Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
It's always bugged me that during the transition from 3.0 to 3.5 Shield got neutered. I admit, it was too powerful in 3.0, but the 3.5 version was unnecessarily crippled due to the fact that it stacks with Mage Armor.
Recently though, I figured out how to fix the problem: Make casting Shield a swift action.
Thoughts?
It's always bugged me that during the transition from 3.0 to 3.5 Shield got neutered. I admit, it was too powerful in 3.0, but the 3.5 version was unnecessarily crippled due to the fact that it stacks with Mage Armor. Recently though, I figured out how to fix the problem: Make casting Shield a swift action.
Thoughts?
Does the Abjurant Champion get the buff to Shield, and/or the swift casting? If so, make it swift for everyone, to neuter the AbjCh some more. I mean, they're already an Eldritch Knight with full caster level and d10 HD; do they really need extra class features as well?
I'm not sure I follow, Sebastion? Your saying that stacking with Mage Armor is a problem? Or did you mean that it doesn't stack?
I don't get how the Shield spell is under-powered. When I get home I'll check the 3.0 book versus 3.5. I was under the impression that Shield offered a +4 shield bonus to AC that was a force effect.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Kirth, I'm not sure on the AbjCh, so I can't really respond.
I'm not sure I follow, Sebastion? Your saying that stacking with Mage Armor is a problem? Or did you mean that it doesn't stack?
I don't get how the Shield spell is under-powered. When I get home I'll check the 3.0 book versus 3.5. I was under the impression that Shield offered a +4 shield bonus to AC that was a force effect.
In 3e Shield was a +7 shield bonus for 1 round per level and Mage Armor was a +4 armor bonus for 1 hour per level. Bother were force effects and the shield had the extra ability to block magic missiles. My understanding was that in 3.5 they nerfed Shield because wizards/sorcs could get insane AC bonuses by casting those two spells.
The problem with Shield as it stands is that it is almost strictly inferior to Mage Armor. 90% of the time, you are better off as a caster having Mage Armor up because it gives the same AC bonus as shield, is a force effect, but lasts 600 times as long. Shield's ability to absorb magic missiles is a negligible benefit given its short duration and the fact that you will have to (generally) spend a round in combat to cast it. Having it be swift action gives the spell a use and makes it competitive with Mage Armor.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Erm? I thought shield lasted for 1 min. per caster level and stacked with mage armor? Can't you cast both and basically get +8 AC? That's not too shabby. Shield might not last as long but you're probably not going to need it for every single fight, either. Mage armor is one of those spells that you can pretty much cast once or twice a day and end up being protected (at least somewhat) for most of the day (or all of it at later levels).
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Erm? I thought shield lasted for 1 min. per caster level and stacked with mage armor? Can't you cast both and basically get +8 AC? That's not too shabby. Shield might not last as long but you're probably not going to need it for every single fight, either. Mage armor is one of those spells that you can pretty much cast once or twice a day and end up being protected (at least somewhat) for most of the day (or all of it at later levels).
Damn, shield is 1 min/level. That does mitigate the problem somewhat, but still, you get virtually the same effect, but mage armor lasts 60 times longer than shield.
They do stack, I apologize for implying otherwise. My feeling is that because they stack, shield sucks. Here's my hypothetical: you must choose one spell and only one spell, mage armor or shield. You will never learn the other spell. Which one do you choose? I submit that, unless you live in the land of magic missiles and eldritch fighters, you will choose mage armor every time.
But, maybe the fact that shield _is_ optimized for characters that wear armor other than mage armor does keep it from being obsolete. I could believe that.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Here's my hypothetical: you must choose one spell and only one spell, mage armor or shield. You will never learn the other spell. Which one do you choose? I submit that, unless you live in the land of magic missiles and eldritch fighters, you will choose mage armor every time.
Absolutely. *IF* you only get to pick one or the other, mage armor is the clear choice. However, that is not the case. Because they DO stack, shield remains as an option to award a caster even higher AC for the cost of a single first level spell. Granted, it takes an action to cast but if you're in a mass combat or being pecked at by archers with no cover in sight, that extra +4 AC is mighty appealing. Now, would a 1st or 2nd level wizard or sorcerer bother memorizing/casting both? I doubt it. At those levels, the spell slot can serve better purposes. Around 5th or 6th level, however, when the caster has more slots to burn, it becomes a very viable and useful option. It is one that I employ rather often. Honesty, the ability to block magic missiles is practically moot to me. I think it's only ever come up once in my years of gaming. Stacking the AC is the important part. And yes, it is even MORE attractive to casters who are able to wear some forms of armor.
