Based on the rules and wording, would you consider it reasonable that a seeking magic missile can avoid the obvious interposing barrier that is shield?
Note, this is purely a question on the quoted rules of the spells and feats and is not meant to be based on feelings or whether this is or isn't fine because "Wizards...". I'm not curious of whether it is or isn't fair because wizards or sorcerers have low hit dice or the +2 spell level makes it acceptable. I put it in Advice so you can mention why you would or wouldn't, but the topic is still rooted in basing the advice on the ruling and wording, so please don't ignore that. Then, you can get into your interpretations or how you describe it in your games that shield isn't in front of the caster... but zips around and interposes itself despite the actual wording of the spell of where it is and no indication of it moving autonomously or independently.
Seeking Spell wrote:
You can cast spells that bend around barriers to reach their intended destination.
Benefit: A seeking spell’s range can bend around obstacles to reach the intended target. You can define the route yourself or unambiguously identify a target and allow the spell to determine its own path. However, the spell fails if it would have to travel farther than its maximum range to reach the identified target. A ranged attack roll made to deliver a seeking spell is not subject to cover or concealment. In order to benefit from this feat, the selected spell must have a range greater than touch and target one or more creatures, or it must require the caster to make a ranged touch attack. A seeking spell uses up a spell slot 2 levels higher than the spell’s actual level.
Magic missile is valid for Seeking Spell, as it can target one or more creatures at range, so that's not an issue.
Shield spell wrote:
Shield creates an invisible shield of force that hovers in front of you. It negates magic missile attacks directed at you.
Based on the wording, it is clear that shield specifically creates a barrier in one direction. Normally, without facing in combat, it wouldn't matter what direction a magic missile came at you, you'd be assumed to be facing it or at least able to react to face a visible threat. However, there are clearly circumstances where a character cannot turn their body (such as being paralyzed or tied in place and set facing one direction). I think most GMs rule that it would, but I also think it's possible that they don't take into account that shield isn't omni-directional (purely becaus0e of how uncommon such a situation occurring in game is or requires such thought).
I am also aware that shield would normally be ruled to work against magic missiles fired from surprise behind a caster (where a caster shouldn't be able to react to turn and face it with the shield in front of them), but does Seeking ignore the shield's interposing obstruction?
Purely want to know if the intention of the shield spell is that it creates a non-all-encompassing obstacle and barrier and if Seeking spell would work against it. The wording of shield says it negates magic missile but I think the text is obvious that it implies that the barrier is what's blocking the missiles, not that it also coats you in a sheath and that the writer didn't (and shouldn't) have to point out that obviously if the shield can't block something that it doesn't block something (plus Seeking likely didn't exist when shield was written).
first i must add that shield is one of the oldest spells in D&D\pathfinder it's been around from really early editions.
back then (at least in 2ed\AD&D etc) when one cast shield he had to decide each round where it is placed and it formed a half sphere area that help defend from attacks that came from that direction (weather it was normal attacks or magic missiles). back then which direction one was facing and from which direction he was attacked was a big deal.
one of the things changed with later editions is that every1 face all directions all at once. that mean that technically a shield spell would block magic missiles and attacks from front or back the same way.
as far as the shield concern it moves around and intercept attacks from all sides.
in light of all this. i would say that in pathfinder the shield spell would block the magic missile even if it is a seeking spell. ether because it moves just in time to intercept it, or because it spins around the target making the seeking spell move around looking for an opening until it's max range is reached.
"However, the spell fails if it would have to travel farther than its maximum range to reach the identified target"
shield spell is actively moving to stop the magic missile the same way that seeking magic missile is moving to look for an opening. (or if we go by raw it down right negate magic missile cast at it's target because it say so. call it an anti magic missile field or something)
A fair answer. Just playing devil's advocate here in case a player or GM brings this up:
This reasoning that shield would block an attack that specifically says it moves around and avoids blocking obstacles, is because the shield moves to the back of the caster, or the side, or is above them... even though shield has always (or at least for far longer than most of us have been alive), only provided protection from one direction? And even though, to this day, the spell specifically says where it is in relation to you, and that it has never mentioned moving around or being autonomous... that it moves around and is autonomous?
