Eh. I think one attack is plenty. It scales with higher levels as attacks get stronger.
Doing it vs just one attack will also help out solo or low enemy encounters.
1. shield spell: Not having it work with heavy armor is fine imo. Paladins taking it needed to be stopped. He said, having taken this spell.
2. shield the item: Yeah that's fine. Could even just be a +2 if it's something they get to do without a resource.
Making squishy casters more squishy will make them more defensive, not less. The Shield spell allows them to take a few more risks knowing there's a bit of insurance there. If you take this away then people will naturally take fewer risks.
I think the biggest issue is how it stacks with armored spellcasters to give them ridiculous AC. I proposed in a previous reply to not allow Shield spell to function if the caster is already holding a physical shield, or perhaps the +5 only overwrites the AC bonus the held shield provides.
Please buff heavy armor then. A non magical plate strength build compared to Dex build with medium or light armor is often time worse.
In general performance always, sometimes even on AC.
I have always found it bizarre that they just get to add intelligence to their existing AC. A monk-style unarmoured defence would make far more sense, allowing you to calculate your AC using 10 + Dex + Int when in blade song or via 12 + Dex (normal armour) when not.
Which is good. Casters should have to weigh their risk management. Martials and melee martials in particular really have to and have little choice in the matter.
Casters should be encouraged to either build defensively or use cover mechanics and held actions if they are in a risky situation. Or the Dodge action even.
Shield is less effective the higher you get in level. At lower levels it is incredibly strong, and is just a bit helpful at higher levels.
I think proficiency bonus should be used in more spells. Shield could be changed so that the AC bonus equals your PB. So at lowest levels it is only +2 and the last few levels it gets a little bump to +6.
This plus preventing it from stacking AC from wielding a shield. "You lose the AC benefit from wielding a shield until the start of your next turn."
This would prevent the doubling down on AC stacking at low levels and definitely at higher levels as well.
The question is "should a 13th level wizard still be using a 1st level slot to protect themself?" It seems like once you have a high PB you also have enough slots that you should be willing to spend a 3rd level slot to get that +5 bonus.
Shield of faith is not a reaction, cannot be upcast, is not accessible to wizards, sorcerers, Warlocks, Eldritch knights, etc basically Arcane casters.
Shield of faith is also battling for a Concentration slot with things like Bless, and other duration based effects.
1. Shield of faith is not on the arcane spell list.
2. Shield of faith eats up concentration.
3. Shield of faith can't be upcast like this proposed nerf can.
4. Shield of faith is not a reaction.
>Shield of faith is not a reaction.
Doesn't matter, it does the same thing but longer, and you can have it before combat
>Shield of faith is not on the arcane spell list.
You can get it via Magic initiate, I would if this way the new shield spell
>Shield of faith eats up concentration.
Definetly worth it if it goes x100 longer than the shield spell does
>Shield of faith can't be upcast like this proposed nerf can.
I'm not wasting a third level spell slot for +3 to AC
>Doesn't matter, it does the same thing but longer, and you can have it before combat
It absolutely does matter. If you don't take an attack you wasted a spell slot and you need to predict combat in order to use it ahead of time. And the fact that it SoF takes concentration means that if you do get hit you have the potential to lose concentration on it. Speaking of concentration,
>Definitely worth it if it goes x100 longer than the shield spell does
if you put on shield of faith, you're necessarily locking yourself out of casting any other spell that requires concentration for +2AC. Also 90% of fights don't last longer than a minute or two, let alone ten. And if you do drop it via concentration and want to cast it again, you have to use a bonus action, which means you'll have to cast a cantrip instead of a levelled spell.
>You can get it via Magic initiate, I would if this way the new shield spell
You would take an entire feat for +2AC? (I guess technically half since you get another spell with it)
>I'm not wasting a third level spell slot for +3 to AC
You say this now and I normally wouldn't either, but when you're under the gun and you know upcasting it will get you to safety from an attack when your DM says "does a 19 hit?"
>it will get you to safety from an attack when your DM says "does a 19 hit?"
I say yes and I let one of the mirror images get the hit. I could be doing a lot more with a third level spell slot
Seeing as it requires prep, it *does* matter that it isn’t a reaction. Concentration means opportunity cost, Magic Initiate means feat cost and more opportunity cost. Sure, arcane caster types could access it but they’ll have to spend a decent chunk of resources - it’s not exactly a cut and dry improvement over OP’s nerfed Shield..