In short, I don't think there's a problem with shield as it stands. Yes, for general utility, it is inferior to mage armor, but it works very well when they are paired together.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Absolutely. *IF* you only get to pick one or the other, mage armor is the clear choice. However, that is not the case. Because they DO stack, shield remains as an option to award a caster even higher AC for the cost of a single first level spell. Granted, it takes an action to cast but if you're in a mass combat or being pecked at by archers with no cover in sight, that extra +4 AC is mighty appealing. Now, would a 1st or 2nd level wizard or sorcerer bother memorizing/casting both? I doubt it. At those levels, the spell slot can serve better purposes. Around 5th or 6th level, however, when the caster has more slots to burn, it becomes a very viable and useful option. It is one that I employ rather often. Honesty, the ability to block magic missiles is practically moot to me. I think it's only ever come up once in my years of gaming. Stacking the AC is the important part. And yes, it is even MORE attractive to casters who are able to wear some forms of armor.In short, I don't think there's a problem with shield as it stands. Yes, for general utility, it is inferior to mage armor, but it works very well when they are paired together.
I see that as the problem. Shield is always a second choice after mage armor. If it didn't stack, it could be more powerful, but the fact that it does stack makes it weaker. That seems unfair to poor little shield. I don't think it should have its power so callously limited due to the fact that mage armor is out there.
Do you think it breaks anything to have Shield cast as a swift action? Is it worth taking if it is? To me, the limiting factor of Shield is not just the slot it takes up, it's the action it requires to be cast.
I always saw it as Mage Armor for full casters who cant wear armor, and Shield for rogue/casters or casters who can wear at least light armor. Playing a straight up wizard, yes, I would absolutely choose Mage Armor every time. Playing a wizard/rogue, I'd never use it as chances are I'd be wearing studded leather.
It did bug the heck out of me when I first went through the 3.5 book and saw that they nerfed shield, but after giving it some thought, and DMing a few times with people who actualy play casters (in my neck of the woods that is beyond rare) I'm not so upset with it. What bothers me still to this day is invisibility getting knocked down to one round per caster level. What the crap is that all about?
Next time we get together and play I'll try to remember and bring this up though, as even though I think shield doesn't loose out in every case it would be interesting to have a defencive spell you could cast round one and still be able to have an action (which I could use to cast Mage Armor).
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
What bothers me still to this day is invisibility getting knocked down to one round per caster level. What the crap is that all about?
Not to get off topic here, but check your resources again. Regular invisibility lasts 1 min. per caster level. Improved Invisibility lasts 1 round per caster level (and there's a damn good reason for it, too).
My thoughts on shield:
We can pretty much assume that the wizard has cast mage armor well in advance of any situation that might come up (unless he is especially low level), so we'll just assume that mage armor is in effect at the beginning of each of the following scenarios:
1) Party is travelling through the woods. Gnolls ambush the party with crossbows on both sides of the road. Party wins initiative. What should the wizard do? Drop a fireball and kill the gnolls on one side, leaving his back exposed to the gnolls on the other side? Use magic missile and hope to drop one of them? Most monsters/bandits/whatever (assuming an intelligent creature) will target casters FIRST. The wizard should worry about protecting his own ass first because the other classes likely have enough armor and hit points to survive at least a hit or two before they are in trouble. The wizard should cast shield to protect himself, let his companions close to melee with the gnolls, and then NEXT ROUND employ the use of magic missile to hasten the defeat of their foes. This way he does not become a pincushion in the first round.
2) The party is fighting a giant. The giant has gotten himself into melee with the wizard (the party should really consider looking for a better fighter to prevent this in the future...). The wizard should cast shield and go partial defensive to maximize his AC at least until someone can draw the attention of the monster away from him (assuming the wizard does not have something like dimension door at his disposal). If the wizard has higher level spells available, displacement or mirror image might be a superior option in this case, but shield is still a practical option (not to mention it conserves a higher level slot).