I think that's a bit of a muggy reasoning. You'd be advocating ignoring what is specifically written, and has always been the case, and then adding in an interpretation that is not even implied in the spell's capabilities. The lack of combat facing is the only actual situation or reasoning that this might apply
Combat Facing:
-------------------------------------------
The fact that D20 combat facing might make this a moot point in 99% of the cases doesn't mean it is as clear cut, since it's based on a general assumption. The standard d20 combat rules (which 3.0 and ultimately Pathfinder follow) intentionally ignore the direction a creature faces. The rules assume that creatures are constantly moving and shifting within their spaces, looking in all directions during a fight.
This means that the wording of shield is still important, because if a creature cannot turn to face an opponent, because they are paralyzed or otherwise cannot move, the shield cannot be behind them purely because normally the assumption is that they can turn to be facing it.
Just like a character paralyzed in a position where they were looking away from something and can't turn their heads, cannot see something behind them, regardless of their Perception check. They might hear it, or even smell it, but they won't be affected by a gaze attack from a creature that they cannot see, nor see something they cannot.
--------------------------------------------------------
That means that we have shield specifically spelled out as being in a position. There is no false interpretation of what the term, 'it hovers in front of you means'. If a PC tells you they're walking in a direction looking for something and you say "It's right in front of you," no one interprets that as being in all directions or that they should turn around and walk in the other direction. Just like you can say, "You see a group of goblins coming up behind you," and not expect to have a 10 minute explanation of where the goblins are coming from.
That means that the interpretation that shield 'always' blocks and negates magic missiles is predicated on a general assumption of combat mechanics. Whereas Seeking Spell specifically says what it does.
For Seeking Spell, the spell specifically bypasses obstructions, so it seems that specific would trump the general protection that shield provides of negating them, because the general assumption is that they will be striking the shield, which is in front of the target, but is plainly written to not be an all-encompassing or encasing protection, like fire shield or resist energy.
If you fire five seeking magic missiles at a shielded opponent, even one facing directly at you, this interpretation would lead you to say that they do not circumvent the barrier, even though that is what they specifically say they do, and also that if two go left around the shield and one goes right, and one goes around the back of the target and one curves up and comes down at the top of their head, that the shield is now behind, beside, above, and potentially below them. Which is also directly against what the spell says it does. You would have a pretty good argument against that.
Again, in 99% of the time, this would be fine, but we're dealing with a specific ability that bypasses obstructions, and shield is specifically written and describes as such an obstruction and barrier. This reasoning would have to involve shield implying anywhere that it moved to intercept or adjusted position, rather than relying on a peripheral assumption that a character is specifically moving it.
I am not trying to convince you how to do it in your game, I am just working out the thoughts and processes and making sure all aspects are at least considered. This reasoning, as written, would require ignoring the specifics of a spell, ignoring the specifics or a feat, and/or assuming that they just got the shield spell wrong and have been wrong for almost 20 years.
Shield creates an invisible shield of force that hovers in front of you. It negates magic missile attacks directed at you.
Ultimate Combat page 172 wrote:
Facing: Unlike creatures, most vehicles have a forward facing.
Somewhat weirdly, that's the only reference to facing I could find. I know the original Pathfinder 1.0 designers didn't want facing in the game (see posts from designers), and they seem to have gone out of their way not to reference it. Not even to say "it doesn't exist." Which means when a bit of descriptive text like this pops up, some people can't help but try to nitpick into oblivion.
Heck, don't forget that a breastplate has an "open back."
I am not trying to convince you how to do it in your game, I am just working out the thoughts and processes and making sure all aspects are at least considered. This reasoning, as written, would require ignoring the specifics of a spell, ignoring the specifics or a feat, and/or assuming that they just got the shield spell wrong and have been wrong for almost 20 years.
I think it's the other way around. It's not just Seeking Spell. What happens when someone with Shield active triggers readied actions form more than one opponent? Or the caster provokes an AoO from people flanking them? Who does the shield protect against? And if the shield spell suddenly uses facing rules, wouldn't a normal, physical have to do so, too? That would make being flat-footed lose your shield bonus. How about dazed, which explicitly says the creature "has no penalty to AC"?
No, your reasoning creatures a swarm of sitations not in any way covered or even mentioned by the rules, whereas zza ni's position simply requires that one line (six words, really) in the Shield spell to be an artifact and/or flavor text, with no bearing on the rules. Occam's Razor is not in your favor here!
