|
| 8 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
Subject says it all. My character attacked someone protected by fire shield and missed, but the DM ruled that I took damage from the spell. I think the wording indicates it only damages attackers who hit and do damage. Who's right?
Your GM is correct. (The GM is always correct no matter what, but in this case, the rules happen to agree with him.)
This spell wreathes you in flame and causes damage to each creature that attacks you in melee.
... Creatures wielding melee weapons with reach are not subject to this damage if they attack you.
"Attack" means "attempt to hit" not "succeed in damaging."
Other places, the spell talks about damage, but that is incidental. It never specifies that "taking damage" is a requirement for the spell to function.
|
|
Thanks. We're playing online using a virtual tabletop and Ventrilo, and I didn't have the text in front of me when we were discussing the spell. For some reason he skipped to the second paragraph when reading out the spell description, whereas the clarifying text is right there in the first paragraph. Just a bit of miscommunication.
"Attack" means "attempt to hit" not "succeed in damaging."
Other places, the spell talks about damage, but that is incidental. It never specifies that "taking damage" is a requirement for the spell to function.
However, the second paragraph specifically states the following conditions under which damage is done:
PFRD[/url]]Any creature striking you with its body or a hand-held weapon deals normal damage, but at the same time the attacker takes 1d6 points of damage + 1 point per caster level (maximum +15).
At no point does it state that opponents are damaged if they miss.
It doesn't hurt you if you miss.
"Attack" means "attempt to hit" not "succeed in damaging."
Other places, the spell talks about damage, but that is incidental. It never specifies that "taking damage" is a requirement for the spell to function.
However, the second paragraph specifically states the following conditions under which damage is done:
PFRD[/url]]Any creature striking you with its body or a hand-held weapon deals normal damage, but at the same time the attacker takes 1d6 points of damage + 1 point per caster level (maximum +15).At no point does it state that opponents are damaged if they miss.
This. :)
"Attack" means "attempt to hit" not "succeed in damaging."
Other places, the spell talks about damage, but that is incidental. It never specifies that "taking damage" is a requirement for the spell to function.
However, the second paragraph specifically states the following conditions under which damage is done:
PFRD[/url]]Any creature striking you with its body or a hand-held weapon deals normal damage, but at the same time the attacker takes 1d6 points of damage + 1 point per caster level (maximum +15).At no point does it state that opponents are damaged if they miss.
I agree with my Freund.
There is an old tradition in the game that succeeding or failing on your attack roll is not the same as completely missing the target. Your attack could have harmlessly bounced off the target's armour, yet you still "struck" him.
Clarification would be nice.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I FAQ'd it, since I can see it going either way.
For now, your GM's ruling stands.
Lol.
T'was me, Ben.
Ironically the only reason I read from the rulebooks aloud was to reassure the Players. All it actually did was make them suspicious that I had it wrong. I did eventually point to the very first sentence which I think is fairly straight forward.
However I welcome a clarification. I encouraged Jim.DiGriz to seek a clarification while I made an "on the spot" call in order to keep the flow of the game going. That was the right thing to do, and for that I have no regrets.
And, I agree it can be interpreted two ways.
My logic went like this: it is a shield of fire surrounding the character. If you enter close combat melee with that character, you're entering that field of fire and getting burned. Additionally, a missed melee attack does not necessarily represent failure to make contact with the opponent (they might have very tough armor!). Now, granted, the game doesn't differentiate between a miss that fails to injure and a miss that fails to make contact (or rather that is governed under touch attacks). Nevertheless, I defaulted back to the first paragraph and the very first sentence.
This spell wreathes you in flame and causes damage to each creature that attacks you in melee.
You're getting really close and intimate with that damage shield. Also, it's a relatively high level spell (4th level to be specific), and I think the caster is getting their value from the spell if it damages melee attacks that miss as well as those that hit. If you don't want to be injured, don't get in melee with the caster!
Any creature striking you with its body or a hand-held weapon deals normal damage, but at the same time the attacker takes 1d6 points of damage + 1 point per caster level (maximum +15).
What that says to me is that the damage incurred against the caster by an opponent's body or hand-held weapon is not mitigated by the "shield", but rather that the attacker does suffer damage as described. There is no conditional statement of "if you do damage, then you take damage". So I'm not seeing a requirement to hit and do damage for the attacker to suffer the spell's effect. Taking this in context along with the first paragraph and first sentence; you only need to make a melee attack without reach. Inflicting damage is not required.