There are other scenarios I can come up with, but you get the idea. Do I think that making shield cast as a swift action would make it more useful? Of course I do. Do I think that it is NECESSARY to make the spell a viable option for most casters? No, not really. If you were to make the casting of shield be a swift action, I would limit it's duration to 1 round per caster level, maybe even 1 round per 2 caster levels. Shield is not really a practical long-term defensive measure anyway. If you're going to make it something to be used sporadically and instantaneously, it makes sense to limit the duration.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
We can pretty much assume that the wizard has cast mage armor well in advance of any situation that might come up (unless he is especially low level), so we'll just assume that mage armor is in effect at the beginning of each of the following scenarios:
That assumption is what bugs me though. I want there to be a meaningful choice between mage armor and shield, which does not occur under the current rules becase mage armor is (approximately) 60 times better than shield. Yeah, I know that it's great to have them both up, but if you only have to choose one, I think shield should be a valuable choice and not merely a secondary effect to improve mage armor.
I think Fraust is most in line with my thinking. The utility that armored casters get is the only other selling point for shield over mage armor (I don't find the bracers situation comes up much because casters usually just cast mage armor rather than blow that much cash on a +4 AC item).
I don't have a problem taking shield down to a round per level anyway because that's how long I thought it lasted in the first place. ;-)
NOW I see where your getting at. Your problem is with the balance (or lack thereof) between the two spells.
I'll agree with you that for the most part, mage armor is the superior spell, but to steal an addage from a fellow power-gamer of mine, not all spells (he inserts feats here) are created equally.
If Sebastian were a game designed working for WOTC designing 4.0, you'd soon learn there is a steep slippery slope: after you've fixed this inequity, another will surface. Many of these inequities are real or imagined (play style nerfs the value of many abilities - look at the racial abilities of a half-elf as an example), and I submit :) that there are many more important inequities to tackle before the shield vs. mage armor showdown.
Interestingly, I was reminiscing on the way to work that when 3.0 came out, I hated the idea that you could "tumble" through an opponents threatened areas with a DC 15 check. This was true even against a CR20 enemy. I wanted to house rule it....maybe make the Tumble check opposed by some arbitrary number like the enemy's attack roll (or something like that).
I don't even worry about that anymore - there is about 50 other things I have issues with and Tumble is last on the list now; thanks to the numerous expansion books.
|
|
NOW I see where your getting at. Your problem is with the balance (or lack thereof) between the two spells.
I'll agree with you that for the most part, mage armor is the superior spell, but to steal an addage from a fellow power-gamer of mine, not all spells (he inserts feats here) are created equally.
If Sebastian were a game designed working for WOTC designing 4.0, you'd soon learn there is a steep slippery slope: after you've fixed this inequity, another will surface. Many of these inequities are real or imagined (play style nerfs the value of many abilities - look at the racial abilities of a half-elf as an example), and I submit :) that there are many more important inequities to tackle before the shield vs. mage armor showdown.
Interestingly, I was reminiscing on the way to work that when 3.0 came out, I hated the idea that you could "tumble" through an opponents threatened areas with a DC 15 check. This was true even against a CR20 enemy. I wanted to house rule it....maybe make the Tumble check opposed by some arbitrary number like the enemy's attack roll (or something like that).
I don't even worry about that anymore - there is about 50 other things I have issues with and Tumble is last on the list now; thanks to the numerous expansion books.
I could have swore I read somewhere that the reason they changed Shield in the edition was because it provided cover for spellcasters so that they could stand right next to the baddie and cast spells all day without requiring a concentration check.....
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I could have swore I read somewhere that the reason they changed Shield in the edition was because it provided cover for spellcasters so that they could stand right next to the baddie and cast spells all day without requiring a concentration check.....
That does sound vaguely familiar now that you mention it. The other issue it had back in 3.0 was the whole facing problem.
IGR: I know, it is a petty and minor thing to get hung up about. It's one of those things that's just always bugged me about 3.5, and so when I realized that shield would be a perfect candidate for being swift-cast, I felt like a bolt out of the blue had struck, was very happy, and wanted to share. I see now that I was the only one (well, maybe Fraust) bothered by this in the first place.
Of course, for a 7th level spell slot and a couple of feats, you can have shield last all day. Coupled with mage armor and a ring of protection/amulet of natural armor, things are looking good for your AC. Not many casters would want to waste the feats and 7th level spell, but if you're a 20th level wizard with all those nice bonus metamagic feats, then why not go for broke and do a persistent shield?
|
My first thought was that the change wasn't necessary. (I have a Warlock character who bought a wand of Shield, because I thought the spell good enough to choose it rather than something else.)