Looking at Shield we find it a 1st level spell that last 1 min per level and provides the same numeric bonus to AC that Mage Armor does. But Mage Armor lasts an hour per level. Both spells are the same level so should be equal in power, but Mage Armor lasts 60 times longer. So, why does shield only last for 1 minute per level. The obvious answer is that shield also provides absolute protection vs magic missile. Magic Missile does not require an attack roll, nor does it grant a saving throw. Magic Missile automatically hits anything and ignores anything less that total cover or total concealment. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that shield is granting total cover or total concealment. So, how is shield stopping a magic missile? What I think is happening is that the shield spell acts like a magnet and changes the target of the magic missile to itself, and simply absorbs the magic missile harmlessly.
This is also supported by the rules. Let’s say we have 10,000 20th level wizards that have a standard and a quickened magic missile memorized. Standing against this army of wizards is a single 1st level wizard who casts shield. All 10,000 wizards cast both their normal and quickened magic missile at the poor 1st level wizard. That is 100,000 magic missiles aimed at a single target, but none of them are able to hit.
Seeking will not allow a magic missile to bypass a shield spell.
As i mentioned, by raw, you have 2 separate sentences:
1
"Shield creates an invisible shield of force that hovers in front of you."
2
" It negates magic missile attacks directed at you."
nothing say they are depended on each other
-it doesn't say "which negate..." or "it also negate.." etc. as written it's a 2nd effect of the spell without any relation to the force effect.
the spell make a force field (for +4 shield bonus) and the spell also negate any magic missile.
is it negating them with the force field in the shape of a shield or by an invisible field? who knows, who cares.
as for the ac bonus. the moment you get to ask a fighter with a normal shield to tell you which side he is shielding with his shield so you can ignore the rest - you can ask the spell-caster the same thing, not sooner.
Well, looking at the spells and metamagic feat, I see no reason why a seeking magic missile would fare any better against a shield spell than a normal magic missile. There is no mention of how a shield spell works, only that it has a special effect when the bearer is subject to a magic missile spell.
The seeking metamagic feat does not mention that it can bypass a shield spell should you apply it to a magic missile spell. In fact, seeking spell says that you still must make an attack roll, only that it can ignore cover and concealment. Whats more, the feat does not mention it can bypass normal shields either (last I checked, normal uses of shields provide a shield bonus to AC and is not considered cover).
In general, I think its best to think of the shield spell as another kind of lesser globe of invulnerability, which can negate certain kinds of spells, but in this case can block an infinite number of magic missiles.
I think it's the other way around. It's not just Seeking Spell.
It's not the other way around. This is specifically about Seeking Spell. It is specifically about an effect that causes your spells to move around and avoid obstructions between your spell and your target. Does shield create such a barrier or obstruction between a caster and their target? If you say no, then that's fine, but that isn't implied by the spell.
Derklord wrote:
[bunch of stuff not related to discussion]
You are trying to divert from the discussion. This is not about AoOs, or readied actions. Even if triggered at the same time those don't go off at the same time unless the ability you're using somehow says you combine such attacks. This is not about physical shields, or even tower shields used for cover. Would you say a Seeking spell can't bypass one? Granted, most spells can be cast at the shield, but there might be a penalty or other mitigation for a target being behind cover, which Seeking would avoid because you can tell it to go around the obstruction in a path you designate or just indicate a target and let it make its own way.
The question here is specifically a seeking magic missile against a specific spell, shield. Just like a FAQ only applies specifically to what it applies to. Don't try and muddy it with implications in every possible unrelated scenario or extrapolation. Pathfinder can and does have feats, spells, items, and circumstances that work in exception to how things work 99% of the time. That does not make them errors or incorrect.
Quote:
No, your reasoning creatures a swarm of sitations not in any way covered or even mentioned by the rules, ... Occam's Razor is not in your favor here!
Occam's Razor doesn't apply to here. We aren't dealing with a general or common situation. It's already been stated that in 99% of situations, it will work without any trouble at all. Occam's Razor does not apply to specific exceptions. It is not hard to just say that Seeking avoids the cover from obstructions, because that's what it actually says. It would be equally easy to just say it does, because that's what it does in one specific case which is what the discussion is. If this were a discussion on interactions with everything possible, then you'd be right, in this case the assertion is misplaced.
Quote:
whereas zza ni's position simply requires that one line (six words, really) in the Shield spell to be an artifact and/or flavor text, with no bearing on the rules.