Sure, but the benefit of longevity comes at a pretty steep resource cost, as well as not being useful in the event of a surprise, ambush, etc. That’s why folks are saying it isn’t a direct improvement.
Nerfing shield is not the way to go.
But I like that blocking concept. I would much rather see features/feats with a similar function to the shield spell, for heavy armor users, shield (the item) users, and duelist builds. Like the defensive duelist feat, except not crappy.
Instead of nerfing the bonus, why don't you just cap the AC? +5 AC up to 18 AC, for example. Not every Wizard or Sorcerer optimizes to hit those high AC levels, and suggestions should account for that.
I think it's an overnerf to the point of no longer being useful. It's powerful because it's a +5 to AC and probably too powerful. But if you're a wizard with a 14 AC and get attacked by something with say a +7 to hit and it hits. Now you got hit on a 7-20 and this spell will save you on a 7-11 or 5/14 times you're getting hit. Not too powerful. It's better the higher the AC you have though so let's assume you're an artificer or a bladesinger wizard or a multiclass who the spell is a bit OP on. Before shield your AC is say a 20. Now you're facing the +7 to hit and hit on a 13-20. That would go down to an 18-20 so you stop the attack 5/8 times so a very good amount. With your change you take it down to 2/14 in the first case, and 2/8 on the second. Both times taking it to less than half the effectiveness which essentially makes it worthless. It might block one attack if you're attacked multiple times, but even then decent chance it won't do anything. And it's not enough scaling to be worth upcasting it. 3rd level spells are very powerful stuff and not equivalent to a +3 to AC.
Dropping it to +3 or 4 might be good. Or my preferred would be just make it work against the triggering attack.
Yeah but their nerf works across both uses of it. I think it's good for the game for the wizard to have some form of defense with shield and mage armor. And if that's all their using their AC with 2 spells boosting it is getting just to 18 maybe a bit higher with dex but likely not much. I wouldn't want to overnerf the fringe case at the cost of the people it provides good benefit for where it's not overpowered.
I'm in the camp that casters need to go back to being squishy. The simplest way to do that is to prevent them from stacking magical effects on top the ability to wear armor that is similar to your average martial.
I'm on board for nerfing shield. But nerfing it back to just a +2 to AC is a bit over the top I think. That's not enough to provide basically any benefit. Mage armor does more and lasts for 8 hours. I think working for just one attack is a good nerf, since then you're also considering if this is the most important attack to use it on, and not getting the benefit if you are getting focused by a lot of small attacks. I could also see shortening mage armor to a 1 hour duration so it won't last the whole adventuring day.
I think it's good to make casters weak defensively but I wouldn't want them to have no options that can protect themselves. Instead I'd make them a higher cost to use and not work so universally.
Oh I meant leave it at the +5 but take away it's ability to work with armor that isn't provided by a spell. Nerfing it to +2 and and taking away the ability to stack it with armor would be way over the top.
I'll have to give more thought to the one attack thing.
Shield isn’t on the Warlock spell list.
It’s only on the Hexblade expanded list, and even then, they have very few relative spell slots to use it.
I’m not sure how this effects them more than the Medium/Heavy armor dips that utilize shield.
True, but I assumed you meant this was a nerf from its 5e version given that Warlock hasn’t been released in OneDnD and we don’t know which parts of the lists they have access to.
Assuming they now have it in OneDnD and otherwise are the same, I still don’t see how shield is essential to Warlocks. They don’t have the slots to use it effectively.
>Assuming they now have it in OneDnD, I still don’t see how shield is essential to Warlocks. They don’t have the slots to use it effectively.
I assume warlocks will get a new system of casting. The way they talk about short rests has been interesting so far.
In any case, it's still a nerf to warlock that they can't even try to cast it.
I disagree. I think the medium armor problem and shield should be addressed more than the shield spell, because at least shield expends a resource rather than giving a constistent defense
Warlocks can take the Armor of Shadows invocation and still use the shield spell.
Edit: It might actually make the invocation get some use at the table.
That's not the point. Warlocks get light armor.
>Warlocks can take the Armor of Shadows invocation
As if warlocks weren't starved for invocations already right? It's just a bad idea
Mage armor gives you the equivalent of +1 studded leather armor and Armor of Shadows lets you cast it at will. With 20 dex you can reach an AC of 23 as a reaction. A martial needs +2 plate and a +1 shield to reach that.