That said, I don't think your suggested change would be unbalancing. (It would make a Shield wand pretty useless, though. 8-)
Have you considered the effect of changing this spell on the prestige classes that specialize in Force spells and Abjuration? I don't know those classes well enough to comment on the synergy, but if I were to change the spell, I'd take a closer look.
|
|
I think you are underestimating the value of negating magic missiles.
And I think you are underestimating the value of the stacking.
Yes, mage armor and greater mage armor are always going to be the first choice, but given a chance to prepare, anyone who can cast it will always look to stack them. That extra +4 is a significant boost, and the immunity to magic missiles critical.
To some degree, it is perhaps more of a villain's spell though. Dragons can become immune to anything but nat 20s, and the ability to ignore auto-hitting magic missiles while casting spells is vital to a truly threatening enemy spellcaster.
I'd hesistate to change any of that. If players want it to be more useful, they should plan on when to use it, or consider taking quicken spell. If you really want another option, make a new version, swift shield, like the other swift spells. It would just last a round, but it would go up and give that boost when needed.
If you really want another option, make a new version, swift shield, like the other swift spells. It would just last a round, but it would go up and give that boost when needed.
That would be "deflect," from the PHII.
I'm in the camp that feels Shield is basically balanced. While Mage Armour is clearly the better spell for a straight up arcane caster Shield really comes into its own if your some kind of multi-class character. The ability to have a +4 AC spell up and go around power attacking with a two handed sword is pretty sweet for those characters.
I think its generally a good spell even for the mage and in certian niche situations it really comes into its own. I'd avoid making it a swift action as its already a tad powerful to have this shield bonus to AC while wielding a two handed weapon - in this niche situation your making a powerful spell even more powerful. There are also a number of arcane casters and feats that allow a caster to use better armour - for this group shield is the way to go.
Also it might just be a tad to good as a swift action for the wizard. The ability to add another +4 to AC is already pretty tempting - the ability to do so as a swift action.
I agree that it's bit of a nich-situation. Compare it with Magic Missile and Burning Hands, maybe? Magic Missile deals more damage at first level and will deal more damage from 7th level and up, has no save, affects incorporeal creatures, and has much greater range.
Given the choice, most casters go for Magic Missile.
However, Burning Hands has its own uses and the area affect can be very usefull when swarmed by small critters, plus you can use it to engage swarms and its nice to attack creatures with the Cold subtype better.
Is it better then Magic Missile? No, usually it isn't. But, sometimes it can be. I see no need to nerf Burning Hands, because it has its own uses. I'll aplaud any caster willing to pick it over Magic Missile, but I do not feel the need to change it. Both spells have their uses, and I find neither to be broken or too weak.
The same goes for Mage Armor and Shield. In most situations, Mage Armor is the better choice. But for armored casters, Shield is actually the better option. And when facing opponents that rely on Magic Missile (fairly common for low level spellcasters) then the Shield spell is much, much better. (hey, that's another point where Burning Hands would be the better choice over Magic Missile... a Shielded opponent)
Both have their uses. A straight caster would go for Mage Armor probably, while a fighting caster would probably pick up Shield.
Hm, I must be alone in that I always pick Shield over Mage Armor. And I love pure casters. The way I see it, mage armor is kool, but only until I get a decent pair of bracers of armor. Shield is always kool, because there are very few ways to get a shield bonus.
That said, I don't think your suggestion is unbalancing but I also don't think that shield is in any way unique in needing a minor tweak.
I see shield as the type of spell that you cast right before you burst open the BBEG's door. I agree that it probably doesn't *need* to be fixed.
However, making it a swift action isn't an unbalancing idea, probably.
It gave +7 AC in 3.0? I only remember it giving 4. I'd check, but I gave my 3.0 books to a friend when I changed editions. =/
Director of Narrative
|
My first thought was that the change wasn't necessary. (I have a Warlock character who bought a wand of Shield, because I thought the spell good enough to choose it rather than something else.)
I did the exact same thing with a warlock that I am playing. As far as the original topic goes, I don't see the need to change the Shield spell. Like others have said, not all spells are created equally and I feel that there are quite enough swift spells already and there are sure to be many more added in any number of splatbooks.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Thanks for the input. I think the biggest selling point above is the usefulness of shield to armored casters, such as the warlock. I was very focused on shield playing second fiddle to mage armor, the fact that it stands on its own for armored casters makes it more palatable.