That doesn't appear to be the case, because that specific wording was altered to its current form.
3.5 Shield wrote:
Shield creates an invisible, tower shield-sized mobile disk of force that hovers in front of you.
While similar (because the spell is basically the same), it was specifically and directly and explicitly changed. That means it is not an artifact or cut and paste error.
Occam's Razor would actually say that the most obvious answer here is that they didn't bother going into details, because it is self-evident and apparent that the spell creates a barrier and a shield (because it says it does) and that the disk of force is what provides an AC bonus and negates magic missiles. That makes the most sense that the writers expect reasonable common sense and not have to spell out every possible situation, including ones that didn't exist at the time.
It is fine to posit that despite there being no evidence or writing or ruling or wording that the powers of shield are unrelated to the actual force and effect and object that the spell creates... but that's not a logical or reasonable ground to stand on when you're going to say that Seeking Spell doesn't do something that it says it does because of something that shield doesn't say it is. I am fine with you arguing that, but your argument basically means that the shield is unrelated to the shielding effect (other than the shield bonus), but that would be akin to you saying the damage an attacker takes from thorn body isn't specified as coming from the thorns and that the fact that the sharp spines grow from your body is just flavor text and as such, a creature with an ability that ignores thorns and damage from spines isn't immune to the damage from the thorns and spines.
I am inclined to agree that Seeking Spell probably doesn't work against shield, but I am exploring the reasons why people seem inclined to ascribe and give powers and abilities to one spell despite it having no such abilities, while negating the possibility that another ability that says it does something doesn't actually do that.
What I think is happening is that the shield spell acts like a magnet and changes the target of the magic missile to itself, and simply absorbs the magic missile harmlessly.
Well, there's no indication of any magnetic pull or attraction unfortunately, rules wise. That's a fair interpretation in your game. But that ability actually does exist and when it does it is expressly stated, such as with an arrow-catching shield. It not only says what benefits it gives, but pulls in nearby attacks. It would seem they would say that if that was official (rather than something any GM can just have in their game).
As for absorbing the magic missile, that's obviously what happens (ie. negates), but at what point does the actual, created disc of force have any bearing on the spell? It does have a reason for being there. It's not some cut and paste error that they left in. A disc of force is something that could be targeted or interacted with (whether nigh-indestructible or not). As opposed to say, a brooch of shielding which also absorbs magic missiles, but doesn't remark on any barrier or shield (it also doesn't give a shield bonus) but that doesn't mean they couldn't have said it formed a barrier or field around the wearer, nor does it say it attracts the missiles, but no one expects the missiles to be cast at the brooch.
Quote:
This is also supported by the rules. ...
All 10,000 wizards cast both their normal and quickened magic missile at the poor 1st level wizard. That is 100,000 magic missiles aimed at a single target, but none of them are able to hit.
No one's arguing that. Just like if you have resist energy (fire 20) up and 20,000 wizards cast fire spells at you that all do less than 20 damage damage. That doesn't mean that if you cast a spell that says it ignores 10 points of fire resistance, that somehow resist energy still stops 20 of it. In this case, the magic missile is altered in a way that affects what it does or interacts. So if the metamagic feat said it avoids shield, then it avoids a shield, the fact that it normally wouldn't or that shield would normally stop it doesn't matter, even 20,000 times. And that is supported by the Rules. The issue here is that is says it avoids obstructions and other such things. It comes down to whether the disk of force is an obstruction or barrier.
Quote:
Seeking will not allow a magic missile to bypass a shield spell.
Okay, but where did you get that reasoning. It can't be from anything you've said. Mage armor and spell duration and spell level have no bearing on what shield does.
I would agree that in 100% of the cases, magic missile does not bypass shield (because that's what the spell says). And I would even agree that in 99% of cases, where magic missile is altered with metamagic that it still won't, and that's regardless of facing or where the shield is. For instance, a metamagic feat that turned magic missile into an AoE blast that struck every creature in an area still wouldn't bypass the shield spell. However, in the specific case of a metamagic feat that does specifically say that the spell bypasses and avoids and goes around obstructions, then you'd have to say that it does go around and avoid obstructions. Just like most fire spells are less effective or even unable to be cast underwater... but if you put Aquatic Spell on them... they can be.