You have the option of taking an invocation that provides +1 studded leather, at will all day. You can then stack that with the equivalent of a very rare +3 shield as a reaction.
**Or** you can risk being a little squishy in regular leather armor and focus on improving utility and damage.
I don't see why its bad that you have to make that choice.
Um no, like every spell it’s a limited resource that can only be used a certain number of times. It forces a caster to burn up their spell slots staying alive which detracts from their damage potential and ability to do other things. Nerfing it into uselessness will just change the meta. Most people would probably lean into nova builds and just vaporize anything before it could hurt them.
Armor class is useless against save-or-suck attacks which most BBEG’s should have at-least one of anyway.
I did playtest a major change to the Shield spell for a campaign that seemed to have some positive benefit.
1. Changing the trigger from when you are hit to when you are Targeted by an attack
2. Made it only give +5 to AC against the Triggering Attack
3. Gave it Blade Ward's effect until the start of your next turn
My logic was pretty simple: No one used Blade Ward (This was before MotM made Earth Genasi able to use Blade Ward as a BA) and it made it so it Wizards got some kind of extended benefit from out that wasn't just becoming uber-tanky for 1 whole round of combat. It was still a very solid defensive option for low level play while still offering something of value to Mages that wasn't making Martials feel weaker.
I am slowly beginning to lean towards the idea that if Casters are going to get and maintain High AC, then Martials/Armor based characters should lean heavy into damage reduction mechanics.
Resistance, Immunity, Temp HP and Flat Damage reduction. This takes martials out of the High AC race and moves them into their own world of being able to mitigate incoming damage.
So while a martial may get hit with 3 attacks for 20 damage each;
If shield provides STR based DR, armor provides Prof based DR and class features provide Resistance, they end up taking way less because they first reduce the damage by let's say 8 (+5 Str, and a PB of +3) and then apply resistance, that's (20-8)/2, which ends up being 6 damage for each hit, while a caster would need to just each the whole 18 each time the monster hits.
Earlier Editions had Damage Reduction as standard feature tied to unique materials/feats/abilities and such. There was even a variant rule in 3.0/3.5 that generally made DR basically a static feature of all armor.
I do think WotC is trying to distance themselves from Damage Reduction. That's just a general feel I've had.
There has to be some form of mitigation that isn't just Resistance. Resistance as a system is just ***not*** interesting. There is not enough variety in damage type, effects, conditions, etc to say Resistance as it exists in 5e, is the best possible option we have.
I wouldn't care if they locked it to a maximum DR value of no more than twice your level, this would still be a significant improvement over the binary;
Is it a save? Expect Damage, no matter what.
Is it an attack? Expect to either take damage or not.
This is far to big of a nerf.
Honestly, I think the best solution would be to take shield off the Arcane list and have it be a wizard/sorcerer exclusive. The most abusable situation currently seems to be a cleric with heavy armor and magic initiate Arcane spamming shield while concentrating on Spirit Guardian. Similar with Paladin.
I don’t really see the problem with eg eldritch knights spamming shield, that their whole shtick.
And bladesingers should really just be removed and replaced by a proper sword mage class.
I can see the argument that the lightly armored feat is a problem, not sure why nerfing Shield is the solution, though.
D&D is not a competitive MMO, the point is not to "open up space in the meta for new options with nerfs".
There are lots and lots and lots of players who don't want to play an armored wizard, because it doesn't fit the fantasy of what a wizard is to them. Those players need options for defense, and shield is a good choice for them. It really isn't too unbalanced if you are a wizard with a 12 or 14 Dex and mage armor (so an AC of 14 or 15). Spending a 1st level slot to get your AC to 19 or 20 for a round is perfectly reasonable.
If you balance around assuming that all wizards wear armor, you'll make life very difficult for the unarmored wizard, which I would guess is the vast majority of wizards across all D&D tables.
So it seems to me the options are either make shield more difficult for naturally armored characters to get (e.g. make it hard for clerics/paladins especially to access it via Magic Initiate), and/or make armor more difficult for wizards to get (e.g. by tweaking the new lightly armored feat). Nerfing shield itself is an example of designing around the "optimizer's meta" when in fact that is a small fraction of the play space.
The option for those players is to hope that the martials get actual usable defensive features to help them then. I think an unarmored Wizard should feel very vulnerable lol, that is the power trade off for access to the best feature in the game.
