| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I apologize if this has been covered. Searching for the various terms has so far yielded nothing of value to me.
The party basher has DR10/adamantine.
The party cleric throws Shield Other on the basher.
The basher gets hit for 20 damage.
Does the damage break down to:
Solution 1
Cleric takes half of 20, thus 10 damage
Basher takes half of 20, then applies DR, thus 0 damage.
Solution 2
Basher's DR reduces 20 to 10, then Shield Other reduces it to 5.
Cleric takes the other 5 through Shield Other
I've been leaning toward Solution 1, the cleric's player been leaning toward solution 2.
Thanks in advance!
I had this nice little explanation for posting under a different name, only to find out you had already figured it out by the time I had posted. It was your very first ninja edit.
Welcome to the Boards.
As for the DR and Shield Other question, I never even though of that combination...
Thanks for the quick reply Dragonborn3. Sorry to ninja-edit you. Felt silly asking a question then figuring it out for myself.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Solution 2
Basher's DR reduces 20 to 10, then Shield Other reduces it to 5.
Cleric takes the other 5 through Shield Other
Since the spell transfers half the subjects wounds to the cleric, the subject has to actually be wounded by an attack for there to be something for it to transfer. Apply all DR, Resistance, etc. before splitting it up.
The subject's and cleric's damage should never differ by more than 1.
Since the spell transfers half the subjects wounds to the cleric, the subject has to actually be wounded by an attack for there to be something for it to transfer. Apply all DR, Resistance, etc. before splitting it up.The subject's and cleric's damage should never differ by more than 1.
This.
However, I would say that any damage reduction the CLERIC has doesn't apply.
Yes, I would say the cleric is taking untyped magic damage, thus there is very little that can prevent it.
Lets say you have a subject that has DR from adamantine armor. Solution 1 would say that the cleric is taking half of the damage before the damage is reduced by the targets armor.
Lets say the target is immune to fire. The cleric still takes half damage when the target gets hit with a fireball?
I am incline to go with solution 2 because you end of with a lot of wierd or silly situations like this with solution 1.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had a similar issue in 3.5 with a mummy cleric casting Shield Other on his two Wight Monk "hounds". Mummies take 1/2 damage from lots of attacks, so if read one way, it potentially meant the mummy was taking insignificant damage and effectively doubled the wights' hp. Then there was the matter of the Mass Inflict Wounds spells....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would say that shield other only affects damage the recipient actually takes, so apply DR, resistance and such first, then split what is left.
|
I'm obviously in the minority here, so I'll say this and then shut up. By allowing DR to apply to both the tank and the cleric, you're getting two for the price of one: in this case it's a stoneskin spell, but whatever the DR comes from, it should only apply to the tank, because he's the only one with that effect on him.
"Wounds" is an unfortunate choice of wording for shield other, but that spell treats the word the same way the cure spells do: as synonymous with hit point damage. The price of saving your tank from half of his hit point damage is taking that damage yourself. If you apply damage to the tank first, the cleric benefits from DR and five kinds of energy resistance all without having those effects on him personally. To my mind, that goes way beyond the scope of a 2nd-level spell.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had a similar issue in 3.5 with a mummy cleric casting Shield Other on his two Wight Monk "hounds". Mummies take 1/2 damage from lots of attacks, so if read one way, it potentially meant the mummy was taking insignificant damage and effectively doubled the wights' hp. Then there was the matter of the Mass Inflict Wounds spells....
The damage the mummy would take from the Shield Other spell would be untyped and not subject to reduction by DR or Resistance.
It's almost best to think of it in reverse. Effectively you're transferring hit points from the cleric to cover half the damage the spell's subject ends up taking from each attack. Anything that would prevent the transfer of HP from the cleric also prevents the transfer of HP to the recipient.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DR doesn't apply to the cleric, the damage from shield other is from a spell, and thus is by passes DR... however the cleric only takes a portion of damage that the target actually takes...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm inclined to agree with the majority here; The cleric can't take any damage until the basher has taken damage, and whenever the basher takes damage he applies DR before it is transferred. It would seem unfair to me that the cleric would actually take more damage with a shield other spell then his target.
After all, I've always pictured that wounds that the protected one takes appear on the caster, and it doesn't seem like it would be right if more wounds appeared on the caster than on the target.