As i mentioned, by raw, you have 2 separate sentences:
1
"Shield creates an invisible shield of force that hovers in front of you."
2
" It negates magic missile attacks directed at you."
nothing say they are depended on each other
Sure, no one is arguing that the shield spell does 2 things. It creates a disc of force, in front of the caster, which provides +4 shield bonus. It negates magic missile. But claiming the writers have to denote that the shield of force is what is doing the shielding is pretty shaky ground from a discussion standpoint. Just because something is two sentences, doesn't mean that they are unrelated to each other. That's like saying the chance to fall down in the area of a grease spell is unrelated to the grease.
Quote:
is it negating them with the force field in the shape of a shield or by an invisible field? who knows, who cares.
Well, we do know there isn't an invisible field or sheath or mantle or emanation or anything of that type surrounding the caster. We do know there is an invisible disc of force, that hovers in front of the caster. That's what we know.
If we were to use this reasoning, and I am inclined to say seeking magic missile doesn't work, (mostly just because it's easier), that doesn't mean that someone doesn't need to actually understand the rules and mechanics... With your current reasoning that the disc of force is what gives the +4 shield bonus and is a separate entity from the magic missile protection, that means that if the shield was destroyed, removed, or otherwise negated (without dispelling the whole spell), then the caster would only lose the AC bonus, but continue to keep the missile protection. I don't think that is implied anywhere. If someone uses disintegrate to destroy the disc of force, which is something the spell says it can do... that doesn't mean that it dispelled the shield spell... but I think most players would find it bizarre and not really in keeping with the wording or intention of bringing down the shield. So we'd have to conclude that just because there's two sentences, that doesn't mean that they are completely unrelated to each other.
I see no reason why a seeking magic missile would fare any better against a shield spell than a normal magic missile.
You don't? You mean you don't see the specific wording that says it avoids and bypasses obstructions interposed between the caster and the target? That is definitely odd.
Quote:
There is no mention of how a shield spell works,
There is no mention of how a normal shield works either. Because it is common sense and self-evident that a shield is a barrier used to intercept and block incoming things by interposing itself in between two objects. It's not required for the rules to mention how shields work.
Quote:
The seeking metamagic feat does not mention that it can bypass a shield spell
It doesn't mention that it can bypass anything else specifically either. Are we to assume that it can't do the thing that it specifically says it can do though, which is circumvent obstructions?
Quote:
(last I checked, normal uses of shields provide a shield bonus to AC and is not considered cover).
Last time I checked, shield bonuses don't apply to ranged touch attacks either, which is required for a Seeking Spell unless it is a Targeted spell.
Quote:
In general, I think its best to think of the shield spell as another kind of lesser globe of invulnerability.
That's an easy answer, and that can work as a houserule. I don't think the wording, the rules, or the intention is that it is supposed to. globe of invulnerability actually does surround an area. So if you are protected by it, then a seeking spell, even a magic missile cannot reach you, no matter how or where it moves. Similarly, if you were engulfed in a gelatinous cube, it wouldn't be able to reach you (might impact on the cube). However, shield has specific wording, and is explicitly different in how it provides its protection (just because they don't go into a description that shields are things that interpose between things). The barrier is not all around you, it is not mobile or autonomous (it moves with you, it doesn't move on its own). It doesn't have any intelligence or situational awareness.
I find it odd that you don't see anything about Seeking Spell that might let it bypass a tower shield used as cover or any other obstruction, but you're okay with ascribing shield with a sudden aura of omni-directional protection. I tend to agree that it wouldn't bypass it, but I'm still fascinated by the discussions being brought up that are granting unwritten and not even implied powers to one effect while ignoring the explicitly written benefits of another.
This is specifically about Seeking Spell. It is specifically about an effect that causes your spells to move around and avoid obstructions between your spell and your target. Does shield create such a barrier or obstruction between a caster and their target? If you say no, then that's fine, but that isn't implied by the spell.
Oh, but it is, you're just not seeing it because you misapply the word "obstacle". Check the CRB, it uses that word only for terrain features. Mainly here.
I'd go even further and say that the first line in the feat's benefits section is nothing but not-rule-relevant descriptive text, and that the feat's actual rule text is "A ranged attack roll made to deliver a seeking spell is not subject to cover or concealment." There can be no doubt that that sentence doesn't stop a Shield spell from working. Same as that Toppling Spell's first line is irrelevant, and spells without stated forceful impact (like MM) still benefit from the feat.
