 enemies is +3. That's a 45% chance to hit. Add on shield and that's an average of 20% chance to hit.




Just to be clear -- this 1st level wizard just blew *all* of his spells for the day to get a 20 AC for one round, and a 15 AC the rest of the day.


That's not what I proposed at all. Please don't strawman my argument.

In that case, I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about a 1st level Wizard casting Mage Armor at the start of the day and Shield once when someone's about to hit him.

What did I miss?

Was the Wizard in your hypothetical getting a 15 AC from some other source (like Mountain Dwarf)?

Anyway... I think it's likely there's a gish build with EK/Abjurer where Shield becomes truly ridiculous. I just don't think it's ridiculous for a low level wizard, for whom that spell slot is a real cost.

And also:

Rolling hidden isn't a nerf - that's how a lot of people play (not me). And in that system Shield is far less valuable than in an open roll or open roll+modifiers system.

Very interesting. That's how I've always played -- so perhaps that's part of why Shield doesn't feel overpowered to me. Because it can be cast and not even prevent the hit that triggered it.

[energyscholar]

I've played several gish PCs who exploit the Shield spell for burst AC defense. While it does work to give exceptional combat defense it's far from overpowered. Leave the Shield spell just as it's written. Here are the CONS I've found (ab)using Shield as a gish:

I. It burns spell slots fast. An Eldritch Knight can easily spend all spell slots on Shield and still run out. Just say, "I take the hit" and conserve spell slots, which adds an element of drama. It's less of a problem for a full caster, but also less useful.

II. Natural 20s happen. Shield won't stop them. I've had several Shield-spell-enabled PCs go down to critical hits.

III. It requires either a free hand or the Warcaster feat. Either way that's a substantial cost.

That said, I did have one PC who fully exploited the Shield spell. Does any reader seriously consider the following extreme use of Shield to be abusive?

My PC started with Cleric-1 for Heavy Armor and the rest Wild Magic Sorcerer, so spell slots burned on Shield are not a big deal. This PC would tend to hang back early and act like a back-rank caster. This PC's schtick was drawing fire as a Backup Tank if they Main Tank went down - despite having lousy HP. Shield boosts normal AC 20+ up to 25+. The problems here are Natural 20 Critical Hits and Concentration Failure.

One solution was the Blur spell (which requires Concentration, uggh). Blur forces Disadvantage on all attacks, making a high Armor Class PC nearly immune to melee and missile attacks. Blur prevents 95% of critical hits. When foes need a 20 to hit Blur reduces incoming damage by 95%. A goblin archer needs to roll a natural 20/20 to hit, for only one critical hit in 400 attacks.

This tactic worked really well most of the time. My PC was usually able to provide enough of a distraction, and survive the attention, to save the day. Ill fate, in the form of Natural 20/20 from a demon, occasionally struck.

This was an emergency tactic whereby a Caster could temporarily be a Tank against some very tough foes. Abusing Shield is one key to this tactic. It's a high-risk tactic that usually works. Here are the drawbacks:

* If Blur goes down you are in trouble.
* You have low HP
* Spells and energy damage affect you
* Foes can ignore you and attack your allies. It helps to be flashy and attention-getting.
* Used this way, Shield drains spell slots rapidly.
* You must either have a free hand or the Warcaster feat
*Takes your concentration, forcing you to drop Bless or Haste or whatever you were doing prior to becoming Backup Tank.

So, does anyone feel that extreme use of the Shield spell is abusive? I don't. Can anyone think of a more extreme way to (ab)use shield?