Mage Armor... What about a Mage Shield?

[Greywander]

So yesterday my sister and I were playing D&D and the subject of armor came up. So far I've been getting by using Mage Armor. My sister asked if Mage Armor would stack with regular armor, which, of course, it does not. But I could use Mage Armor with a shield.

This got me thinking about the possibility of having a spell that replaces a shield the same way Mage Armor replaces regular armor. Since a Shield spell already exists, we'll call it something else. It will also work more like Shield than Mage Armor.

Mage Guard
Abjuration Cantrip
Casting Time: 1 reaction
Range: Self
Components: S
Duration: 1 round

A swirl of magical energy appears and attaches itself to the arm used to perform the somatic components until the start of your next turn. This gives you all the benefits of wielding a shield with none of the drawbacks. For example, the magical shield does not need to be held in a hand, nor does it interfere with features such as the monk’s Unarmored Defense. If you have another feature that uses a reaction and specifically requires you to be wielding a shield, such as the Protection fighting style, you may use that feature’s reaction as part of the reaction used to cast this spell.

You may cast this cantrip at any time as a reaction, including on your own turn; for example if you wanted to use the Shield Master feat to perform a shield bash on your turn. When you are targeted by a harmful effect, such as an attack, you may cast this spell as a reaction after you know the result of that effect and gain the benefits of this spell against that effect, which can turn a hit into a miss.

I imagine that it looks a bit like using the Dark Hand from Dark Souls.

Now, this spell seems quite good, but it does have some drawbacks. Let's explore the pros and cons.

Pro
+ Let's you benefit from a shield without needing shield proficiency
+ Doesn't weigh anything, cost gold, can't be taken away from you, and is "concealed" until you use it
+ Doesn't require a hand to hold, allowing you to keep a free hand e.g. to cast spells
+ Likewise, you can use it while wielding a two-handed weapon (including ranged weapons), as you only need to hold the weapon with two hands while attacking
+ With the Warcaster feat, you can even use this while dual-wielding
+ Works with features like the monk's Unarmored Defense or the Bracers of Defense
+ Let's you use shield-related reactions like the Protection fighting style as part of casting the spell
+ You can wait until something actually hits you before you use it

Con
- Cantrip slots are precious, you might want something else instead
- It uses your reaction, which means it is competing with a lot of other great defensive abilities (Shield, Absorb Elements, Deflect Missiles, Defensive Duelist, to name a few)
- Similarly, if you use your reaction for something else, like an opportunity attack, you can't use it for this
- You can't use reactions on a surprise round
- Other conditions can prevent you from using reactions, such as getting hit with Shocking Grasp or being affected by the Incapacitated condition
- Magical shields offer superior AC; even with Bracers of Defense, a Shield +3 still offers 1 more AC, and without requiring attunement
- You can't put a holy symbol on it
- It doesn't work in an anti-magic zone (beholder fights will be fun)
- Although you can use shield-related reactions, they can only be used when you cast the spell, not later on during the same round
- Shields aren't hard to get in case you happen to already have proficiency with them, somewhat devaluing this cantrip

In terms of this spell versus a shield, the major difference is that this spell frees up your hand (but requires a free hand to perform the somatic components) at the cost of using your reaction. It could be helpful for certain gish builds, but if you already have proficiency with shields it's not really that helpful (especially if you planned on getting Warcaster anyway).

Thoughts?

[Cybren]

The War Mage essentially has this as a class feature, (though with some added versatility).

But... why make it a reaction? It's probably too good as a reaction. A lot of casters don't have much use for their reaction, and "costing" a cantrip slot to get a free +2 AC is... very good. Possibly "every caster will take this" good. Why not make it a 1st level spell that summons a shield made of force that lasts some long duration like mage armor does?

[JackPhoenix]

Nope. The "cons" don't matter in actual game. Costs reaction? Well, so does Shield... and you get to choose which one you use, saving you an actual spell slot. Takes a cantrip choice? Well, +2 AC is great return for that. Can't put holy symbol on it? The classes which use holy symbols have proficiency with actual shields and no need for this spell. Magical shields offer superior AC? Well, assuming the wizard is proficient in a shield and was lucky enough to find one, sure. Can't use reactions in some circumstances? That's true about Shield as well, and it is still one of the best 1st level spells.

[ruy343]

I'm sorry, but this is absurdly powerful, especially when specifically calling out that it can be used by a monk, does not inhibit dual wielding (which technically it shouldn't unless you had war caster anyways), and that it's a reaction cantrip, which costs no resources, and is instantly available to any class that takes the magic initiate feat.

Atop that, it directly competes with/replaces the Shield spell in the action economy which, as has been pointed out, is already one of the best spells in the game.

However, I'm not one to just criticize without a suggestion for improvement. Taking a cue from Blade Ward, we note that powerful abjuration cantrips often take a full action to cast. A +2 to AC for an action (which could be coupled with a reaction like shield, a monk's bonus action dodge, or an eldritch knight's war magic) is much more reasonable for an at-will magical ability within reach of every class. I might allow that cantrip at my table.

Alternately, you could consider persuading your DM to replace the Wizard (Abjurer)'s level 2 feature with something along the lines of what you've described (giving up the arcane ward in trade), but that would definitely be a step down as far as I can tell.

[Rusvul]

It would probably be fine as a 1st level spell. Niche, but useful for gish builds that rely on using an actual shield. But then... they have proficiency in actual shields. So... idk.

[Jaelommiss]

I'd be fine with a cantrip that let you summon a shield made of force that functions exactly like a normal shield. An action to cast, and lasts an hour without concentration.

Alternatively, I'd accept a first level spell that takes an action and summons a floating shield like you have described for up to one minute. Spell slots lose value as you level, but an action is worth the same no matter where you are in your career. +2 AC is worth a lot across your entire career, too. This spell would be available from the very start for classes that get it, but the opportunity cost would stop it from becoming a must have spell. It's the same sort of rationale as is used to balance a spell like Bless.

I was about to add that's I'd allow the level one version to be cast on any any friendly creature within a small range (30 feet, most likely), but then realized that what I was describing was almost exactly the Shield of Faith spell.