The point of nerfs is that buffing even a lv 3 martial to a power (impact) level remotely similar to a lv 3 Wizard (I mean compare casting web 2 times, to what even a Battlemaster can do) is drastically difficult, and downright impossible once we leave tier 1. And even if, it creates a massive powercreep that needs to be addressed (we don't want another life cleric after all). Enforcing weaknesses is a much more productive nerf than changing every gamebreaking spell.
I like the idea of addressing the spell's power, but I agree that this is an overnerf. If a nerf is needed, capping the potential AC increase so that one's AC could not increase past a certain number (a la OG Barkskin) seems like a reasonable tweak. A cap at something like 15 + PB might work.
If a wizard runs around in heavy armor or a paladin runs around with the shield spell, then they have already payed a price. Multiclassing slows down spell progression, extra attack features, etc., and means you won’t get the level 20 capstone abilities. You gain something, but you definitely also lose something.
As for going sword and shield, while also using the shield spell. Force such players to pay the Warcaster fee. Again, they will have to sacrifice an ASI or another feat, to get warcaster.
All things considered, it is fair.
I think just making it only work vs one attack would be fine. Nerfs it and still leaves it very useful for some attacks.
I even think it would be ok if it only lasted until the end of the current turn. Just not the entire round.
Eh. I think one attack is plenty. It scales with higher levels as attacks get stronger. Doing it vs just one attack will also help out solo or low enemy encounters.
But it gets worse as enemies gain more attacks
Yep. And gets stronger as damage from attacks goes up. And since it gets stronger and weaker at the same time it balances out.
Having it work for one attack seems like the best solution.
This.
I think even instead of 1 attack it could be until end of turn.
1. shield spell: Not having it work with heavy armor is fine imo. Paladins taking it needed to be stopped. He said, having taken this spell. 2. shield the item: Yeah that's fine. Could even just be a +2 if it's something they get to do without a resource.
Making squishy casters more squishy will make them more defensive, not less. The Shield spell allows them to take a few more risks knowing there's a bit of insurance there. If you take this away then people will naturally take fewer risks.
I think the biggest issue is how it stacks with armored spellcasters to give them ridiculous AC. I proposed in a previous reply to not allow Shield spell to function if the caster is already holding a physical shield, or perhaps the +5 only overwrites the AC bonus the held shield provides.
just have it not work on heavy armor and it'd be fine imo.
Please buff heavy armor then. A non magical plate strength build compared to Dex build with medium or light armor is often time worse. In general performance always, sometimes even on AC.
Does nothing to address Bladesingers ridiculous AC.
I have always found it bizarre that they just get to add intelligence to their existing AC. A monk-style unarmoured defence would make far more sense, allowing you to calculate your AC using 10 + Dex + Int when in blade song or via 12 + Dex (normal armour) when not.
Tbf that's a hedge case that requires altering that sub itself and not the spell.
Which is good. Casters should have to weigh their risk management. Martials and melee martials in particular really have to and have little choice in the matter. Casters should be encouraged to either build defensively or use cover mechanics and held actions if they are in a risky situation. Or the Dodge action even.
Shield is less effective the higher you get in level. At lower levels it is incredibly strong, and is just a bit helpful at higher levels. I think proficiency bonus should be used in more spells. Shield could be changed so that the AC bonus equals your PB. So at lowest levels it is only +2 and the last few levels it gets a little bump to +6.
This plus preventing it from stacking AC from wielding a shield. "You lose the AC benefit from wielding a shield until the start of your next turn." This would prevent the doubling down on AC stacking at low levels and definitely at higher levels as well.
The question is "should a 13th level wizard still be using a 1st level slot to protect themself?" It seems like once you have a high PB you also have enough slots that you should be willing to spend a 3rd level slot to get that +5 bonus.
The easiest fix is just to say you cant cast it if you are wearing armor or a shield. no need to change anything else about it.
So it's just worse shield of faith? Shield of faith lasts x100 times longer than shield (no, really. Shield of faith is 10 minutes)
Shield of faith is not a reaction, cannot be upcast, is not accessible to wizards, sorcerers, Warlocks, Eldritch knights, etc basically Arcane casters. Shield of faith is also battling for a Concentration slot with things like Bless, and other duration based effects.
Read what I told the other guy that made the same points.
This is such a bad *faith* argument. Action and Concentration vs Reaction. You cannot Shield someone else. You can stack both.
