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.
I prefer Beckett's view from a flavor standpoint. From the RAW, I'm torn.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The spell doesn't describe the effect in any way. I see it as a spell to mimic the Corsican Twins effect. A fighter gets burned with a firebrand on the arm, the cleric gets a burn of the exact same shape and size in the exact same place. No leaping fire, just a burn. The fighter gets slashed with a sword across the chest, and a slash crosses the cleric's chest as well.
The spell is kinda vague, but as I read it, the damage type doesn't change, and only wounds that actually affect the target get split with the cleric. DR/Resists for the target apply first, whatever gets through gets split, the cleric applies and DR/Resists to his half and then takes the remainder.
At least, that's how I read it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is the immunity and nonlethal damage part that do it for me. I keep saying Cleric, because it is a Cleric/Paladin spell, but the Cleric is most likely to use it even though there are other ways the spell might be used. I just don't see a Cleric dying from nonlethal wounds to a Fighter that they split, and I also don't see a Cleric immune to fire, taking "fire" damage because the Fighter got hit by a red dragon's breath (and it becomes untyped damage).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
love,
malkav
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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 damage equals your current hit points, you're staggered (see below), and when it exceeds your current hit points, you fall unconscious."
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.
love,
malkav
|
|
From Shield Other (pg 342): ". . .Additionally, the subject takes only half damage from all wounds and attacks (including those dealt by special abilities) that deal hit point damage. . .
Forms of harm that do not involve Hit Points, such as Charm effects, temporary ability damage, level draining, and death effects are not affected. . ."
From Nonlethal Damage (pg 191) "Nonlethal damage represents harm to a character that is not life threatening. Unlike normal damage, nonlethal damage is healed quickly with rest. . ."
I would think they would specify if Nonlethal Damage didn't count here, (I mean that all the examples given about what does not count are very different than Nonlethal damage). Otherwise, it fits all the criteria, I think. The spell doesn't say it has to be "normal" damage, or that it has to be reduced from Hit Points, just damage dealt.
I quoted he above specifically, (not trying to be a douche). The first one to show tha A.) it says wounds and attacks that deal (HP) damage, and B.) it says the subject takes half damage (but does not mention the caster needing to take the other half autometically).
The secong part gives examples of attacks that do not cause HP damage, but Nonlethal is not there. I can honestly say that it is a bit debatable as to Nonlethal damage counting, but I think that it would specifically call this out if it did not, and that because it does not, it is safer to assume that Nonethal damage would be split as well. Also, Nonlethal damage does "involve" HP.
The third one was a little more about Nonlethal Damage, and I really think that this indicates (from the Shield Other perspective at least), that it most definetly would count. Going back to the first art, (and honestly the whole Shield Other spell), I just don't see it not counting when you look at Nonlethal damage (from an attack) this way.
Here is the thing though. Lets say, (for the sake of arguement) that you agree, and Nonlethal damage can be split by Shield Other. And you still think that Shield Other protects the Fighter, and flairs up and force smacks the Cleric with Untyped Magical Damage. That means that f the Fighter took Nonlethal Damage, the Cleric might possibly die from it. Does that sound right to you at all?
I think it is an interesting discussion, so I am going to see if the 3.5 FAQ has anything to say one way or the other, as I doubt this has never come up before.
Perhaps Pathfinder should define the difference between damage dealt/inflicted and damage TAKEN. Similar to how Heroclix had to define these concepts for its damage reduction rules, the same concepts apply to Pathfinder and could help eliminate confusion along these lines. As an example, (hp) damage taken is the amount of hit points subtracted from your current hp total after applying all damage modifiers (plus and minus). Given the applicability of this concept across game systems, I believe that Shield Other was intended to operate in exactly this fashion.
|
Resolving Shield Other is a 3 step process:
1. Figure out how much damage the target of the spell is going to take.
2. Prevent half of that damage.
3. Deal remainder of that damage to the cleric.
Because it is the Shield Other spell dealing the damage to the cleric and the Shield Other spell doesn't list a damage type, the damage is untyped.
P.S. DR never applies to damage from spells unless the spell specifically says it does. Even DR/-.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
WOW! This is definately one of those issues that has merit from both sides and is not a case of someone mis-representing the rules. I would like to see some imput from Jason Bulmahn or Josh Frost as this could very likely come up in Pathfinder Society play. As both a player and GM, I'd like a more official and consistant ruling than just "rule 0."
(1) Is transfered damage, from a Shield Other, the original type or untyped?
(2) Is nonlethal considered damage for the effects of Shield Other?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's say that as Beckett says is right. And think of two clerics each with a adamantine breastplate (DR 2/-).
