D&D 3E/3.5 3.0 Shield in 3.5

[JChung2003]

With the changes made to shield in 3.5, I would like to ask your opinion on what level a researched version of the 3.0 shield spell should be.

 

[Darklone]

lvl2. Not more but not less.

 

[Li Shenron]

With the changes made to shield in 3.5, I would like to ask your opinion on what level a researched version of the 3.0 shield spell should be.

What is going to be changed? If only the type of bonus is changed from Cover to Shield, and the part about "half of the battlefield" is removed, I'd say it should still be 1st level.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re: 3.0 Shield in 3.5

What is going to be changed? If only the type of bonus is changed from Cover to Shield, and the part about "half of the battlefield" is removed, I'd say it should still be 1st level.

Changing from +7 Cover half, to +4 Shield full, AFAIK.

-Hyp.

 

[Li Shenron]

Re: Re: Re: 3.0 Shield in 3.5

Changing from +7 Cover half, to +4 Shield full, AFAIK.

Ok, that doesn't sound very good. I didn't dislike an alternative to Mage Armor with better bonus but more restrictions and shorter duration.

This new Shield is just worse than Mage Armor until you have Bracers of Armor and then becomes a must, while the other becomes unuseful.

 

[Darklone]

Re: Re: Re: Re: 3.0 Shield in 3.5

This new Shield is just worse than Mage Armor until you have Bracers of Armor and then becomes a must, while the other becomes unuseful.

Immunity against the most broken lvl1 spell is not bad IMHO.

 

[JChung2003]

I agree the 3.0 shield spell is overly powerful for level 1.

Not only does 3.0 shield give you +7 AC bonus and +3 Reflex save bonus, it also prevents attacks of opportunity in its area of effect, i.e., the cover bonus negates AoO's, and protects you from magic missiles.

The 3.5 shield is in line with how powerful a level 1 spell should be.

My question is what level should a spell like 3.0 shield be?

 

[AuraSeer]

My question is what level should a spell like 3.0 shield be?

I'd agree with Darklone, level 2.

IMO it's clearly inferior to 3rd-level spells like blink or displacement, because a miss chance is harder to overcome than a simple high AC. It seems fair to put it on the same level as protection from arrows, because each grants good defense against a subset of attacks.

[Edited to add]
Note that 3.0 shield does not provide the benefits of actual cover. It grants a +7 cover bonus to AC, but not the Reflex save bonus, nor the immunity from AoOs.

 

[JChung2003]

AuraSeer, that is incorrect.

From the SRD (emphasis mine):

Shield creates an invisible, mobile disk of force that hovers in front of the character. It negates magic missile attacks directed at the character. The disk also intercepts attacks, providing three-quarters cover (+7 AC and +3 on Reflex saves against attacks that affect an area). The disk moves out of the way when the character attacks, so it does not provide cover to opponents. The disk protects the character only against magic missiles and attacks from one direction. The character designates half the battlefield as being blocked by the shield. The other half is not. The character can change the defensive direction of the shield (that is, rotate the dividing line) once as a free action on each of the character's turns.

Level 2 seems reasonable enough since it isn't comparable to the advantages of spells like blur and displacement though I think not being vulnerable to AoO's is a great boon, considering the changes to AoO's in 3.5.

 

[AuraSeer]

From the FAQ:

The spell description is erroneous. The spell grants a +7 cover bonus to Armor Class, not three-quarters cover. It does not negate attacks of opportunity, nor does it provide any saving throw bonuses.