[Greywander]

Why not make it a 1st level spell that summons a shield made of force that lasts some long duration like mage armor does?
I'm not sure, I think I might have been subconsciously thinking of how to make the Shield spell into a cantrip and combined that with replacing a physical shield entirely. This would certainly be another way to handle it, but for some reason I like the idea of making it a cantrip. Perhaps, again, I'm subconsciously thinking of spells like Shillelagh, or how any attack cantrip acts as a weapon replacement.


Nope. The "cons" don't matter in actual game. Costs reaction? Well, so does Shield... and you get to choose which one you use, saving you an actual spell slot. Takes a cantrip choice? Well, +2 AC is great return for that. Can't put holy symbol on it? The classes which use holy symbols have proficiency with actual shields and no need for this spell. Magical shields offer superior AC? Well, assuming the wizard is proficient in a shield and was lucky enough to find one, sure. Can't use reactions in some circumstances? That's true about Shield as well, and it is still one of the best 1st level spells.
These are all very good points. I think I may have overestimated the impact the cons would have.


However, I'm not one to just criticize without a suggestion for improvement. Taking a cue from Blade Ward, we note that powerful abjuration cantrips often take a full action to cast. A +2 to AC for an action (which could be coupled with a reaction like shield, a monk's bonus action dodge, or an eldritch knight's war magic) is much more reasonable for an at-will magical ability within reach of every class. I might allow that cantrip at my table.

Alternatively, I'd accept a first level spell that takes an action and summons a floating shield like you have described for up to one minute. Spell slots lose value as you level, but an action is worth the same no matter where you are in your career. +2 AC is worth a lot across your entire career, too. This spell would be available from the very start for classes that get it, but the opportunity cost would stop it from becoming a must have spell. It's the same sort of rationale as is used to balance a spell like Bless.
One thing to take into consideration is that if this spell doesn't use your reaction, that means you can layer the Shield spell on top of it. But maybe you're right. I actually like this. An action to summon a hands-free shield for 1 minute (bonus points if you use your bonus action to cast Shillelagh). It means you have to be proactive and use it before you take a hit instead of being reactive and using it after taking a hit. Another consequence of changing this from lasting 1 round to 1 minute is that you don't need Warcaster to use with dual-wielding, you just need to summon your shield before you draw your second weapon.


Mage Guard
Abjuration Cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self
Components: S
Duration: 1 minute

A swirl of magical energy appears and attaches itself to the arm used to perform the somatic components of this spell. If you aren’t already wielding a shield, then for the duration you gain a +1 bonus to AC and count as wielding a shield for the purpose of features that require a shield. You also don’t need to hold this magical shield in your hand, thus leaving your hand free.

While you are wielding this shield of magical force, you can use a reaction when you are hit by an attack to boost the power of the shield, granting you an additional +1 AC until the start of your next turn, including against the attack that triggered this reaction.
There, that should be a fair compromise. It costs an action to summon a shield that only grants +1 AC, but you can still burn your reaction to boost the shield to "full strength" (+2 AC), provided you already summoned the shield. Note that while dual-wielders can summon the shield before drawing their weapons, you still need Warcaster to use your reaction to boost the shield.

Is this an improvement?

[DeTess]

There, that should be a fair compromise. It costs an action to summon a shield that only grants +1 AC, but you can still burn your reaction to boost the shield to "full strength" (+2 AC), provided you already summoned the shield. Note that while dual-wielders can summon the shield before drawing their weapons, you still need Warcaster to use your reaction to boost the shield.

Is this an improvement?

The one thing I worry about is that, if you've got the spell, there's never a reason not to cast it. Mage armor eats into a limited resource at least, but unless you get ambushed, there's not reason not to cast this spell before a combat.

I think it might be an idea to have it at +2 AC, but eat your concentration slot? That places it at risk of just being strictly better than 'shield of faith' though.

Edit: on further consideration, making it +2 AC as a cantrip for any duration longer than about three rounds just makes it (in most situations) better than shield of faith. give it concentration and +1 AC for a minute, or drop its duration down to no more than three rounds(with concentration) or 1 round(without). For the 1 round duration, bonus action casting time might be justifiable though.

[Seafarer]

There, that should be a fair compromise. It costs an action to summon a shield that only grants +1 AC, but you can still burn your reaction to boost the shield to "full strength" (+2 AC), provided you already summoned the shield. Note that while dual-wielders can summon the shield before drawing their weapons, you still need Warcaster to use your reaction to boost the shield.

Is this an improvement?

No, it isn't an improvement, except in power. With that spell, you now get +2 AC as a reaction every round for a minute - in other words, you still get the benefit of the version people said was too strong while also getting a flat +1 AC on the rounds you use your reaction for something else.

I believe ruy343's idea was to leave it at +2 AC and 1-round duration, but give it a casting time of one action. That brings it more in line with blade ward, though admittedly most people find that quite weak.

[Greywander]

No, it isn't an improvement, except in power. With that spell, you now get +2 AC as a reaction every turn for a minute - in other words, you still get the benefit of the version people said was too strong while also getting a flat +1 AC on the rounds you use your reaction for something else.
The limitation is that you have to spend an action to cast the spell in the first place. And you have to recast it if it expires before the fight is over. That said...


The one thing I worry about is that, if you've got the spell, there's never a reason not to cast it.
It's one thing if you get ambushed; then everyone is caught with their pants down. But if you know you're about to get into a fight then requiring an action to cast isn't really that limiting.

What if I just dropped it to a flat +1 AC? Or maybe you can choose between a hands-free +1 AC shield or a +2 AC shield that requires a hand? Maybe you can use a bonus action to switch between the two shield types? I'll have to sleep on this.

[xanderh]

Also, just a note, you can't use a normal shield with mage armour. Mage armour disappears if you put on armour, and fails if you're already wearing any. A shield is a piece of armour, according to the rules.