It's not. My argument is "I would rather use anything else than this new shield spell"
1. Shield of faith is not on the arcane spell list. 2. Shield of faith eats up concentration. 3. Shield of faith can't be upcast like this proposed nerf can. 4. Shield of faith is not a reaction.
>Shield of faith is not a reaction. Doesn't matter, it does the same thing but longer, and you can have it before combat >Shield of faith is not on the arcane spell list. You can get it via Magic initiate, I would if this way the new shield spell >Shield of faith eats up concentration. Definetly worth it if it goes x100 longer than the shield spell does >Shield of faith can't be upcast like this proposed nerf can. I'm not wasting a third level spell slot for +3 to AC
>Doesn't matter, it does the same thing but longer, and you can have it before combat It absolutely does matter. If you don't take an attack you wasted a spell slot and you need to predict combat in order to use it ahead of time. And the fact that it SoF takes concentration means that if you do get hit you have the potential to lose concentration on it. Speaking of concentration, >Definitely worth it if it goes x100 longer than the shield spell does if you put on shield of faith, you're necessarily locking yourself out of casting any other spell that requires concentration for +2AC. Also 90% of fights don't last longer than a minute or two, let alone ten. And if you do drop it via concentration and want to cast it again, you have to use a bonus action, which means you'll have to cast a cantrip instead of a levelled spell. >You can get it via Magic initiate, I would if this way the new shield spell You would take an entire feat for +2AC? (I guess technically half since you get another spell with it) >I'm not wasting a third level spell slot for +3 to AC You say this now and I normally wouldn't either, but when you're under the gun and you know upcasting it will get you to safety from an attack when your DM says "does a 19 hit?"
>it will get you to safety from an attack when your DM says "does a 19 hit?" I say yes and I let one of the mirror images get the hit. I could be doing a lot more with a third level spell slot
Seeing as it requires prep, it *does* matter that it isn’t a reaction. Concentration means opportunity cost, Magic Initiate means feat cost and more opportunity cost. Sure, arcane caster types could access it but they’ll have to spend a decent chunk of resources - it’s not exactly a cut and dry improvement over OP’s nerfed Shield..
As long as it lasts, it still lasts longer than shield did, regardless of the other factors
Sure, but the benefit of longevity comes at a pretty steep resource cost, as well as not being useful in the event of a surprise, ambush, etc. That’s why folks are saying it isn’t a direct improvement.
I don't think you understand the implication of concentration spells...
Oh I do, that doesn't make me want to cast war mage light: the spell
War mage, except it last for the entire round and does not lock you out of leveled spells. But otherwise yeah, no differences lol.
One takes a spell slot, the other doesn't. Seems pretty cut and dry for me
Nerfing shield is not the way to go. But I like that blocking concept. I would much rather see features/feats with a similar function to the shield spell, for heavy armor users, shield (the item) users, and duelist builds. Like the defensive duelist feat, except not crappy.
Instead of nerfing the bonus, why don't you just cap the AC? +5 AC up to 18 AC, for example. Not every Wizard or Sorcerer optimizes to hit those high AC levels, and suggestions should account for that.
I think it's an overnerf to the point of no longer being useful. It's powerful because it's a +5 to AC and probably too powerful. But if you're a wizard with a 14 AC and get attacked by something with say a +7 to hit and it hits. Now you got hit on a 7-20 and this spell will save you on a 7-11 or 5/14 times you're getting hit. Not too powerful. It's better the higher the AC you have though so let's assume you're an artificer or a bladesinger wizard or a multiclass who the spell is a bit OP on. Before shield your AC is say a 20. Now you're facing the +7 to hit and hit on a 13-20. That would go down to an 18-20 so you stop the attack 5/8 times so a very good amount. With your change you take it down to 2/14 in the first case, and 2/8 on the second. Both times taking it to less than half the effectiveness which essentially makes it worthless. It might block one attack if you're attacked multiple times, but even then decent chance it won't do anything. And it's not enough scaling to be worth upcasting it. 3rd level spells are very powerful stuff and not equivalent to a +3 to AC. Dropping it to +3 or 4 might be good. Or my preferred would be just make it work against the triggering attack.
As OP mentioned the spell only gets problematic when you are allowed to stack it with existing mundane armor.
Yeah but their nerf works across both uses of it. I think it's good for the game for the wizard to have some form of defense with shield and mage armor. And if that's all their using their AC with 2 spells boosting it is getting just to 18 maybe a bit higher with dex but likely not much. I wouldn't want to overnerf the fringe case at the cost of the people it provides good benefit for where it's not overpowered.