EDIT: Tom, if you'll notice, in both examples the damage is the same. Just in one, the fighter has completely avoided the attack and in solution two he has learned to share. It doesn't really matter, but solution two is not only more logical (can't share damage until damage is taken) it is also more beneficial due to positive energy channeling. Of course, that's an inherent benefit of the spell, so maybe that particular benefit isn't worth mentioning.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd go with Option 2. Whatever damage gets through the shielded recipients DR, Energy Resistance, Cold subtype vulnerability, etc. is halved and shared with the Cleric.
This is a bonus when the recipient has DR and Energy Resistance, but can be a pain if the recipient has a vulnerability to something that never would have hurt the Cleric (such as a Wight, mentioned above, taking damage from a Mass Cure Light Wounds spell or something, sharing half of that damage with the living Cleric, who may have cast the spell in the first place!).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd go with Option 2. Whatever damage gets through the shielded recipients DR, Energy Resistance, Cold subtype vulnerability, etc. is halved and shared with the Cleric.
This is a bonus when the recipient has DR and Energy Resistance, but can be a pain if the recipient has a vulnerability to something that never would have hurt the Cleric (such as a Wight, mentioned above, taking damage from a Mass Cure Light Wounds spell or something, sharing half of that damage with the living Cleric, who may have cast the spell in the first place!).
Good point, if you cast shield other on a frost giant and they got hit with fire, option 2 would actually cause you to take more damage.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting thread. I'm another one of those who hadn't considered this combination.
So reading the spell I noticed that the Focus component are platinum rings, one worn by the target and one worn by the recipient. As a focus, I'm presuming that the spells must be worn during the entire duration of the spell and damage to one of the rings breaks the spell.
But what about other magical rings being worn by either party? Would these rings qualify as "magical" if they are the focus of a spell? I guess this question is sort of like the question, "are spellbooks magical?" It seems a similar type of question. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it can be solved by the wording in shield other
Additionally, the subject takes only half damage from all wounds and attacks (including those dealt by special abilities) that deal hit point damage.
The whole thing comes does to "deal hit point damage" The creature in question has to take the damage before it is split.
If you have DR 10 and you take 1 to 10 points of damage in essence the creature does not take any hit point damage. 11+ points of damage the creature will start taking hit point damage and at that point the damage is halved.
Same would apply for elemental resistance. If you have resist fire 20 the creature would need to take more than 20 points of damamge from a fire source before the damage was halfed between the creature and the cleric.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it can be solved by the wording in shield other
Additionally, the subject takes only half damage from all wounds and attacks (including those dealt by special abilities) that deal hit point damage.The whole thing comes does to "deal hit point damage" The creature in question has to take the damage before it is split.
If you have DR 10 and you take 1 to 10 points of damage in essence the creature does not take any hit point damage. 11+ points of damage the creature will start taking hit point damage and at that point the damage is halved.
Same would apply for elemental resistance. If you have resist fire 20 the creature would need to take more than 20 points of damamge from a fire source before the damage was halfed between the creature and the cleric.
Thanks OgeXam. I'd conceded to this ruling earlier, but the logic of this makes it clear this is the correct ruling in my opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I posted a similar question on enworld just today...
What if BOTH the recipient and the caster have resistance/DR?
Does it get applied twice or once?
DR only applies to the person that is attacked with the weapon. the damage that the caster takes is untyped damage and cannot be reduced.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I posted a similar question on enworld just today...
What if BOTH the recipient and the caster have resistance/DR?
Originally, I was thinking tat the Clerics Resistance/D.R. would not apply, but after rereading Shield Other and Damadge Reduction I changed my mind.
Damage Reduction says that you take the wounds and than instantly heal them. You are still taking the wounds first, though, so they would fully transfer over.
Energy Resistance on the other hand, does completely prevent the HP damage from happening in the first place, so would count.
However, Shield Other is not the cause of the wounds to the Cleric (or whoever cast Shield Other). The Shield Other spel does not actually deal any damage at all, and is in fact a Harmless spell. It is still the original attack "hitting" you. Shield Other does not say that it changes the Damage Type, so I would say that the Clerics Damage Reduction or Resistances would apply.
So the target of Shield Others DR helps them normally, but does not help the caster at all.
The target of Shield Others Energy Resistance helps them both, because it actually prevents the HP damage from occuring at all and therefore reduces the total damage before the split.
The casters D.R. only helps them once the damage has been halved and transfered their way.
The casters Energy Resistance helps them once the damage is halved and transfere their way.
I posted a similar question on enworld just today...
What if BOTH the recipient and the caster have resistance/DR?
Originally, I was thinking tat the Clerics Resistance/D.R. would not apply, but after rereading Shield Other and Damadge Reduction I changed my mind.