[Cybren]

Also, just a note, you can't use a normal shield with mage armour. Mage armour disappears if you put on armour, and fails if you're already wearing any. A shield is a piece of armour, according to the rules.
Incorrect. The official sage advice document specifies that while shields are grouped with armor in the equipment tables they are a distinct catagory

[xanderh]

Incorrect. The official sage advice document specifies that while shields are grouped with armor in the equipment tables they are a distinct catagory

That is just about the stupidest thing I've heard come out of sage advice, but fair enough. It's clearly listed as armour, so it should count as armour for all intents and purposes. That kind of stuff doesn't fall under sage advice, that **** is errata worthy.

[TheFryingPen]

The problem is that if you make it a reaction it easily becomes a default action without any drawback. The War Wizard subclass handled this quite nicely, allowing you to gain AC and save bonus any time as a reaction, but with the drawback of only being able to cast cantrips in the next turn. I'd take inspiration from that.

Also note that making a 1 turn self-defensive cantrip with an action as a cast time might not make much sense (as seen with Blade Ward). Mind that you can take the Dodge action without any use of a spell / known cantrip slot and that is arguably much better: Disadvantage for attackers is comparable to ~5 AC bonus on average and you get Advantage on Dex saves too.

I'm also not a fan of making it concentration. This aims to be a gish spell. Gishes struggle with concentration anyway, and risking wasting an Action to immediately lose the buff when you're at the front lines would require a stronger effect imo. But if you provide any higher AC bonus the spell would be too good at protecting its own concentration. AC buffs and Concentration on/by the same character don't go too well together imo, because it likely ends up too strong or too weak.

My suggestion would be to make it similar to Mage Armor:



Arcane Buckler
1st-level abjuration
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self
Components: S
Duration: 8 hours

A magical shield attaches to the hand you use to perform the somatic component. It provides a +2 bonus to AC while you are not wielding another shield. You can still use that hand to provide somatic or material components of spells. When you cast a spell of 2nd level or higher with it, this spell ends. You can dismiss this spell as a bonus action.

At Ligher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, it doesn't end when you use the hand to cast a spell of equal or lower level.


For a cantrip version, I'd reduce the duration to 1 minute and only allow cantrip casting with the used hand (1st level at level 5, 2nd level at level 11, 3rd level spells at level 17). And/or make it end after any spell 1st level+. School could also be conjuration.



Also, just a note, you can't use a normal shield with mage armour. Mage armour disappears if you put on armour, and fails if you're already wearing any. A shield is a piece of armour, according to the rules.

Is this explicitly stated or errata'd somewhere? I've always assumed the Shield is just in the Armor table for convenience, as is unarmed strike in the weapon one. In text, the PHB often differentiates between armor and shields. And if you are not allowed to be wearing armor or a shield to benefit from an effect, that's usually stated (Monk's unarmored defense for example, PHB 78).



The Armor table collects the most commonly available types of armor found in the game and separates them into three categories: light armor, medium armor, and heavy armor. Many warriors supplement their armor with a shield.
The (3!) types of armor are explicitly mentioned here, and shield is not one of them. It also says that a shield is a supplement to armor, not a part of it.

[xanderh]

Is this explicitly stated or errata'd somewhere? I've always assumed the Shield is just in the Armor table for convenience, as is unarmed strike in the weapon one. In text, the PHB often differentiates between armor and shields. And if you are not allowed to be wearing armor or a shield to benefit from an effect, that's usually stated (Monk's unarmored defense for example, PHB 78).


The (3!) types of armor are explicitly mentioned here, and shield is not one of them. It also says that a shield is a supplement to armor, not a part of it.

Read the posts just above yours. Also note that barbarian unarmored defense explicitly states that you're allowed to use a shield with it, while monk explicitly states you're not. So that's not anything to go by. Common sense would dictate that anything described in the armour chapter of the book would be armour. In the table, it has the same type of heading that light, medium, and heavy armour does. It has all the same properties as armour, so logically it would probably be armour, but according to Sage Advice it apparently isn't. Why this wasn't spelled out in the book is beyond me...

Also, unarmed strike is not in the PHB weapons table. It was in the first printing, but that was an error, as it is not a weapon.

[Willie the Duck]

That is just about the stupidest thing I've heard come out of sage advice, but fair enough. It's clearly listed as armour, so it should count as armour for all intents and purposes. That kind of stuff doesn't fall under sage advice, that **** is errata worthy.

That distinction is not a current thing. The whole 'X belongs in the FAQ, Y belongs in Sage Advice, Z should occur in errata' framework is something that was invented for 3rd edition and exists only in 3rd edition. As far as I can determine, they have never made such a setup for 5e.

[Appleheart]

The MFoV Warmage class, which is cantrip focused, does come with a Cantrip called... Force Buckler or something, and does exactly what you are looking for here.

The spell is listed in the free preview pages available here:

http://mfov.magehandpress.com/2018/01/warmage-redux.html

Force Buckler
Abjuration cantrip
Casting Time: 1 bonus action
Range: Self
Components: V, S, M (A specially prepared gauntlet worth
at least 5 gp)
Duration: 1 minute
You summon a translucent, yet visible, field of force which
appears about you like a shield. For the duration of the
spell, as long as you have one hand free and you are not
wielding a shield, you gain +2 to your AC. The spell ends
immediately if neither of your hands are free.

Also, the MFoV Warmage class is great fun. Can recommend! :)

[xanderh]

That distinction is not a current thing. The whole 'X belongs in the FAQ, Y belongs in Sage Advice, Z should occur in errata' framework is something that was invented for 3rd edition and exists only in 3rd edition. As far as I can determine, they have never made such a setup for 5e.

I have no clue whatsoever what you're talking about. I didn't play 3e, I'm talking about what makes sense. Sage Advice is about clarifying stuff that is unclear, not about changing stuff. This is changing stuff from what makes logical sense (items described entirely in the "armour" chapter is probably armour) to an explicit exception. They should have added text to shields to clarify that wearing a shield on your arm doesn't count as wearing armour. There's nothing in the text, anywhere in the entire PHB, to suggest that shields are not armour.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Your balancing point here should be Shield of Faith, which would certainly suggest that "+2 AC for a fight or two" is a first level spell.

[Appleheart]

Your balancing point here should be Shield of Faith, which would certainly suggest that "+2 AC for a fight or two" is a first level spell.

Which also stacks with a physical shield though, which a "mage shield" equivalent wouldn't.

