paizo.com Favorited Posts by malkav666paizo.com Favorited Posts by malkav6662016-11-06T21:08:29Z2016-11-06T21:08:29ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: DR and Shield Other spellmalkav666https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2knv0&page=2?DR-and-Shield-Other-spell#552020-09-16T16:45:23Z2010-04-03T00:28:59Z<p>Sorry for the double post but I don't believe nonlethal would be split with shield other. Please check the SRD entry for nonlethal damage:</p>
<p>"Dealing Nonlethal Damage: Certain attacks deal nonlethal damage. Other effects, such as heat or being exhausted, also deal nonlethal damage. When you take nonlethal damage, keep a running total of how much you've accumulated. Do not deduct the nonlethal damage number from your current hit points. It is not "real" damage. Instead, when your nonlethal damage equals your current hit points, you're staggered (see below), and when it exceeds your current hit points, you fall unconscious."</p>
<p>As non lethal damage does not count as real damage and is in fact not deducted from the warded creatures actual HP I do not believe there is anything to "split". But that of course is just my own interpretation of the rules, YMMV.</p>
<p>love,</p>
<p>malkav</p>Sorry for the double post but I don't believe nonlethal would be split with shield other. Please check the SRD entry for nonlethal damage:
"Dealing Nonlethal Damage: Certain attacks deal nonlethal damage. Other effects, such as heat or being exhausted, also deal nonlethal damage. When you take nonlethal damage, keep a running total of how much you've accumulated. Do not deduct the nonlethal damage number from your current hit points. It is not "real" damage. Instead, when your nonlethal...malkav6662010-04-03T00:28:59ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: DR and Shield Other spellmalkav666https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2knv0&page=2?DR-and-Shield-Other-spell#542020-09-16T16:45:26Z2010-04-03T00:21:14Z<p>Aye I have seen folks who prefer it both ways. Its an interesting topic for sure. As I previously stated I have in the past used house rules to swing the damage type to the cleric along with the damage, but in those cases I still give any of the damage the cleric resists back to the fighter. The whole mystic transference of wounds thing ties me up. In my mind if the warded creature is trying to transfer a wound to the cleric and the cleric resists some of the transfer that the wound would remain on the warded creature. But that is wholly in the realms of house rules.</p>
<p>love,</p>
<p>malkav</p>Aye I have seen folks who prefer it both ways. Its an interesting topic for sure. As I previously stated I have in the past used house rules to swing the damage type to the cleric along with the damage, but in those cases I still give any of the damage the cleric resists back to the fighter. The whole mystic transference of wounds thing ties me up. In my mind if the warded creature is trying to transfer a wound to the cleric and the cleric resists some of the transfer that the wound would...malkav6662010-04-03T00:21:14ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: DR and Shield Other spellmalkav666https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2knv0?DR-and-Shield-Other-spell#442020-09-16T16:43:46Z2010-04-02T14:43:28Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Beckett wrote:</div><blockquote><p> And you may in fact be right. The big difference I am seeing in what I think and your view is that Shield Other does not deal any damage to the caster. It is still the attack dealing the damage, just to a different target. Shield Other does not deal magical damage, does not change the damage type in any way, and is specifically a Harmless spell. </p>
<p>If it made the damage either Magical or Untyped, it should say that, because that could very well mean a big deal to certain targets. Like if a creature is vulnerable to fire and takes Fire damage, that coulf easily be the difference between them dying or taking a solid, but not fatal hit. But it doesn't say that it changes the damage type, or the attack, even. </blockquote><p>Here is the spell:
<p>"School abjuration; Level cleric 2, paladin 2</p>
<p>Casting Time 1 standard action</p>
<p>Components V, S, F (a pair of platinum rings worth 50 gp worn by both you and the target)</p>
<p>Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)</p>
<p>Target one creature</p>
<p>Duration 1 hour/level (D)</p>
<p>Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)</p>
