This spell has a long history, and I get get the 'history of the spell' item to actually purchase so I have to ask on here.

The first sentence in fireshield says anytime you are attacked in melee . The second paragraph says when hit in melee you take normal damage and the attacker get's affected by the spell as well. I need an official ruling 'somewhere' to take to my dm. Is it whenever you're attacked or whenever you're actually hit. It doesn't make a lot of damn sense to me that just because some sword hit your actual shield in combat and didn't score a hit against you that this spell which is historically a bubble wouldn't apply.

This material is published under the OGL
Fire Shield Evocation [Fire or Cold]
Level: Fire 5, Sor/Wiz 4, Sun 4
Components: V, S, M/DF
Casting time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: 1 round/level (D)

This spell wreathes you in flame and causes damage to each creature that attacks you in melee. The flames also protect you from either cold-based or fire-based attacks (your choice).

Any creature striking you with its body or a handheld weapon deals normal damage, but at the same time the attacker takes 1d6 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +15). This damage is either cold damage (if the shield protects against fire-based attacks) or fire damage (if the shield protects against cold-based attacks). If the attacker has spell resistance, it applies to this effect. Creatures wielding weapons with exceptional reach are not subject to this damage if they attack you.

When casting this spell, you appear to immolate yourself, but the flames are thin and wispy, giving off light equal to only half the illumination of a normal torch (10 feet). The color of the flames is determined randomly (50% chance of either color)—blue or green if the chill shield is cast, violet or blue if the warm shield is employed. The special powers of each version are as follows.

Warm Shield: The flames are warm to the touch. You take only half damage from cold-based attacks. If such an attack allows a Reflex save for half damage, you take no damage on a successful save.

Chill Shield: The flames are cool to the touch. You take only half damage from fire-based attacks. If such an attack allows a Reflex save for half damage, you take no damage on a successful save.

Arcane Material Component: A bit of phosphorus for the warm shield; a live firefly or glowworm or the tail portions of four dead ones for the chill shield.

I believe the first paragraph is not the rules heavy part and merely description. I would go with the attacker actually having to connect (beat your AC) for the effect to work. After all, if the target misses, why is he suddenly hit by fire? You could go into the whole 'well if he misses by 4 or less than he still hit my armor, of if he misses by between 5 and 6 he hit my shield, etc.' BS, but frankly that seems a bit too complicated. If he hits, omg fire. If he misses, he missed and thus missed the fire as well.

I believe the first paragraph is not the rules heavy part and merely description. I would go with the attacker actually having to connect (beat your AC) for the effect to work. After all, if the target misses, why is he suddenly hit by fire? You could go into the whole 'well if he misses by 4 or less than he still hit my armor, of if he misses by between 5 and 6 he hit my shield, etc.' BS, but frankly that seems a bit too complicated. If he hits, omg fire. If he misses, he missed and thus missed the fire as well.

I don't know about the 3.5 but the pathfinder version specifically states that if a creature STRIKES you with a natural or non-reach weapon it takes the damage. Nowhere do I see anything about misses taking damage.

Resurrecting this as it happened tonight :-)

Cue long discussion about whether striking means beating the AC and causing damage or beating the Touch AC. A player with high AC had the fire shield up so was arguing for everything that didn't damage but did beat his Touch AC.

I wanted the combat over (they couldn't touch him, were mindless, and had a pile of hitpoints) and said we'd run it like that this one time but an official judgement would follow.

I am inclined to think that damage would need to be done but I'd prefer a FAQ/ Sage/ official clarification than the obviousness of the wording. PFRPG or 3.5, I'm not fussy. With English as a second language in the group, those arguments are the trickiest :-)

Actually the interpretation of what "striking" means in game terms would change depending on which dictionary definition of "striking" you use. Some only imply that you attempted to attack at all, others imply that you actually hit (as in, a collision occurs) and many of them have nothing to do with collision of physical objects of any form.

Since none of what I said above *really* matters, I personally allow these to be "on hitting touch AC" just to make them a little more useful. I haven't seen a case where this is really unbalancing.

The other reason for the ruling is as follows:
"I'm MADE OF FIRE, how could he miss with his unarmed strike because of natural armor and NOT hit it?!"
How can I deny this logic?