Damage Reduction says that you take the wounds and than instantly heal them. You are still taking the wounds first, though, so they would fully transfer over.
Energy Resistance on the other hand, does completely prevent the HP damage from happening in the first place, so would count.
However, Shield Other is not the cause of the wounds to the Cleric (or whoever cast Shield Other). The Shield Other spel does not actually deal any damage at all, and is in fact a Harmless spell. It is still the original attack "hitting" you. Shield Other does not say that it changes the Damage Type, so I would say that the Clerics Damage Reduction or Resistances would apply.
So the target of Shield Others DR helps them normally, but does not help the caster at all.
The target of Shield Others Energy Resistance helps them both, because it actually prevents the HP damage from occuring at all and therefore reduces the total damage before the split.
The casters D.R. only helps them once the damage has been halved and transfered their way.
The casters Energy Resistance helps them once the damage is halved and transfere their way.
Damage restance works differently from one creature to the next. You are talking about Fey/Outsides DR. Golem/Adamantium Armor DR works differenty. Unless you think that adamantium armor protects the wearer by instantly healing them.
Either way, the DR mechanic means that it recipient didn't take any serious harm, thus no hit point damage. No hit point damage, no injury to split with shield other.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Damage restance works differently from one creature to the next. You are talking about Fey/Outsides DR. Golem/Adamantium Armor DR works differenty. Unless you think that adamantium armor protects the wearer by instantly healing them.
I will grant that D.R. from armor is likely an exception, but looking at D.R. on page 561, it does say that the target takes the damage and than instantly heals a portion of it. So they are still taking the damage first. That is what the rules say, not that they ignor it like with Energy Resustance.
Either way, the DR mechanic means that it recipient didn't take any serious harm, thus no hit point damage. No hit point damage, no injury to split with shield other.
Actually no, that is my point. Reread it. You in fact do take the damage first, absolutely no different than a Cleric readying an action to cast a cure spell as soon as you take damage. That also means that technically, if you take 51 points of damage and have D.R. 2, you might die from massive damage before your D.R. even kicks in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Damage restance works differently from one creature to the next. You are talking about Fey/Outsides DR. Golem/Adamantium Armor DR works differenty. Unless you think that adamantium armor protects the wearer by instantly healing them.I will grant that D.R. from armor is likely an exception, but looking at D.R. on page 561, it does say that the target takes the damage and than instantly heals a portion of it. So they are still taking the damage first. That is what the rules say, not that they ignor it like with Energy Resustance.
Either way, the DR mechanic means that it recipient didn't take any serious harm, thus no hit point damage. No hit point damage, no injury to split with shield other.Actually no, that is my point. Reread it. You in fact do take the damage first, absolutely no different than a Cleric readying an action to cast a cure spell as soon as you take damage. That also means that technically, if you take 51 points of damage and have D.R. 2, you might die from massive damage before your D.R. even kicks in.
you are making the mistake of using the flavor text to make a rules decision, that is a big No-No.
further more, assuming that you are hell-bent on using this bit of fluff as a justification you are selectively ignoring half of the sentence, which in full reads
Some magic creatures have the supernatural ability to instantly heal damage from weapons or ignore blows altogether as though they were invulnerable.instant healing is only one type of damage reduction, and mechanically it is works the same as the invulnerability type... by negating the damage.
Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack...
Negated damage never occurs.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you are making the mistake of using the flavor text to make a rules decision, that is a big No-No.
:) That is what I was thinking about your arguement, actually. That you assumed that allDR automatically ignored damage vs healing.
further more, assuming that you are hell-bent on using this bit of fluff as a justification you are selectively ignoring half of the sentence, which in full readsSome magic creatures have the supernatural ability to instantly heal damage from weapons or ignore blows altogether as though they were invulnerable.instant healing is only one type of damage reduction, and mechanically it is works the same as the invulnerability type... by negating the damage.Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack...Negated damage never occurs.
It seems to imply, and I could very well be wrong, that tougher creatures like Contructs and Armor ignor the damage, while other forms instantly heal it. I am assuming we are talking about common uses of the spell Shield Other, like the party Cleric casting it to save the Fighter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had a similar issue in 3.5 with a mummy cleric casting Shield Other on his two Wight Monk "hounds". Mummies take 1/2 damage from lots of attacks, so if read one way, it potentially meant the mummy was taking insignificant damage and effectively doubled the wights' hp. Then there was the matter of the Mass Inflict Wounds spells....
NICE! rather not nice...but great tactic...