<p>This spell wards the subject and creates a mystic connection between you and the subject so that some of its wounds are transferred to you. The subject gains a +1 deflection bonus to AC and a +1 resistance bonus on saves. Additionally, the subject takes only half damage from all wounds and attacks (including those dealt by special abilities) that deal hit point damage. The amount of damage not taken by the warded creature is taken by you. Forms of harm that do not involve hit points, such as charm effects, temporary ability damage, level draining, and death effects, are not affected. If the subject suffers a reduction of hit points from a lowered Constitution score, the reduction is not split with you because it is not hit point damage. When the spell ends, subsequent damage is no longer divided between the subject and you, but damage already split is not reassigned to the subject.</p>
<p>If you and the subject of the spell move out of range of each other, the spell ends.."</p>
<p>Its specific effect is that half of all hit point damage dealt to the warded creature is transferred to the caster via a mystical connection. Please note that the target of shield other is not the caster but the warded subject.</p>
<p>My question to you in an effort to understand your position more accurately what text specifically in the spells texts leads you to the assumption that the original source of the damage would carry over as opposed to shield other being the source of the damage?</p>
<p>Because what I am seeing is: "The amount of damage not taken by the warded creature is taken by you"</p>
<p>To me this implies a strict numeric transference of damage via the spell shield other. I think for your stance to be accurate it would need to be worded as something more like this: "The amount of damage not taken by the warded creature is taken by you. The source of this damage does not change"</p>
<p>I think the real hinge on the debate is whether shield other is the source of the damage or the originating effect. If shield other is the source then the damage would be untyped and pretty much unavoidable by the cleric, if the damage carried the original typing of the source that damaged the warded creature then shield other could possibly be one the best defensive spells in the game especially at high level. Not that it isn't badass even if the source of the damage the cleric takes is untyped.</p>
<p>I am not saying your wrong. IN fact I have had players that felt as you do in the past hence the mentioning of houserules I had used for those groups in 3.5 in the past. I just don't interpret the damage sources the same as you. I view shield other as the source for the damage the cleric is taking as opposed to the fireball as the cleric would not be taking the damage if shield other was not in place.</p>
<p>But I do feel I understand your view and perhaps some clarification on the subject should be in order.</p>
<p>love,</p>
<p>malkav</p>Beckett wrote:And you may in fact be right. The big difference I am seeing in what I think and your view is that Shield Other does not deal any damage to the caster. It is still the attack dealing the damage, just to a different target. Shield Other does not deal magical damage, does not change the damage type in any way, and is specifically a Harmless spell.
If it made the damage either Magical or Untyped, it should say that, because that could very well mean a big deal to certain targets....malkav6662010-04-02T14:43:28ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: DR and Shield Other spellmalkav666https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2knv0?DR-and-Shield-Other-spell#422020-09-16T16:43:15Z2010-04-02T14:02:33Z<p>Beckett-
<br />
"That is what I thought at first, but rereading it and thinking about it all again, I think the Cleric would get the benefit. The fireball is essentually hitting him twice, so two different sources. The fact that the Fighter has Energy Resistance or DR should not affect the Cleric. If both targets have D.R./E.R. why would they not apply twice? I don't see anything in the spell that indicates or suggests that one party loses protection, that the damage type changes, or anything like that.</p>
<p>Same with S.R., sort of. If the Fighter has S.R., and negates a spell, the Cleric does not take 1/2 of what the Fighter would have taken. At the same time, if the fireball hit only the Fighter, the Cleric would not get S.R. to resist the damage, because the fireball is the source of the damage, but it is not directly affacting him. The damage is being transferred via another spell that does not allow S.R. on his end."</p>
<p>I think you are incorrect. There are two spell effects damaging the cleric in the fireball example:</p>
<p>1. Fireball
<br />
2. Shield Other</p>
<p>Fireball does fire based damage. Shield other is untyped magic damage. The fireball does not hit the cleric twice. It "hits" once and shield other "hits" once.</p>