They cast Shield Other on each other. So any damage dealt to either Cleric gets reduced by DR, then halved and sent to the other cleric. Then that damage is reduced by DR and halved and sent back to the first cleric. You keep repeating this process till no damage gets through the DR.
So C1 gets hit for 40 points of damage.
C1 takes 40-2=38 split into 19 to C1 and 19 damage to C2
C2 takes 19-2=17 split into 8 to C2 and 9 damage to C1
C1 takes 9-2=7 split into 3 C1 and 4 damage to C2
C2 takes 4-2=2 split into 2 to C2 and 2 to C1
C1 takes 2-2=0
So thanks to a 2nd level spell I was able to use the DR 2/- to absorb 10 points off a 40 point it! C1 got to use his DR 3 times and C2 got to use his twice!
Dude if that is how the spell works, then shield other needs to be a much higher level spell!
Think of a party of clerics all doing a shield other circle with DR and resistances. Just one spell that lasts hours would absorb a ton of damage.
So no it does not work that way.
Let's say that as Beckett says is right. And think of two clerics each with a adamantine breastplate (DR 2/-).
They cast Shield Other on each other. So any damage dealt to either Cleric gets reduced by DR, then halved and sent to the other cleric. Then that damage is reduced by DR and halved and sent back to the first cleric. You keep repeating this process till no damage gets through the DR.
So C1 gets hit for 40 points of damage.
C1 takes 40-2=38 split into 19 to C1 and 19 damage to C2
C2 takes 19-2=17 split into 8 to C2 and 9 damage to C1
C1 takes 9-2=7 split into 3 C1 and 4 damage to C2
C2 takes 4-2=2 split into 2 to C2 and 2 to C1
C1 takes 2-2=0So thanks to a 2nd level spell I was able to use the DR 2/- to absorb 10 points off a 40 point it! C1 got to use his DR 3 times and C2 got to use his twice!
Dude if that is how the spell works, then shield other needs to be a much higher level spell!
Think of a party of clerics all doing a shield other circle with DR and resistances. Just one spell that lasts hours would absorb a ton of damage.
So no it does not work that way.
Nice! In this example damage is dealt, but never taken!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Come on now, that is pretty ridiculous, and not in the wow that might actually work sense. :)
Would you normally allow DR to be used more than once when a target gets attacked once? Secondly, Cleric 2 is not being attacked. Your problem is completely about two clerics using Shield Other on each other, and nothing to do with D.R.
Even if it were, the D.R. would stop here
"So C1 gets hit for 40 points of damage.
C1 takes 40-2=38 split into 19 to C1 and 19 damage to C2
C2 takes 19-2=17. . ."
The rest of it is abusing Shield Other and has nothing to do with what is going on in the discussion. If such actually did happen, though, the D.R. would not kick back in, because it is the same, original attack, (because Shield Other in not an attack and deals no damage). Yes, you could potentially rule the Shield Other would keep splitting that damage, but unfortunately, in PF that means that the two Shield others would keep interrupting each other infinitely, the two Clerics would start taking 1 point of Nonlethal damage forever. They could never be healed and would never recover.
In PF, any damage that is reduced to 0 still deals at least 1 point of Nonlethal damage. Because the Shield Other spell kicks in immediately as the damage is taken/transferred, the two would be forever in a loop of taking damage, but still be locked in that 1 turn, so no one would ever be able to heal them. Ever. Because the spell would keep on interrupting everything else, and "time" would never advance.
That is of course assuming that two Shield Other's would continually transfer the damage back and forth, but not matter about D.R. (without D.R., they would just die, with, locked in a continual world of pain).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because it is the Shield Other spell dealing the damage to the cleric and the Shield Other spell doesn't list a damage type, the damage is untyped.
That is were I (respectivly) disagree. The spell does not cause any damage itself. The original attack made on the target of the spell causes the damage (100% of it). No where in the spell does it say that the spell deals damage, and being tat the spell does not deal damage itself, it does not also change the damage type. (That is a fluff view of how the spell might work, but has nothing to actually do with the spells mechanics).
P.S. DR never applies to damage from spells unless the spell specifically says it does. Even DR/-.
I agree with this, but it is irrelevent. The spell is not changing the damage type nor is it causeing any damage. However, even if I am wrong, (which is possible), it wouldn't change anything. There are versions of Magical resistant D.R. out there which would apply against the untyped magic damage, like maybe the Athar(? AFB). All this is doing though, is changig what type of resistance attribute would work, not saying that none would (in the whole picture).
I am very confident that I am correct here and the idea of applying DR or resistances to the split damage is incorrect.
Since we are at polar opposites here and we have both given our arguments and neither has changed their mind even in the slightest then we are at a stand still.