Its not a huge distinction, but it is worth noting. :)

[Willie the Duck]

I have no clue whatsoever what you're talking about. I didn't play 3e, I'm talking about what makes sense. Sage Advice is about clarifying stuff that is unclear, not about changing stuff. This is changing stuff from what makes logical sense (items described entirely in the "armour" chapter is probably armour) to an explicit exception. They should have added text to shields to clarify that wearing a shield on your arm doesn't count as wearing armour. There's nothing in the text, anywhere in the entire PHB, to suggest that shields are not armour.

Sage advice gets to be whatever it wants to be or WotC declares it to be. If they want to put in a clarification that has an actual change, there is no precedence that they shouldn't*. If they want to say, "oh, we forgot a line here that explains that shields are X and armor is Y," there is no compelling reason why they shouldn't say so in Sage Advice. Perhaps they should also include it in errata documents, but that is a separate issue.
*In 3e, they did lay out what they intended to include in the FAQ vs. Errata vs. Sage Advice, and various individuals got very upset when they interpreted WotC as having deviated from those rules. Likewise, some took those WotC-determined guidelines as being some form of universal convention over what is an acceptable way of updating or clarifying a set of rules.

[NaughtyTiger]

Sage advice gets to be whatever it wants to be or WotC declares it to be.

WoTC has declared that Sage Advice and Crawford tweets are not binding in Adventurer's League. Facebook group, errata, and the seasonal FAQ are binding for AL. So there is a partial distinction.

[Willie the Duck]

WoTC has declared that Sage Advice and Crawford tweets are not binding in Adventurer's League. Facebook group, errata, and the seasonal FAQ are binding for AL. So there is a partial distinction.

Okay, true. They have defined what fits where (for AL only, I will add). My point is that they get to declare it, there are no universal rules (even consensus-based social norms, on par with something like Robert's Rules of Order) that define these things.

[mrumsey]

What about something like this:

[Spell Name]
Abjuration cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self
Components: V, S, M
Duration: 1 minute
You summon a translucent disc of force which attaches to your arm.
This disc grants a +1 AC bonus for the duration of the spell. [Spell Name] leaves
both hands open for the purposes of spellcasting. The spell ends if you
pick up a shield or wield a weapon in both hands.

While the spell is active, after you have been hit by an attack, but
before damage is rolled, you may, as a reaction, cause the disc to burst, imposing
disadvantage on the triggering attack. This dispels [Spell Name].

Shield: 1st level spell that costs a reaction.
[Spell Name]: Cantrip that costs and action AND a reaction, but grants a +1 AC in the meantime.

No reason not to have it up, unless you'd prefer to be doing damage.

[Grod_The_Giant]

What about something like this:
The first part is probably okay; the reaction is probably too much. In essence, you're swapping a Cantrip known for shield proficiency; whatever additional benefits or limits you put on that depends on how you value the one vs the other.

[Vogie]

The first part is probably okay; the reaction is probably too much. In essence, you're swapping a Cantrip known for shield proficiency; whatever additional benefits or limits you put on that depends on how you value the one vs the other.

I agree. Maybe just a +1 AC buckler summoned as a bonus action for 1 minute? Or should it be an action, only available as a bonus action for Sorcerers?

That's not as strong as the Reaction-based shields (Shield, War Magic) because it must be proactively cast, even though it lasts longer.

[DeTess]

What about something like this:


It looks decent, but I'd really make it require concentration if it's a cantrip, as concentration-less I'd consider this closer to a 1st level spell (doesn't last as long as shield of faith, and has lower AC, but is concentration-less and has additional options).

[nickl_2000]

So there has been a lot of conversation here about how the spell would work, but here's my question. Why are we giving spell casters yet another way to raise their AC?

There is already Shield, Mage Armor, Shield of Faith, Bladesong, Foresight, Blur, Mirror Image, and others. Why do we need to give casters more defensive spells?

[KorvinStarmast]

I'd be fine with a cantrip that let you summon a shield made of force that functions exactly like a normal shield. An action to cast, and lasts an hour without concentration. That makes no sense to me, since mage armor is a 1st level spell that adds 3 to your armor class. A cantrip that adds 2 and at no cost? A bit too much benefit for the cost given bounded accuracy and AC in this edition.

[Willie the Duck]

So there has been a lot of conversation here about how the spell would work, but here's my question. Why are we giving spell casters yet another way to raise their AC?

There is already Shield, Mage Armor, Shield of Faith, Bladesong, Foresight, Blur, Mirror Image, and others. Why do we need to give casters more defensive spells?

I'm not sure that we have a defined set of goals here at all. Other than the fact that it is actually rather annoying to try to get shield proficiency (moderately armored feat, and only moderately armored feat, grants you shield proficiency) why not use a regular shield. Or, at worst, have a cantrip that creates a normal shield that acts just like a normal shield except that the caster is proficient in it?

[robbie374]

This does basically replace shield proficiency in exchange for a cantrip, which is a fair trade. Comparing Cleric domain features and armor feats shows that one cantrip is roughly equal to shield proficiency. Simply this would become:


Mage Shield
Abjuration cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self
Components: V, S, M (a free hand)
Duration: 1 minute

A magical shield forms in your free hand, giving you +2 to AC for the duration or until you dismiss the shield as an action on your turn.

Note that it takes a full action to don or doff a shield, and this should follow that mold. Also, 1 minute is the standard duration for stat-buffing cantrips.
However, you are also trying to get around the biggest drawback of having a shield, which is not having a hand free. If you want that benefit, you need to diminish its power. There is a similar benefit in the Mariner fighting style:


Mariner

As long as you are not wearing heavy armor or using a shield, you have a swimming speed and a climbing speed equal to your normal speed, and you gain a +1 bonus to AC.

Balance-wise, a Fighting Style is worth a half-feat, or slightly under twice the value of a cantrip. To give your cantrip the hands-free feature, it then would make sense to match Mariner minus climbing and swimming:


Mage Shield
Abjuration cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self
Components: V, S
Duration: 1 minute

A magical shield floats around you, giving you +1 to AC for the duration as long as you are not wearing heavy armor or using a shield.