<p>In the event of fireball: Both the cleric and and the fighter would get their SR, DR, and resistances applied to the initial casting of fireball.</p>
<p>In the event of Shield Other: If the fighter has SR, they will have to lower it or the cleric will have to beat a caster level check to cast the spell on the fighter. The clerics SR is moot as she is not the target of the spell. Shield other targets a single creature (the warded creature), the caster automatically takes half of all HP damage.</p>
<p>So lets look at the example again with both SR 10 and resist fire 10 on both the fighter and the cleric.</p>
<p>Its still a 60 point fireball So lets look at the damage resolution step by step.</p>
<p>Fireball damage resolution:</p>
<p>1. Enemy caster successfully casts a 60 point fireball in an area containing both the cleric and the fighter.</p>
<p>2. Enemy caster makes 2 caster level checks against SR 10 (as the fireball is an AOE it goes off in the area even if the caster fails his check against SR protected targets in the area). We will assume the enemy caster passes these checks to continue the resolution.</p>
<p>3. Both the cleric and the fighter make reflex saving throws against the DC of the spell (as well as unattended items). We will assume they both fail for this example.</p>
<p>4. The fireball sends 60 points of fire typed magical damage to both the fighter and the cleric and this damage is checked against any resistances, or DR that they may possess. In this case they both have resistance against fire of 10 which lowers the total damage dealt to each target by 10 before it is applied to their HP (as per the spell "resistance"). The fighter also has a ward on it that reduces all damage that is dealt that does HP damage on it by 50%, lowering the amount the fighter takes from the fireball to 25. This also sends 25 points of untyped magic damage to the cleric. (which we will address after we deal damage from the fireball).</p>
<p>5. The fireball deals 50 damage to the cleric (60-10 from resistance) and 25 damage to the fighter (60-10 from resistance /2 from shield other) as the end result. The damage is applied to the characters in this step. Now on to the shield other damage starting back at step 1.</p>
<p>Shield other damage resolution:</p>
<p>1. Casting is not an issue as the spell was cast prior.</p>
<p>2. The cleric gets no SR as she is not the target of shield other.</p>
<p>3. Shield other does not provide the cleric with a saving throw as the cleric is not the target of the spell.</p>
<p>4. Shield other sends 25 points of untyped magic damage to the cleric and this damage is checked against any DR or resistances the cleric might possess. In this case we will assume the cleric does not have resistance to non-typed magical damage. (but you could even rule it that the cleric is offered no DR or resistances because she is not the target of the spell but the net result will probably be the same.)</p>
<p>5. Shield other deals 25 points of damage to the cleric and this damage is applied.</p>
<p>Net result:</p>
<p>Fighter: takes 25 points of fire damage
<br />
Cleric: Takes 50 points of fire damage and 25 points of untyped magic damage.</p>
<p>This is just how we handle it in our games. I feel it is an accurate and fair interpretation of the rules. Basically the cleric is offering to take half of the fighters wounds. The fighter has already had a chance to resist, save against and otherwise reduce the wounds. In my home games we sometimes allow the wounds to come to the cleric as the same type of damage as the original sort as a house rule (at least we did in some of our 3.x games, we have not really houseruled PFRPG all that much yet), thus allowing the cleric to receive its resistances against the original source of the damage (twice in the case of the example). But we would also ruled that and damage the cleric resisted in this way would be reapplied to the warded target. This would allow the cleric more control over the spell but not allow for a double dip of damage resistance in the pool of damage being dealt to the party as a whole.</p>
<p>But as always YMMV. Just sharing how I think the rules work and the houserules my groups have used in the past dealing with this particular mechanic.</p>
<p>love,</p>
<p>malkav</p>Beckett-
"That is what I thought at first, but rereading it and thinking about it all again, I think the Cleric would get the benefit. The fireball is essentually hitting him twice, so two different sources. The fact that the Fighter has Energy Resistance or DR should not affect the Cleric. If both targets have D.R./E.R. why would they not apply twice? I don't see anything in the spell that indicates or suggests that one party loses protection, that the damage type changes, or anything like...malkav6662010-04-02T14:02:33Z