We will have to wait for one of the Paizo developers give the official ruling on what the type of damage the caster takes.
Points listened too,
Points submitted,
No Resolution
Discussion awaiting official ruling.
We will have to wait for one of the Paizo developers give the official ruling on what the type of damage the caster takes.
I'm satisfied with a result that indicates the caster takes 'hit point' damage. Further 'typing' of damage will ultimately lead to more confusion and abuse, not less.
|
|
From Shield Other (pg 342): ". . .Additionally, the subject takes only half damage from all wounds and attacks (including those dealt by special abilities) that deal hit point damage. . .
Forms of harm that do not involve Hit Points, such as Charm effects, temporary ability damage, level draining, and death effects are not affected. . ."
From Nonlethal Damage (pg 191) "Nonlethal damage represents harm to a character that is not life threatening. Unlike normal damage, nonlethal damage is healed quickly with rest. . ."
I would think they would specify if Nonlethal Damage didn't count here, (I mean that all the examples given about what does not count are very different than Nonlethal damage). Otherwise, it fits all the criteria, I think. The spell doesn't say it has to be "normal" damage, or that it has to be reduced from Hit Points, just damage dealt.
I quoted he above specifically, (not trying to be a douche). The first one to show tha A.) it says wounds and attacks that deal (HP) damage, and B.) it says the subject takes half damage (but does not mention the caster needing to take the other half autometically).
The secong part gives examples of attacks that do not cause HP damage, but Nonlethal is not there. I can honestly say that it is a bit debatable as to Nonlethal damage counting, but I think that it would specifically call this out if it did not, and that because it does not, it is safer to assume that Nonethal damage would be split as well. Also, Nonlethal damage does "involve" HP.
The third one was a little more about Nonlethal Damage, and I really think that this indicates (from the Shield Other perspective at least), that it most definetly would count. Going back to the first art, (and honestly the whole Shield Other spell), I just don't see it not counting when you look at Nonlethal damage (from an attack) this way.
Here is the thing though. Lets say, (for the sake of arguement) that you agree, and Nonlethal damage can be split by Shield Other. And you still think that Shield...
I still hold that nonlethal damage does not count as it is tallied separately and never actually deals HP damage. It is kept as a separate tally and does not actually "Wound" the character. But if its all the same to you, and unless they are going to offer real clarification I am going to bow out of the debate (not that it hasn't been a pleasure debating with you, because it has been) as it seems we are not really making any headway towards coming to a resolution. I would love to here what the designers think on the issue or get some input from them however.
love,
malkav
Sure, I was really just enjoying the debate. :)We will have to wait for one of the Paizo developers give the official ruling on what the type of damage the caster takes.
Well then, since you seem to be enjoying it. I thought of a worse case scenario for shield other, if each person can apply DR, ER, etc.
What if two cleric ghosts have shield other cast on each other?
Assume hit for 100 points of damage by something.
CG1 assigned 100 damage.
CG1 50% damage due to be incorporeal => 50 this is halved to 25
CG2 assigned 25 points damage, reduced 50% to 12 then halved to 6
CG1 assigned 6 points damage, reduced 50% to 3 then halved to 1
CG2 assigned 2 points damage, reduced 50% to 1
So CG1 takes a total of 25+3= 28 damage
CG2 takes 12+1= 13 damage
Total damage taken between them 41. A 9% reduction in damage. If you go with just the straight transfer of wounds no type the damage would have still added up to 50.
Let's look at a lower damage amount say 20
CG1 assigned 20 points, reduced 50% to 10 then halved to 5
CG2 assigned 5 points, reduced 50% to 2 then halved to 1
CG1 assigned 1 point, reduced 50% to 0
CG1 take 5+0 = 5
CG2 take 1
Total damage taken 6 instead of 10 20% reduction in damage.
Now let's look at only 10 damage
CG1 assigned 10 points, reduced 50% to 5 then halved to 2
CG2 assigned 3 points, reduced 50% to 1 then halved 0
CG1 assigned 1 point, reduced 50% to 0
CG1 takes 2+0
CG2 takes 0
total damage 2 instead of 5, 30% reduction in damage
Pretty strong for a 2nd level spell that lasts HOURS!!!
Need to take into consideration how cheap it is to make into a permanate magic item.
spell level * caster level * 2000 * 1(lasts hours)
2 * 3 * 2000 * 1= 6,000gp only 3,000gp to make!
It would be a wonderous item the rings are just spell components so could be made by a 3rd level cleric! Oh hech spend double to make it a non-slotted item and spend the 6k to make it yourself.
If I kept getting reduction due to DR and ER or even SR for the splitting what party shouldn't each have one attunded to another party member to spread the damage around and keep reducing it!