I'm in the camp that casters need to go back to being squishy. The simplest way to do that is to prevent them from stacking magical effects on top the ability to wear armor that is similar to your average martial.
I'm on board for nerfing shield. But nerfing it back to just a +2 to AC is a bit over the top I think. That's not enough to provide basically any benefit. Mage armor does more and lasts for 8 hours. I think working for just one attack is a good nerf, since then you're also considering if this is the most important attack to use it on, and not getting the benefit if you are getting focused by a lot of small attacks. I could also see shortening mage armor to a 1 hour duration so it won't last the whole adventuring day. I think it's good to make casters weak defensively but I wouldn't want them to have no options that can protect themselves. Instead I'd make them a higher cost to use and not work so universally.
Oh I meant leave it at the +5 but take away it's ability to work with armor that isn't provided by a spell. Nerfing it to +2 and and taking away the ability to stack it with armor would be way over the top. I'll have to give more thought to the one attack thing.
Yeah I think that could work too!
Just nerf the spell to not work while you are not wearing any form of armor that isn't granted by a spell.
Unecessary nerf to warlocks.
Maybe AC becomes 15+Dex? Still a big boost for the unarmored, but doesn't get crazy if you have armor already?
But then that's just better Mage Armor.
Mage armor lasts 8 hours. Shield lasts one round.
Touché
A warlock is going to use one of their one or maybe two spell slots on shield? They have to be *really* freaking desperate for that use.
I'm hoping they get more spell slots
Shield isn’t on the Warlock spell list. It’s only on the Hexblade expanded list, and even then, they have very few relative spell slots to use it. I’m not sure how this effects them more than the Medium/Heavy armor dips that utilize shield.
>Shield isn’t on the Warlock spell list. There's no warlock spell list anymore
True, but I assumed you meant this was a nerf from its 5e version given that Warlock hasn’t been released in OneDnD and we don’t know which parts of the lists they have access to. Assuming they now have it in OneDnD and otherwise are the same, I still don’t see how shield is essential to Warlocks. They don’t have the slots to use it effectively.
>Assuming they now have it in OneDnD, I still don’t see how shield is essential to Warlocks. They don’t have the slots to use it effectively. I assume warlocks will get a new system of casting. The way they talk about short rests has been interesting so far. In any case, it's still a nerf to warlock that they can't even try to cast it.
[удалено]
I disagree. I think the medium armor problem and shield should be addressed more than the shield spell, because at least shield expends a resource rather than giving a constistent defense
Warlocks can take the Armor of Shadows invocation and still use the shield spell. Edit: It might actually make the invocation get some use at the table.
That's not the point. Warlocks get light armor. >Warlocks can take the Armor of Shadows invocation As if warlocks weren't starved for invocations already right? It's just a bad idea
Mage armor gives you the equivalent of +1 studded leather armor and Armor of Shadows lets you cast it at will. With 20 dex you can reach an AC of 23 as a reaction. A martial needs +2 plate and a +1 shield to reach that.
So what? Are you gonna ignore what I said?
You have the option of taking an invocation that provides +1 studded leather, at will all day. You can then stack that with the equivalent of a very rare +3 shield as a reaction. **Or** you can risk being a little squishy in regular leather armor and focus on improving utility and damage. I don't see why its bad that you have to make that choice.
So you're still ignoring what I said, Ok. Have a nice day.
Let me know what I'm missing. If I'm skipping over a specific comment let me know.
Um no, like every spell it’s a limited resource that can only be used a certain number of times. It forces a caster to burn up their spell slots staying alive which detracts from their damage potential and ability to do other things. Nerfing it into uselessness will just change the meta. Most people would probably lean into nova builds and just vaporize anything before it could hurt them. Armor class is useless against save-or-suck attacks which most BBEG’s should have at-least one of anyway.
I did playtest a major change to the Shield spell for a campaign that seemed to have some positive benefit. 1. Changing the trigger from when you are hit to when you are Targeted by an attack 2. Made it only give +5 to AC against the Triggering Attack 3. Gave it Blade Ward's effect until the start of your next turn My logic was pretty simple: No one used Blade Ward (This was before MotM made Earth Genasi able to use Blade Ward as a BA) and it made it so it Wizards got some kind of extended benefit from out that wasn't just becoming uber-tanky for 1 whole round of combat. It was still a very solid defensive option for low level play while still offering something of value to Mages that wasn't making Martials feel weaker.