Would be interesting to have wight clerics in the wings cast shield other on a mummy warrior also...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's about the best example I can come up with to show how it works as I understand it:
You have a Figher and a Cleric, with the Fighter protected by Shield Other and both protected with Resist Fire 10. Both are hit with a 60 point Fireball and both fail their saves.
The Fighter takes 25 HP damage (60 - 10 fire resist = 50, 50 /2 = 25)
The Cleric takes 75 HP damage (60 - 10 fire resist = 50, 50 + 25 transfered from Fighter = 75)
Any DR, SR, Resistance, etc. that the Cleric may have doesn't apply to the damage transferred because all of those things are already applied on the fighter end of things. They only apply to damage targeting the cleric.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's about the best example I can come up with to show how it works as I understand it:
You have a Figher and a Cleric, with the Fighter protected by Shield Other and both protected with Resist Fire 10. Both are hit with a 60 point Fireball and both fail their saves.
The Fighter takes 25 HP damage (60 - 10 fire resist = 50, 50 /2 = 25)
The Cleric takes 75 HP damage (60 - 10 fire resist = 50, 50 + 25 transfered from Fighter = 75)Any DR, SR, Resistance, etc. that the Cleric may have doesn't apply to the damage transferred because all of those things are already applied on the fighter end of things. They only apply to damage targeting the cleric.
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.
Same with S.R., sort of. If the Fighter has S.R., and negates a spell, th 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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The original target's DR should apply, but not the cleric's. The cleric is not taking a specific type of damage, whether it be from a fireball or a sword. It is just damage. IMHO.
This is a good question though, and it should be addressed in the spell. Hopefully we can get it in the errata.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would definitely not allow a cleric's DR or energy resistance apply to any wounds brought over from Shield Other. The spell talks about half of the wounds suffered by the recipient of the spell being transfered to the caster. It doesn't talk about attacks or damage sources being redirected or anything like that, just wounds being shared.
Also, if I were to allow some sort of defense applicable to the cleric, I would rule that any wounds not transfered to the cleric could not be transfered from the original target. If the wounds don't have a destination, they can't leave home.
Also, if I were to allow some sort of defense applicable to the cleric, I would rule that any wounds not transfered to the cleric could not be transfered from the original target. If the wounds don't have a destination, they can't leave home.And that closes what to do if the Cleric has SR and cleverly decides to cast the sepll, then say "The damage needs to overcome my SR first!"
Actually, i would rule that the SR applies when the spell comes into being. If the cleric makes their SR check, then the spell fizzles.
Actually, i would rule that the SR applies when the spell comes into being. If the cleric makes their SR check, then the spell fizzles.
spell resistance never interferes with your own spells, so it is a moot point.
spell resistance never interferes with your own spells, so it is a moot point.Actually, i would rule that the SR applies when the spell comes into being. If the cleric makes their SR check, then the spell fizzles.
Exactly, that was another way of saying the cleric voluntarily accepted the spell, and thus can't use spell resistance to avoid the damage from the spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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...
The damage type is untyped damage.
It does not say the caster takes the same attack but only half the damage. The damage comes from the spell which is untyped damage.
From the clerics stand point it does not matter if the damage came from a sword, a fireball, falling, or a NDH. The damage that the caster takes is just damage.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It does not say that, though. You are adding it because that is how you see it from your perspective. It does not say that the damage is untyped, (and even if it were DR #/- would still then protect), and the spell is not infact inflicting the damage. It is comming from the attack, and being transferred to you by the spell, but the spell is not the cause.
In 3.5, there are a few classes that have a similar ability. The Knight from PHB 2, and I also think the Knight Protector from CW. Both literally stepped in the way of incomming attacks and took half the damage. (AFB so it may be another class I am thinking of). It did the exact same thing, though in a nonmagical sense. I don't see any reason that that damage would somehow become Untyped, or that DR wouldn't apply, in either case. Heck, I even think that he class says "as with Shield Other". Again, AFB, so I could be wrong.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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 that.
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."
I think you are incorrect. There are two spell effects damaging the cleric in the fireball example:
1. Fireball
2. Shield Other
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.
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.
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.
So lets look at the example again with both SR 10 and resist fire 10 on both the fighter and the cleric.
Its still a 60 point fireball So lets look at the damage resolution step by step.
Fireball damage resolution:
1. Enemy caster successfully casts a 60 point fireball in an area containing both the cleric and the fighter.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Shield other damage resolution:
1. Casting is not an issue as the spell was cast prior.
2. The cleric gets no SR as she is not the target of shield other.
3. Shield other does not provide the cleric with a saving throw as the cleric is not the target of the spell.
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.)