This will make for a potent Magic Initiate, taking it alongside Mage Armor for effective base AC of 14+Dex, which is huge. That's basically magic light armor +2, much better than light-armor-based classes who don't get shields. I'm inclined to think it may be too much from a class-to-class balance perspective. Keeping this in mind, this version would be more balanced to still give some of the free hand benefit you were looking for, namely, a cleric-style spellcasting focus:


Mage Shield
Abjuration cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self
Components: V, S, M (a free hand)
Duration: 1 minute

A magical shield forms in your hand, giving you +1 to AC for the duration as long as you are not wearing heavy armor or using a shield, or until you dismiss it as an action on your turn. You may use this shield as a spellcasting focus.

[Agénor]

Along with previous posters, I believe the spell proposed in its original form is mechanically vastly superior to what is available hence unbalanced.

Several good possible ways of correcting it while retaining definite usefulness have been given. Here is mine:
Out of the two options of increasing the level of the spell to match its power or to lessen its power to match its level, I think the original poster on the second option, the goal is to create a cantrip and there is are the Shield of Faith and Shield spells at level 1 already.
Another aspect that seemed important was the reaction aspect. Out of the four casting actions possible - standard action, bonus action, reaction or longer casting -, the reaction is the cheapest. It isn't very cheap as there a few contenders for it but the other three options have more contenders and more powerful ones.
This makes us going for a Cantrip castable as a Reaction that increases Armour Class.

I propose to reduce the duration of the spell to one turn. This allows to deflect a close hit - as it gives +2 to A.C. - yet isn't good enough to compete with Shield at level 1. Making it last one turn only also insures it is being cast as a Reaction only, making it effectively compete with the other Reactions.

I am aware that this proposition doesn't address a free hand or using a shield already. It is just a Cantrip version of the Shield spell.

A Cantrip version of the Shield of Faith spell would require Concentration, last a minute only or until it ends, be cast as a Bonus action, provide +2 to A.C. and would end if a after the first attack sustained that doesn't hit by 2 or less.

What do you think of these propositions?

[robbie374]

Along with previous posters, I believe the spell proposed in its original form is mechanically vastly superior to what is available hence unbalanced.

Several good possible ways of correcting it while retaining definite usefulness have been given. Here is mine:
Out of the two options of increasing the level of the spell to match its power or to lessen its power to match its level, I think the original poster on the second option, the goal is to create a cantrip and there is are the Shield of Faith and Shield spells at level 1 already.
Another aspect that seemed important was the reaction aspect. Out of the four casting actions possible - standard action, bonus action, reaction or longer casting -, the reaction is the cheapest. It isn't very cheap as there a few contenders for it but the other three options have more contenders and more powerful ones.
This makes us going for a Cantrip castable as a Reaction that increases Armour Class.

I propose to reduce the duration of the spell to one turn. This allows to deflect a close hit - as it gives +2 to A.C. - yet isn't good enough to compete with Shield at level 1. Making it last one turn only also insures it is being cast as a Reaction only, making it effectively compete with the other Reactions.

I am aware that this proposition doesn't address a free hand or using a shield already. It is just a Cantrip version of the Shield spell.

The free hand issue is very significant, as it is the only drawback of using a shield. A free reaction shield gets around that one drawback entirely.

Furthermore, a half-shield is implied in Mage Armor with its AC being 13+Dex above studded leather. Adding more than +1 AC for free makes it crazy good.


A Cantrip version of the Shield of Faith spell would require Concentration, last a minute only or until it ends, be cast as a Bonus action, provide +2 to A.C. and would end if a after the first attack sustained that doesn't hit by 2 or less.

What do you think of these propositions?

This one could work, although I would make it more like Guidance and Resistance which last only until the next attempt, not the next failure.


Shield of Little Faith
Abjuration cantrip
Casting Time: 1 bonus action
Range: Self
Components: V, S, M (Parchment with holy text)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minuteYou gain a +2 bonus to AC the next time an attack roll is made against you.

[Lombra]

I mean there is a spell literally called shield...

[Submortimer]

The MFoV Warmage class, which is cantrip focused, does come with a Cantrip called... Force Buckler or something, and does exactly what you are looking for here.

The spell is listed in the free preview pages available here:

http://mfov.magehandpress.com/2018/01/warmage-redux.html

Force Buckler
Abjuration cantrip
Casting Time: 1 bonus action
Range: Self
Components: V, S, M (A specially prepared gauntlet worth
at least 5 gp)
Duration: 1 minute
You summon a translucent, yet visible, field of force which
appears about you like a shield. For the duration of the
spell, as long as you have one hand free and you are not
wielding a shield, you gain +2 to your AC. The spell ends
immediately if neither of your hands are free.

Also, the MFoV Warmage class is great fun. Can recommend! :)

Just a note: For balance concerns, we changed this to be an Action casting time.

[Appleheart]

Just a note: For balance concerns, we changed this to be an Action casting time.

Okay, cool! I guess I need to re-download my PDF. :)

[Seafarer]

The limitation is that you have to spend an action to cast the spell in the first place. And you have to recast it if it expires before the fight is over.

That really isn't a limitation. You only lose one action, and then it lasts for the whole fight (since 5E combat lasting more than ten rounds is very unusual).

I feel like any +AC at-will effect is probably too powerful unless it's baked into the class. A 1-round duration with a casting time of 1 action or an effect against 1 attack with a reaction casting time is as strong as I'd feel comfortable letting a cantrip be.

[Fnissalot]

Would it not be a mix of shield of faith and guidance/resistance?

Cantrip
1 action
Touch
Concentration, up to 1 minute
You touch one willing creature. Once before the spell ends, the target can roll a d4 and add the number rolled to its AC against one attack. It can roll the die before or after the attack is rolled. The spell then ends.

[Fnissalot]

The free hand issue is very significant, as it is the only drawback of using a shield. A free reaction shield gets around that one drawback entirely.

Furthermore, a half-shield is implied in Mage Armor with its AC being 13+Dex above studded leather. Adding more than +1 AC for free makes it crazy good.



This one could work, although I would make it more like Guidance and Resistance which last only until the next attempt, not the next failure.