Though it bears repeating.. a clarification would be helpful. It will not be the first time I've been wrong about something, and I daresay it won't be the last. :D
Privately I'd love to be correct, especially if I am going to be a guest judge. (chuckle)
However I'll probably refrain from further comment until there is a ruling.
The DM ruling was correct. Abstract hit point system aside, the spell does not require damage to be dealt.
Any creature striking you with its body or a hand-held weapon deals normal damage...
This quote bears no weight; it only serves to note that damage is dealt by attackers normally, and that fire shield does not affect said damage in any way. The text that follows the ellipsis is not the triggered event of damage, merely a side effect of the attack wherein the text explains the spell effect.
This spell wreathes you in flame and causes damage to each creature that attacks you in melee.
That is pretty much flavor text. It does not state if it is for each attack, or once per round, or just once. If you go by only that text it can be argued that fire shield will do damage only once to each creature that attacks it in melee.
What if the creature has 5 attacks? The text says attacks you in melee, attacks can be a one or many attempts to hit you.
When you get into the meat of the spell description.
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).
Now we have a definative answer to when the damage occurs, it states the creature strikes you with its body or hand held weapon that deals normal damage takes fire sheild damage.
Why did they write strikign you with its body, shoudln't they have put natural, unarmed, or handheld weapon? Or did they put in body so attempts to grapple or trip will hurt them, since someone may say "I did not do damage so therefore I do not trigger the flame shield."
The way I see it, which I may be wrong, is only successful to hits cause fire shield damage. If you swing and miss you did not get close enought o the shield to get hurt yourself. If you touch the fire shielded creature in anyway you should take damage, this includes your parties cleric casting touch spells on you!
What if the creature has 5 attacks? The text says attacks you in melee, attacks can be a one or many attempts to hit you.
It learns to cease and desist very quickly? :D
Why did they write striking you with its body, shouldn’t they have put natural, unarmed, or handheld weapon? Or did they put in body so attempts to grapple or trip will hurt them, since someone may say "I did not do damage so therefore I do not trigger the flame shield."
They may have used that phrase simply out of an economy of words, since you can refer to natural and unarmed attacks without making the text pedantic.
Though your point is very noteworthy. Initiating a grapple doesn't necessarily inflict any damage (some monsters hit and grapple but PCs generally do not). Requiring you to cause damage for the spell to function seems counter-intuitive to what spell's intent actually is, at least in that respect.
I'm happy to be wrong and smile, but I am curious what the Powers That Be will say.
EDIT: ACK, I flagged my own post above for the FAQ. I intended to flag the whole thread and I see I should have flagged the first post. My regrets. I'd never used the button before. Mea Culpa.
The way I see it, which I may be wrong, is only successful to hits cause fire shield damage. If you swing and miss you did not get close enought o the shield to get hurt yourself.
+1.
The only effect described is what happens on a successful melee attack. There is no mention of what happens if you miss, Grapple, Overrun, Bull Rush, Trip, etc., so those have no interaction with Fire Shield, as far as I can tell.
|
|
You could just rule that if an attack roll meets or exceeds the spellcaster's Touch AC then the attacker takes damage from the spell. If the attack roll meets or exceeds the spellcaster's normal AC, then the spellcaster takes normal damage from the weapon attack.
While an attacker might not be able to beat the spellcaster's CMD for some reason, I would likely apply the grapple CMB roll to the caster's Touch AC in exactly the same way.
Maybe a better wording would be something along the lines of
This spell wreathes you in flame. The flames also protect you from either cold-based or fire-based attacks, depending on if you choose cool or warm flames for your fire shield.
Any creature the hits you with a melee attack or attempts a combat maneuver are effected by the fire shield. Attacks and combat maneuvers with a reach weapons negate the fire shield. The attacker takes 1d6 points of damage + 1 point per caster level (maximum +15). This damage is either cold damage (if you choose a chill shield) or fire damage (if you choose a warm shield). If the attacker has spell resistance, it applies to this effect. Creatures wielding melee weapons with reach are not subject to this damage if they attack you.
Remove the flavor text about cratures attacking you in melee to remvoe confusion. State that if they hit with a non reach weapon they take damage. I put attempt combat maneuver because to try grapple someone you had to grab them some (i.e. make body contact) so you got close enough to be burnt. Trip, disarm, grapple and steal require the attacker to touch the defender, so even if you failed you more then likely still go very close and burnt by the flames.
First cut at the text rewrite, so needs more work to have it flow better. I am proposing the idea of the rewrite.