Incorporeal and Shield other

[EmperorPutin]

If I am incorporeal and I have shield other cast on someone. Does the damage transfered to me, from shield other, get halved by the incorporeal effect of halving magic damage from a corporeal source?

[Pizza Lord]

It's a fair question. I am inclined to say No, and that the wording and intent is that you are not necessarily being damaged by a spell or attack, but instead are transferring the wounds from the target to yourself (willingly or not at the time), similar to an empathic transfer type of effect. The wording for shield other isn't as clear as empathic transfer though.

However, this interpretation would mean that if you were the target of a shared sacrifice spell (basically an unwilling shield other in effect), then you would also take the full (half) damage.

While that could be shady, I think the unlikely event of that spell being used and landing and, in the case of shield other as it was written, the shared damage is meant to bypass defenses, ie. no DR, no resistance to damage types or energy type. If the target takes the damage, you take half. I believe that is the clear intention. That's just my opinion at this point though.

[Agénor]

No. The damage is computed entirely, taking resistances and the ilk of the creature suffering damage into account then instead of sustaining what amount has bypassed said resistances, each recipient of Shield Other sustains a half of the remaining amount. No further reduction of the damage by the other recipient of the spell. I don't believe the wounds transfered are of any type so they don't trigger any resistance.
I do not know how I'd rule with DR/-.

[blahpers]

The rules aren't clear on this. Use your judgment.

[Agénor]

blahpers wrote:

The rules aren't clear on this. Use your judgment.

The spell description has the word « wounds », both in the fluff and the crunch sections. This is what guides my understanding.

Suppose A and B are linked through this spell. A takes N damage of a type to which she is resistant, say she divides damage taken by two. If B is also resistant, would you have the damage B takes further compounded by his resistance? - I wouldn't -
Would you apply the resistance of each A and B after the damage has been transferred? - I wouldn't either as it would mean B still taking damage if A gets hit by a source to which she is completely immune -

Now imagine the damage has two types, one to which A is resistant, the other to which B is. What then?

I posit damage reduction, if any, happens only for the character sustaining the initial damage. The character with which the wounds are shared sustains damage from the spell, not from the initial source.

[Melkiador]

I feel pretty confident the intention is to not be able to avoid the redirected damage. And the text is vague enough to be read either way.

For instance, you are the one who cast shield other, and so the source of shield other is also incorporeal, so the damage from shield other is from an incorporeal source.

[blahpers]

Agénor wrote:

blahpers wrote:

The rules aren't clear on this. Use your judgment.

The spell description has the word « wounds », both in the fluff and the crunch sections. This is what guides my understanding.

Suppose A and B are linked through this spell. A takes N damage of a type to which she is resistant, say she divides damage taken by two. If B is also resistant, would you have the damage B takes further compounded by his resistance? - I wouldn't -
Would you apply the resistance of each A and B after the damage has been transferred? - I wouldn't either as it would mean B still taking damage if A gets hit by a source to which she is completely immune -

Now imagine the damage has two types, one to which A is resistant, the other to which B is. What then?

I posit damage reduction, if any, happens only for the character sustaining the initial damage. The character with which the wounds are shared sustains damage from the spell, not from the initial source.

Heh, you don't have to convince me. I'm just saying that the rules don't go into that sort of detail.

[Agénor]

blahpers wrote:

Heh, you don't have to convince me. I'm just saying that the rules don't go into that sort of detail.

I know, I don't have to convince you.

- and I believe the goal of debate is go make progress, not to convince the other -

However, I usually value your point of view as you make sound arguments so I thought I'd develop and clarify the case then expose my view and you how you'd rule.

[blahpers]

Agénor wrote:

blahpers wrote:

Heh, you don't have to convince me. I'm just saying that the rules don't go into that sort of detail.

I know, I don't have to convince you.

- and I believe the goal of debate is go make progress, not to convince the other -

However, I usually value your point of view as you make sound arguments so I thought I'd develop and clarify the case then expose my view and you how you'd rule.

It's a good ruling, I'd probably do the same thing, and I think my last GM did the same thing when it came up during Curse of the Crimson Throne: Anniversary Edition.

[Java Man]

If a non-bacon derived opinion has validity, I would rule the same way, don't want DR or other mitigation double dipped between the two characters.

[avr]

Suppose both the caster and the target of shield other were incorporeal. Would the damage the target took be halved by the target being incorporeal, then the part passed on to the caster halved again because the caster is incorporeal? I'd say no, that halving for being incorporeal should only apply once. That means that the damage the caster takes from the target via shield other does not get halved for the caster being incorporeal.