I missed you wrote that :)

[ruy343]

I see that a number of people are coming back to my original suggestion: one action for +X AC that lasts for one round. As a game designer myself, I chose this after looking at all the low-cost abjuration spells to try to find the right fit. Here's the framework that Wizards has laid out for us in the spells list:


Shield of Faith: +2 AC for one minute as a bonus action - 1st level slot (typically reserved for divine-flavored casters)
Shield: +5 AC for one round as a reaction - 1st level slot (typically reserved for arcane-flavored casters)
Blade Ward: resistance to physical damage for one round in exchange for one action - Cantrip
Higher level effects force disadvantage (see blur) which is roughly equivalent to a +5 AC, that last for an extended duration. These are 2nd level slots or higher.


Also note: there are no cantrips on the Wizard Spell list (as far as I can tell) that cost only a bonus action or reaction - all of them appear to require additional time for their effect. Therefore cantrips, from what I can tell from the design, aren't intended to be a way to bypass action economy - that seems to be reserved for class-specific features or higher level spells. In keeping with these design principles, you really should make it a full action.

However, we need to also examine the "dodge" action, which competes for your action when trying to survive, granting the rough equivalent of +5 AC (forcing disadvantage for an action), so a cantrip that does the less than the same is pointless. Also, it's worth noting that dodging not only forces disadvantage on enemy attack rolls, but gives you advantage on dexterity saving throws, so investing in a cantrip that takes your action should also make it worthwhile to give up that benefit as well.

The danger lies in giving a cantrip like this to monks/sorcerers, who could find a way to cast this cantrip as a bonus action (or dodge then cast as a bonus action), but that "danger" isn't so bad because it would still cost a resource (a ki point or sorcery point). As such, this spell might have a niche, if we could find a reason for its existence that sufficiently distinguishes it from dodging.

As such, I propose a revision to what I suggested earlier:

Glyph of Protection
Abjuration Cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Components: VS

You draw a glyph in the air in front of you, creating a protective barrier that shields you from harm. Until the end of your next turn, your AC increases by an amount equal to your spellcasting ability modifier, and you have advantage on saving throws against spells and effects that target only you. Additionally, you cannot be damaged by the Magic Missile spell while this effect is active.

Note: While this cantrip does appear to work (in my opinion), you could always say that your wizard does something similar, but that mechanically he's taking the dodge action. That would probably be the best course overall (instead of creating a whole new cantrip like I just wasted the last 10 minutes doing only to be shouted over by the rest of the forum).

[Greywander]

I see that a number of people are coming back to my original suggestion: one action for +X AC that lasts for one round. As a game designer myself, I chose this after looking at all the low-cost abjuration spells to try to find the right fit.
I'm sure this is a good assessment of defensive spells, but using an action to protect yourself for one round isn't really what I'm aiming for. That's more or less what Blade Ward does. So it either has to be 1 action for 1 minute (or longer), or 1 bonus action or reaction for 1 round.

Here's my latest iteration. I've decided to focus on keeping the hand free for spellcasting over maximizing the AC bonus, as this will differentiate it from a normal shield and give you a reason to use one or the other depending on what your needs are (more AC vs. free hand).


Mage Buckler
Abjuration Cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self
Components: S
Duration: 1 minute

A swirl of magical energy appears and attaches itself to the arm used to perform the somatic components of this spell. This magical shield of swirling force only provides +1 AC, but you are considered to be proficient with it. This magical shield leaves your hand free enough to perform most tasks, including the material and somatic components of spells or using items or a spellcasting focus, but you aren’t able to wield a weapon using that hand.

If this is too strong, I can tweak it so you need to use a reaction to get the bonus AC, similar to my second iteration of this spell. And/or I could make it a 1st level spell that lasts for 8 hours. Or, heck, we could append this to the Mage Armor spell if you upcast it to 2nd level.


So there has been a lot of conversation here about how the spell would work, but here's my question. Why are we giving spell casters yet another way to raise their AC?

There is already Shield, Mage Armor, Shield of Faith, Bladesong, Foresight, Blur, Mirror Image, and others. Why do we need to give casters more defensive spells?
This is a fair question. It's not as though I feel like spellcasters need this, I just thought, "What if there was a spell like Mage Armor but for a shield instead of armor?" I don't think there will be a problem with such a spell existing as long it is balanced appropriately, and it would open up some more interesting build options.

[Mellack]

I understand what you are trying to do, but I just don't think there is the design space for it. I feel what you want is already covered by using Mage Armor, Shield, Shield of Faith, or the Dodge action. The cantrip you seem to visualize will be overpowered or just be a duplicate of one of those.

[Fnissalot]

The current preventive defensive cantrips are pretty weak. Blade ward gives some resistance for 1 round and resistance gives 1d4 against 1 saving throw in the coming minute and require concentration.

If you do it like resistance and guidance, it can be given to someone else preemptively as long as you don't break concentration. Alternatively you get it for only for a round and then it would be against all attacks that round. Both would be relatively fair as I see it.

It would be the best cantrip ever if it lasted for a full minute and gave bonuses for each attack during that time. That is so much stronger than shield of faith and shield. If you compare resistance and bless, bless has more targets, doesn't end when used and works on both attacks and saving throws. An AC buff cantrip should be very weak.

[Greywander]

I understand what you are trying to do, but I just don't think there is the design space for it. I feel what you want is already covered by using Mage Armor, Shield, Shield of Faith, or the Dodge action. The cantrip you seem to visualize will be overpowered or just be a duplicate of one of those.
Actually, I think what I have is pretty solid. You could argue it is a "duplicate" of, say, Shield of Faith, but weaker (since it is a cantrip). And I think there's room for a spell like that. Plenty of leveled spells have cantrip counterparts, for example Create Bonfire vs. Wall of Flame, or Sacred Flame vs. Flame Strike, Minor Illusion vs. Silent/Major Image, etc.


An AC buff cantrip should be very weak.
Hard to get weaker than +1. And if it's too weak then there's no point in taking it. Would you really choose this spell over, say, Prestidigitation, or Guidance, or Minor Illusion, or Eldritch Blast?