Need to take into consideration how cheap it is to make into a permanate magic item.
spell level * caster level * 2000 * 1(lasts hours)
2 * 3 * 2000 * 1= 6,000gp only 3,000gp to make!It would be a wonderous item the rings are just spell components so could be made by a 3rd level cleric! Oh hech spend double to make it a non-slotted item and spend the 6k to make it yourself.
If I kept getting reduction due to DR and ER or even SR for the splitting what party shouldn't each have one attunded to another party member to spread the damage around and keep reducing it!
Yeah, the problem with the spell or an item is that there are times when you do not want the spell up.
Bad guys attack cleric, cleric is at 15 health, and can't drop the spell. Enemy hits the cleric and the SO target with a 30 damage fireball. The cleric makes hit save and is staggered. The person who the SO was on fails their save, and the cleric dies.
That said, a magic item that generates the shield other effect would be great for a BBEG to put on some poor helpless victim. Paladin, if you hit me you would be injuring this poor helpless maiden.....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shield other is made so that the cleric take half of whatever damage the subject takes.
It specifically says:
The amount of damage not taken by the warded creature is taken by you.
How much damage the subject takes is not determined until after DR or energy resistance is accounted for.
So if 50 damage is dealt to the party barbarian, and he only take 36 due to DR, then 18 goes to him, and 18 goes to the cleric.
The intent of the spell has always been to split the damage evenly between the two. If damage was divided, and then DR was applied the cleric would be taking more than half of the damage which is against the spirit and the letter of the rules.
|
|
What if the cleric that cast shield other has fire resistance 10 and a fireball hits the party barbarian (the target of the spell)?
It was argued in this thread by Beckett that Shield Other is just moving the damage from the barbarian to the cleric and not actually dealing the damage through the spell Shield Other, but the original source (the fireball).
The way I read the ability I concur with that assessment, however I can see how it is read the other way. (that no damage reduction the caster of shield other has will help prevent the redirected damage).
Since this seems like it's been debated over the years, I was wondering if there were any official dev. comments one way or another.
I play PFS and I prefer to keep updated documentation as it applies to contentious abilities like this.
Shield other just deals pure damage. It does not do piercing damage, or slashing damage, or fire damage. The cleric is not being burned by the fireball. He is just taking damage, so fire resistance would not help.
I do agree that they should have added a clause saying that DR and energy resistance does not help though.
I will go and FAQ it after this. Maybe after Gencon we can get the FAQ's back, and people can behave so we can keep them.
edit:I just noticed that nobody has FAQ'd this thread.
Hopefully people will start to do so now.
If the caster was incorporeal, would he get his full share (Half the total damage) or would he only take 50% of his share (25% of the total damage)?
Normal would be for damaging spells to only deal half damage.
Or is that part not true if the caster himself is incorporeal?
Incorporeal means you take half damage from attacks. Shield other is not an attack.
As to how is the damage transferred from one to another is a tricky question to say the least.
I think that I would say that the damage is transferred through a force effect created by the shield other spell
Now this could be totally invisible or I think for a good bit of descripted role play it might appear as a shadowy form next to the caster
But no matter how it appears I would say that as a force effect it bypasses DR anyway
Well that's how I would play it any more thoughts on the subject
I prefer to think of it as the caster's magic wracking him with pain from the inside, or at least with "phantom" wounds. That keeps it from being tied to any specific game effect (like force), which would theoretically allow for loopholes (such as a spell or prestige class that makes you immune to force damage).
I think it is just easier to specify it as a function of the spell that bypasses all DR and energy resistance.
|
|
It might be easier to think of it as something that bypasses all DR and energy resistance, but it's not really worded explicitly one way or another. It simply says half of the damage that was not taken by the target of the spell is instead taken by the caster. It seems like it just "transfers" the damage without altering it in any way.
It's very annoying that an ability that's been around for so long that is so vague in the wording hasn't been FAQ'd or touched on by the developers; the very least is to have some RAI clarified on the forums.
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.
emphasis mine.
It doesn't have to alter it, the caster knows what the effect is and is willingly casting the spell with the intent to take damage from the spell.
Target is hit by an attack, any DR/Resists get taken into effect. Damage is applied to target, spell kicks in and siphons half of the damage done and the spell takes that siphoned hit point amount and applies it to the caster.
|
|
Thread necro.
If a cleric casts Shield Other on the Barbarian, and a Bard with the Tales of Twisted Steel Masterpiece(Same effect as Shield Other) on the cleric, would it work for the Bard to take half the damage that the cleric took from the barbarian? In essence, the Cleric and Bard would each take 1/4 damage from the Barbarian?