Ok so my DM believes that the shield spell only gives you a shield bonus against targets in front of you. Here is why:
Shield creates an invisible, tower shield-sized mobile <b>disk of force that hovers in front of you.</b> It negates magic missile attacks directed at you. The disk also provides a +4 shield bonus to AC. This bonus applies against incorporeal touch attacks, since it is a force effect. The shield has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance. Unlike with a normal tower shield, you can’t use the shield spell for cover.
So does anyone else disagree with his conclusion and agree that is there for visual effect only?
That is probably the silliest reasoning I've ever heard.
If Shield only blocked 12 o'clock attacks, the write-up would mention it. The AC bonus is a solid bonus; it doesn't mention anything like "AC bonus as-long-as" or "AC bonus if".
Well, let me see there is NO facing in Pathfinder. Defenses are never geared towards spacing or direction. The same would apply to normal shields with that logic...
The magic of the shield works just like a normal shield and tries to block incoming attacks just like you would.
Oh, he's right... :P but since the game has no rules for facing you're free to tell him that you're always facing whatever enemy you're fighting.
Now seriously. Yes, the description is only fluff. The mechanical effect of the spell is: +4 shield AC and immunity to magic missile for the duration, nothing more, nothing less.
Yeah. What those two said.
Edit: "three"^ ninja'd by nidho
It's a relic of the time period in which D&D still used facing rules. Unless you go with the optional facing rules from 3.5 Unearthed Arcana, which most people would caution against, the fluff description has no impact on actual play.
Of course most people would wonder why shield comes up as a memorized spell anyway as it's pretty substandard in 3.x
Ok so my DM believes that the shield spell only gives you a shield bonus against targets in front of you. Here is why:
Shield creates an invisible, tower shield-sized mobile <b>disk of force that hovers in front of you.</b> It negates magic missile attacks directed at you. The disk also provides a +4 shield bonus to AC. This bonus applies against incorporeal touch attacks, since it is a force effect. The shield has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance. Unlike with a normal tower shield, you can’t use the shield spell for cover.
So does anyone else disagree with his conclusion and agree that is there for visual effect only?
It used to be a +7 bonus in one direction. It was changed because it was as annoying as hell to keep track of.
In 3.5 it became a +4 omnidirectional bonus.
Of course most people would wonder why shield comes up as a memorized spell anyway as it's pretty substandard in 3.x
It's not a bad spell as a pre-buff for a fight. However, during combat you should have better uses of your actions.
Used to be awesome in 3.5 for Gishes with Abjurant Champion....so it hasn't always been substandard.
IMHO, your GM needs to reread the spell description and think hard about it.
The mechanics don't specify that the Shield spell works only in one direction; that can be role-played as:
"The shield moves without the caster's concentration and will interpose itself against all attacks directed at the caster."
The spell description doesn't say it explicitly, but that's the intent.
If the caster were flanked, however, would be a matter more in a gray area and subject to the GMs ruling...but I would still personally use the idea that the shield can move fast enough around the caster to be a factor in all directions. A stricter ruling GM might match the spell to the limitations of a physical shield, saying that it can only attempt to block up to n attacks per round, after which is doesn't factor in for the rest of the round.
My 2 pence.
IMHO, your GM needs to reread the spell description and think hard about it.
The mechanics don't specify that the Shield spell works only in one direction; that can be role-played as:
"The shield moves without the caster's concentration and will interpose itself against all attacks directed at the caster."
The spell description doesn't say it explicitly, but that's the intent.
If the caster were flanked, however, would be a matter more in a gray area and subject to the GMs ruling...but I would still personally use the idea that the shield can move fast enough around the caster to be a factor in all directions. A stricter ruling GM might match the spell to the limitations of a physical shield, saying that it can only attempt to block up to n attacks per round, after which is doesn't factor in for the rest of the round.
My 2 pence.
Or they might say, Oh youre flanked? +2 to my attacks then. Remind your GM that you are always assumed to be twisting and turning during combat and effectively facing all directions when in combat.
thanks everyone, think i'll link this to my DM
So what happens when a dread linnorm cast shield? seeing as how it has two possible fronts then? or what happens when an elemental somehow uses shield since they are homogeneous and have no front? Facing was purposely removed after 3.0
Edit: And if someone walked up to me with a bug in their hand, I would probably turn to face them, which I believe is whats assumed in the rules. If two people approached me from different directions, I would have to divide my attention between them. (flanked) And if I didnt notice them coming, I guess I wouldnt be able to react would I? (flat-footed)
The spell states pretty explicitly that it grants a flat shield bonus to AC. It doesn't provide any particular details describing when that bonus is not applicable. To infer otherwise is to ignore what is explicitly stated.
I have seen nothing in PFCR that says there are no facing rules. Ok they do not have any, but that does not mean that common sense and words can not dictate other wise.
Yeah - here we like to discuss the rules according to how they are written. I don't believe that there are any rules that state a character is facing any particular direction at any given time during combat. The assumption is that a character is at all times capable of turning to face whatever threat there is and, during combat, they are continuously in motion. This is also why someone is immediately visible to everyone within line of sight as soon as he or she steps out of hiding - there is no sneaking up "behind" someone during combat without cover/concealment.
Now, you can make an appeal to "common sense" and say that there SHOULD be facing - but at that time you are invoking house rules. And if you want to make a house rule about facing, make sure it applies reasonably to all situations. This means ANY character that carries a shield should only receive shield bonuses to AC if they are facing the threat. Likewise, any character not facing an enemy is essentially blind when attacked by that creature - which creates a litany of penalties that would need to be applied to the character being attacked. You'll also need to create house rules to describe under what conditions turning is possible, etc. etc.
It would make a really complicated mess - and that's one of the reason why facing rules were abandoned to begin with.
Now last time I checked the direction that a miniature was facing was front.
The miniature is only a representation to assist with the visualization of tactical combat. You can use quarters or other various tokens to represent characters and enemies. The miniature doesn't have to accurately reflect the way a creature looks at all.
It's a relic of the time period in which D&D still used facing rules. Unless you go with the optional facing rules from 3.5 Unearthed Arcana, which most people would caution against, the fluff description has no impact on actual play.
Of course most people would wonder why shield comes up as a memorized spell anyway as it's pretty substandard in 3.x
because the spell perfection sorcerer quickens one then enhances one for 2 1st level slots in one round so he can PW:K you the next after dropping you below the HP limit