It would be the best cantrip ever if it lasted for a full minute and gave bonuses for each attack during that time.
I'm skeptical of this claim, but this does give me an idea. Maybe have a limited number of "charges" that refresh each round? So at 1st level you can get +1 AC against, say, two attacks per round, and at 5th level you get it for three attacks, four at 11th level, and five (or unlimited) at 17th level. Furthermore, using any shield-related action, such as a Shield Master shield bash or the Protection fighting style, would also use up a charge from the shield, as you still need to "activate" the shield.

[Zalabim]

That distinction is not a current thing. The whole 'X belongs in the FAQ, Y belongs in Sage Advice, Z should occur in errata' framework is something that was invented for 3rd edition and exists only in 3rd edition. As far as I can determine, they have never made such a setup for 5e.
It wasn't invented for 3rd edition. It's just what the word "errata" means.

Okay, true. They have defined what fits where (for AL only, I will add). My point is that they get to declare it, there are no universal rules (even consensus-based social norms, on par with something like Robert's Rules of Order) that define these things.
The **** there aren't. It's the definition and common knowledge and common courtesy. Also, if shields are not armor, then there is no penalty for using a shield without proficiency, and so the armor proficiency paragraph needs errata. The armor proficiency section only lists the penalty for wearing armor that you lack proficiency in. Shields are wielded. They could probably answer in sage advice about the unclear features and just say "shields are allowed with this" without saying "shields aren't armor." Because shields are ****ing armor.

[DeTess]

Hard to get weaker than +1. And if it's too weak then there's no point in taking it. Would you really choose this spell over, say, Prestidigitation, or Guidance, or Minor Illusion, or Eldritch Blast?


Several of the versions you presented (including the mos recent 'Mage Buckler') I'd definitely consider must-picks in combat-oriented campaigns, and if necessary I'd drop minor illusion or presty or a similar utility cantrip for it. A 1 minute lasting AC bonus that does not require concentration is really just that good, even if it's only a +1.

If you want to keep it in the cantrip level, you do need to scale it down somewhat. Your charges idea is good, but I'd make that total charges, not charges per round (or have the spell end entirely if its charges are overmatched in a single round).

I'd just slap concentration on a your buckler version though, and that'd already be a lot closer to balanced imho.

[Willie the Duck]

It wasn't invented for 3rd edition. It's just what the word "errata" means.
An errata is indeed a list of corrections of errors in a document. The declaration of how WotC was going to divvy out rules clarifications, official interpretations, declarations of rules changes, and corrections is under their own purview (and was done in a specified manner for the first time with 3e). If they want to include (lower case) errata in the FAQ, Sage Advice (something that doesn't have a dictionary definition), or anywhere else, that is their right. There is no 'rule' that says they can't. If they fail to include a correction of error in the (upper case) Errata document, then that document is incomplete. When xanderh doesn't like them putting said ruling in sage advice, his opinion is as right as anyone else's. But "that kind of stuff doesn't fall under sage advice," is only right as a 'I don't like what they are doing' argument, not a 'what they are doing is wrong' argument.


The **** there aren't. It's the definition and common knowledge and common courtesy. Also, if shields are not armor, then there is no penalty for using a shield without proficiency, and so the armor proficiency paragraph needs errata. The armor proficiency section only lists the penalty for wearing armor that you lack proficiency in. Shields are wielded.

I'm not going to react to pointless anger.
Regardless, where they can or should list rule changes and clarifications is separate from the actual ruling. I am more sympathetic to the argument that shields should be armor, but the case is pretty mixed. Shields and armor interact haphazardly with each other and other AC determiners throughout the ruleset. Monks, Tortles and the spell Barkskin have unarmored defense which does not allow shields on top of their listed AC, while Barbarians, lizardfolk, and Dragon Sorcerers have unarmored defense which does.


They could probably answer in sage advice about the unclear features and just say "shields are allowed with this" without saying "shields aren't armor." Because shields are ****ing armor.

I can get behind this. Or perhaps "shields count as armor with regards to ______, but are distinct from armor in that _____."

[nickl_2000]

This is a fair question. It's not as though I feel like spellcasters need this, I just thought, "What if there was a spell like Mage Armor but for a shield instead of armor?" I don't think there will be a problem with such a spell existing as long it is balanced appropriately, and it would open up some more interesting build options.

To be fair, I'm kind of a grognard about things like this. I feel that there is way to much out there to make spellcasters into Melee characters at the detriment of melee characters.

[Mellack]

Compare it to Shield of Faith. It does one less AC, but it doesn't take concentration (which is huge) and doesn't take a spell slot. It seems too powerful to me, but it is your game. I would definitely take it over many other cantrips and cast it every time we were going to open a door or enter a new room.

[TheFryingPen]

A 1 minute lasting AC bonus that does not require concentration is really just that good, even if it's only a +1.

It's not that good since doesn't work while using a normal shield, imo, as long as you also make it occupy a hand and need an action to bring up. Considering bounded accuracy it's a non-issue as long as it doesn't provide any more AC than a shield (and shields can even get up to +3). If you optimize for combat you would not pick presti anyway. Minor illusion is situational and DM-dependant, but I'd see more value in it (e.g. as a distraction or pop-up cover). A known cantrip slot is comparable to a weapon proficiency for combat, in the sense of allowing you to do a decent default attack in melee or ranged combat. So I see no harm in a cantrip that similarily provides a "pseudo"-shield proficiency.



The **** there aren't. It's the definition and common knowledge and common courtesy.

The problem is, in the PHB it's not really clearly defined anywhere, it's ambiguous and can be interpreted in multiple ways. Some texts seem to group shields with armor while others don't and separate them. WotC did a bad job at this. As for the real-world definition, I've always considered a shield part of a warrior's defensive gear, but not as armor. Armor, for me, is the suit of armor you directly wear on your body. But that might be because I'm not a native speaker and the german word for armor is more specific.

[Yakk]

Mage Guard
Abjuration Cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self
Components: S
Duration: 1 round (end of your next turn)

A swirl of magical energy appears and attaches itself to the arm used to perform the somatic components of this spell. If you aren’t already wielding a shield, then for the duration you gain a +2 bonus to AC and count as wielding a shield for the purpose of features that require a shield.