5. Shield other deals 25 points of damage to the cleric and this damage is applied.
Net result:
Fighter: takes 25 points of fire damage
Cleric: Takes 50 points of fire damage and 25 points of untyped magic damage.
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.
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.
love,
malkav
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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. 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.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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. 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.
Here is the spell:
"School abjuration; Level cleric 2, paladin 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, F (a pair of platinum rings worth 50 gp worn by both you and the target)
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target one creature
Duration 1 hour/level (D)
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)
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.
If you and the subject of the spell move out of range of each other, the spell ends.."
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.
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?
Because what I am seeing is: "The amount of damage not taken by the warded creature is taken by you"
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"
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.
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.
But I do feel I understand your view and perhaps some clarification on the subject should be in order.
love,
malkav
I agree with Malkav's reading of the spell and would also like to note that I see no reason why the cleric's adamantine full plate should protect him from supernaturally transfered wounds.
DR and resistances applies before the split if the casted-on party has DR. After the split the damage is not affected by DR or resistances.
|
|
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.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?
The spell really does not specify either way. However, note the portion I italicized and bolded. It mentions from all wounds and attacks, which implies that it is the attacks not the spell that is dealing the damage. Also, Shield Other is not a damaging spell. If it were possible to damage someone with this spell directly, it would not be a Harmless spell.
Secondly, and this might just be the way I think, but it is more logical that if the spell does change the damage type, it would specify that. Not the other way around. That is, in my mind like saying that Cleave automatically switcheds damage to slashing because that is how Cleave sounds.
If the fighter takes 20 points of Nonlethal Damage, the Cleric now takes 10 points of untypes, magical actual damage? Nonlethal damage is damage to HP, so it counts, right.
Beckett think of it from a "logical" stand point. Though adding logic to game mechanics get all sorts of sticky.
If a Cleric casts Shield other on a Fighter and they are now 30' apart.
Fighter gets stabbed from 10 points of piercing damage. Does a copy of the weapon appear in front of the cleric so it does piercing damage? Spells do not do piercing damage.
If the fighter is hit by a scorching ray and the fighter was in reach by the cleric is not, does part of the scorching ray leap from the fighter to the cleric to have fire based damage?
Or does it make more "logical sense" that when the fighter is hit by whatever type of damage he is hit with the spell that protects the fighter heals the fighter half of what he took and then the shield other spell causes the cleric suffer the pain and deals damage to the cleric.
The later is much more "realistic".
As for if the fighter takes 20 points of nonlethal. Then the fighter takes 10 nonleathal and the cleric takes 10 untyped real damage.
|
|
Beckett think of it from a "logical" stand point. Though adding logic to game mechanics get all sorts of sticky.
If a Cleric casts Shield other on a Fighter and they are now 30' apart.
Fighter gets stabbed from 10 points of piercing damage. Does a copy of the weapon appear in front of the cleric so it does piercing damage? Spells do not do piercing damage.
If the fighter is hit by a scorching ray and the fighter was in reach by the cleric is not, does part of the scorching ray leap from the fighter to the cleric to have fire based damage?Or does it make more "logical sense" that when the fighter is hit by whatever type of damage he is hit with the spell that protects the fighter heals the fighter half of what he took and then the shield other spell causes the cleric suffer the pain and deals damage to the cleric.
Personally, I don't think that either of them are more realistic or logical, and also neither of them are what the spells actually say it does. However, I do think it is within reason that if the Fighter gets branded with a hot iron and 2 fire damage, the "burn wound" and whatever shape was used would appear on the Cleric (as oppossed to a slash or Forcepunch) and 1 fire damage.
The spell says it transferes both the damage and the wounds. It does not say that it makes a replica Spiritual Weapon to come smack you or that it converts damage and then actually hurts you itself.
Personally, I don't think that either of them are more realistic or logical, and also neither of them are what the spells actually say it does. However, I do think it is within reason that if the Fighter gets branded with a hot iron and 2 fire damage, the "burn wound" and whatever shape was used would appear on the Cleric (as oppossed to a slash or Forcepunch) and 1 fire damage.The spell says it transferes both the damage and the wounds. It does not say that it makes a replica Spiritual Weapon to come smack you or that it converts damage and then actually hurts you itself.
Go ahead and think of it that way. The wound is transferred. It's not inflicted again as if the cleric was burned. The wound the fighter suffers because his defenses were overcome is transferred. It's the result of the attack, not the attack itself, so no further defenses apply.