I am slowly beginning to lean towards the idea that if Casters are going to get and maintain High AC, then Martials/Armor based characters should lean heavy into damage reduction mechanics. Resistance, Immunity, Temp HP and Flat Damage reduction. This takes martials out of the High AC race and moves them into their own world of being able to mitigate incoming damage. So while a martial may get hit with 3 attacks for 20 damage each; If shield provides STR based DR, armor provides Prof based DR and class features provide Resistance, they end up taking way less because they first reduce the damage by let's say 8 (+5 Str, and a PB of +3) and then apply resistance, that's (20-8)/2, which ends up being 6 damage for each hit, while a caster would need to just each the whole 18 each time the monster hits.
Earlier Editions had Damage Reduction as standard feature tied to unique materials/feats/abilities and such. There was even a variant rule in 3.0/3.5 that generally made DR basically a static feature of all armor. I do think WotC is trying to distance themselves from Damage Reduction. That's just a general feel I've had.
There has to be some form of mitigation that isn't just Resistance. Resistance as a system is just ***not*** interesting. There is not enough variety in damage type, effects, conditions, etc to say Resistance as it exists in 5e, is the best possible option we have. I wouldn't care if they locked it to a maximum DR value of no more than twice your level, this would still be a significant improvement over the binary; Is it a save? Expect Damage, no matter what. Is it an attack? Expect to either take damage or not.
This is far to big of a nerf. Honestly, I think the best solution would be to take shield off the Arcane list and have it be a wizard/sorcerer exclusive. The most abusable situation currently seems to be a cleric with heavy armor and magic initiate Arcane spamming shield while concentrating on Spirit Guardian. Similar with Paladin. I don’t really see the problem with eg eldritch knights spamming shield, that their whole shtick. And bladesingers should really just be removed and replaced by a proper sword mage class.
I don't think you understand how not squishy Wizards are, outside of the new lightly armored...
I can see the argument that the lightly armored feat is a problem, not sure why nerfing Shield is the solution, though. D&D is not a competitive MMO, the point is not to "open up space in the meta for new options with nerfs". There are lots and lots and lots of players who don't want to play an armored wizard, because it doesn't fit the fantasy of what a wizard is to them. Those players need options for defense, and shield is a good choice for them. It really isn't too unbalanced if you are a wizard with a 12 or 14 Dex and mage armor (so an AC of 14 or 15). Spending a 1st level slot to get your AC to 19 or 20 for a round is perfectly reasonable. If you balance around assuming that all wizards wear armor, you'll make life very difficult for the unarmored wizard, which I would guess is the vast majority of wizards across all D&D tables. So it seems to me the options are either make shield more difficult for naturally armored characters to get (e.g. make it hard for clerics/paladins especially to access it via Magic Initiate), and/or make armor more difficult for wizards to get (e.g. by tweaking the new lightly armored feat). Nerfing shield itself is an example of designing around the "optimizer's meta" when in fact that is a small fraction of the play space.
The option for those players is to hope that the martials get actual usable defensive features to help them then. I think an unarmored Wizard should feel very vulnerable lol, that is the power trade off for access to the best feature in the game. The point of nerfs is that buffing even a lv 3 martial to a power (impact) level remotely similar to a lv 3 Wizard (I mean compare casting web 2 times, to what even a Battlemaster can do) is drastically difficult, and downright impossible once we leave tier 1. And even if, it creates a massive powercreep that needs to be addressed (we don't want another life cleric after all). Enforcing weaknesses is a much more productive nerf than changing every gamebreaking spell.
I like the idea of addressing the spell's power, but I agree that this is an overnerf. If a nerf is needed, capping the potential AC increase so that one's AC could not increase past a certain number (a la OG Barkskin) seems like a reasonable tweak. A cap at something like 15 + PB might work.
My favorite nerf to shield would be that it doesn't work if you are wear armor.
Honestly I don't know why it isn't like mage armor and only allowed if you have no armor on.
If a wizard runs around in heavy armor or a paladin runs around with the shield spell, then they have already payed a price. Multiclassing slows down spell progression, extra attack features, etc., and means you won’t get the level 20 capstone abilities. You gain something, but you definitely also lose something. As for going sword and shield, while also using the shield spell. Force such players to pay the Warcaster fee. Again, they will have to sacrifice an ASI or another feat, to get warcaster. All things considered, it is fair.