You may cast this spell as a reaction to being hit by 2 points or less on an attack. If you do so, the attack misses.

When you use Mage Guard, you lose your action on your next turn.
This spell now has a significant cost; it costs your next turn's action. In exchange you get an instant shield to parry a blow with.

You trade 1 of your actions to nullify an enemy action; what more, it nullifies a *successful* action, and costs nothing if the enemy misses. So it is still a good deal, just no longer a no-brainer one.

You can also use it actively and use your action each round to keep it up.

[MaxWilson]

WoTC has declared that Sage Advice and Crawford tweets are not binding in Adventurer's League. Facebook group, errata, and the seasonal FAQ are binding for AL. So there is a partial distinction.

Plus the rather important distinction that errata affects what gets printed in the books. You know, the actual rule books that people actually buy for new players and which almost all players read.

Anything not written in the published books is automatically obscure and of questionable relevance to anyone not playing at official WotC-sanctioned events like AL. Most players do not read Twitter feeds, they just play the game. Many players and DMs do not even use or know about errata such as the change to how heavy obscurement works (darkness used to blind those within in, now it prevents you from seeing stuff within it, so it now works realistically in letting monsters hiding in the dark see the PC holding up a torch), because they are just going off of what is written in the PHB they bought originally. The chance of those players browsing Jeremy's Twitter feed looking for official corporate interpretations of the PHB text is zero.

So errata matters more than tweets.

[mephnick]

To be fair, I'm kind of a grognard about things like this. I feel that there is way to much out there to make spellcasters into Melee characters at the detriment of melee characters.

Seriously. "Mundane" characters never get the option to do everything, why are people always trying to find a way for full casters to do everything?

People complain about magic/mundane disparity, but if you're trying to create things like "free shield for a cantrip" then the disparity in the brand is your fault.

[bobofwestgate]

This is stupidly overpowered. I can see EVERY skirmisher type class taking magic initiate for this. Monk, Hexblade, Rogue would almost be a auto include for their class. This and booming blade/green flame blade would make every one of them dumb. Plus Find Familiar.

[TheFryingPen]

This is stupidly overpowered. I can see EVERY skirmisher type class taking magic initiate for this. Monk, Hexblade, Rogue would almost be a auto include for their class. This and booming blade/green flame blade would make every one of them dumb. Plus Find Familiar.

Monk wouldn't benefit when it counts as wielding a shield.
Hexblade gets shield proficiency, so wielding a shield would get you more AC more reliably. Using one of your 2 cantrip slots for it should add some versatility in return.
Rogue can just get Moderately Armored instead, pick up a shield (+ get half an ASI) and get BB/GFB via High Elf or AT. Or Dual Wielder for the +1 to AC and more damage by using TWF.
In combat any decent DM will get rid of a familiar quickly if you abuse it too much.

How is this stupidly overpowered when you can achieve similar results with similar investment?

[Greywander]

How is this stupidly overpowered when you can achieve similar results with similar investment?
Exactly, I'm seeing a lot of people calling this "overpowered" or saying that everyone would take it, but only a few people have actually gone to the effort to explain what's wrong with the spell and how they would go about fixing it. And I've taken some of the criticism to heart and adjusted the spell accordingly while still keeping true to what I originally envisioned.

+1 AC isn't nothing, but it's not a huge difference, either. In terms of bounded accuracy, it becomes more of a problem when you can stack up a bunch of little bonuses, but this replaces a shield, so you're actually 1 AC short (4 short if you have access to a shield +3). The biggest benefit seems like it would be for casters who don't normally get proficiency with shields, but even then I find myself wondering if I'd even want this as one of my 2 to 4 (depending on class) starting cantrips. Sure, if you want to make something completely focused on combat, it's pretty good. But cantrips can also provide great out of combat utility, and this one does not. And casters generally want to stay away from the fighting and cast spells from a distance.

The one edge case would be the AT rogue. In which case, sure, if you want to grab Booming Blade and this as your two non-Mage Hand cantrips, go right ahead. It will make you just a bit tankier. But I still question if you'd rather have this over Prestidigitation or Minor Illusion. Combat isn't everything.

Everything else either already has shield proficiency (cleric, paladin, ranger, EK fighter, hexblade), doesn't get cantrips (monk, non-AT rogue), or isn't designed for melee combat (all full casters).

But let's compare it to Shield of Faith, probably the closest existing spell.



Mage Buckler - cantrip
Shield of Faith - 1st level


Cast on self
Cast on self or other (60 foot range)


1 minute
10 minutes, concentration


+1 AC, doesn't stack with shield
+2 AC, stacks with shield


Can't wield weapon in that hand
Doesn't require a hand


Counts as a shield (yes Shield Master, no monk Unarmored Defense)
Doesn't count as a shield; lets you choose whether or not to use a shield



About the only thing that's keeping this from simply being a crappier version of Shield of Faith is concentration, which is something I'd like to avoid as I feel it would be too restrictive. If it just straight up gave you an extra +1 AC and did stack with a shield, then yes, that would be too much.

Trading a cantrip for a half-shield doesn't seem too ludicrous to me.

[TheFryingPen]

Mage Buckler - cantrip
Shield of Faith - 1st level


Can't wield weapon in that hand
Doesn't require a hand


Counts as a shield (yes Shield Master, no monk Unarmored Defense)
Doesn't count as a shield; lets you choose whether or not to use a shield




While I don't think it will ever be too strong with an +1AC not stacking with a normal shield, be careful with what else you allow players to do with the used hand. E.g. limit it to spells with lower level / cantrips (and maybe let it scale up with higer level) to keep the caster flavor, but make anything else impossible.
I could see this have too much versatility for an EK grappler for example: With your current ruling, one could bash (shield master), cast BB/GFB (improvised melee weapon) or other spells (Shield for example), use objects (inc. potions / scrolls) and/or grapple with the "Mage Buckler" hand while getting AC from it.
Also, for a Monk to invest something to get a single point of AC more won't be a problem balance-wise imo, but I'd rather make it clearly count as a shield for everything or not, just to be more clear on the ruling.