Pizza Lord wrote:
Just like a FAQ only applies specifically to what it applies to. Don't try and muddy it with implications in every possible unrelated scenario or extrapolation.
I'm not muddying anything, I'm pointing out the consequences of your interpretation. If you make a ruling because the spell gives "no indication of it moving autonomously or independently", then AoOs from the same trigger made by creatures on opposite sides must also be affected. Even physical shields would also have to follow the same rules, because those certainly don't move on their own.
If you start ruling things based on facing or reaction, you're opening a Pandora's box. You cannot make a ruling based on (as you said) "shield specifically creates a barrier in one direction" without first introducing the concept of directions to the PF rules! It doesn't matter how many times you say "The question here is specifically a seeking magic missile against a specific spell, shield.", when your 'answer' messes up the rules for a lot of other situations.
Pizza Lord wrote:
Occam's Razor doesn't apply here.
If you're interested in what's most likely the intend behind the rules (i.e. how you should read them), than it does. And if you're not interested in this, why are we having this thread?
Pizza Lord wrote:
I am exploring the reasons why people seem inclined to ascribe and give powers and abilities to one spell despite it having no such abilities, while negating the possibility that another ability that says it does something doesn't actually do that.
Funny, because that's what you're doing. You see a feat that lets you shoot a spell around a corner, and interpret it to bypass a shield, with absolutely no indication in the feat text that it does so. All based on a line of text written thirty years ago for a game with a completely different system.
"When this spell is cast, an invisible barrier before the front of the magic-user comes into being. This shield will totally negate magic missile attacks. It provides the equivalent protection of armor class 2 against hand hurled missiles (axes, darts, javelins, spears, etc.), armor class 3 against small device-propelled missiles (arrows, bolts, bullets, manticore spikes, sling stones, etc.), and armor class 4 against all other forms of attack. The shield also adds +1 to the magic-user's saving throw dice vs. attacks which are basically frontal. Note that all benefits of the spell accrue only to attacks originating from the front facing the magic-user, where the shield can move to interpose itself properly." AD&D PHB pg. 68
See that last sentence? That is why the shield is said to be in front of the magic-user (or in 2E, "comes into being in front of the wizard"). The later editions, including PF, simply kept the descriptive opening line mostly intact, while completely removing the part that actually makes it rule-text.
Pizza Lord wrote:
I'm still fascinated by the discussions being brought up that are granting unwritten and not even implied powers to one effect
What part of "It negates magic missile attacks directed at you." is unwritten and not even implied? Shield cares about two things, the spell being magic missile, and it being directed at you (the caster). A Magic Missile spell affected by Seeking Spell fulfills both criteria, and is thus stopped by Shield. Everything else, all your stuff about facing and directions and reaction, is "unwritten and not even implied".
I see no reason why a seeking magic missile would fare any better against a shield spell than a normal magic missile.
You don't? You mean you don't see the specific wording that says it avoids and bypasses obstructions interposed between the caster and the target? That is definitely odd.
Did you miss the part where seeking spells still need to make attack rolls? Seeking spells works around corners and concealment, not ignore AC completely. Magic missile is a rare spell that ignores AC completely. Despite this, shield spell works.
Pizza Lord wrote:
Quote:
(last I checked, normal uses of shields provide a shield bonus to AC and is not considered cover).
Last time I checked, shield bonuses don't apply to ranged touch attacks either.
I don't think magic missile is a touch attack. Magic missile ignores AC altogether. It hits automatically. It ignores shields, armor, and natural armor. It ignores dex, dodge, and monk. It ignore deflection, and other forms of bonuses to AC. It ignores it all.
Magic Missile works without fail, always hitting a target regardless of AC, yet somehow the shield spell blocks it. I don't think it has anything with the shield bonus, or where the force disk or whatever is positioned. It simply works.
I should note that other seeking spells still need to make attack rolls. Though ranged touch gets to ignore shields and armor. The way I see it, touching the armor or shield counts as touching the target. There is no need to avoid the shield, and slip in through a crack or hole in the armor. If anything, they might make you a bigger target (though I will not make a house rule about it).
Quote:
I find it odd that you don't see anything about Seeking Spell that might let it bypass a tower shield used as cover or any other obstruction, but you're okay with ascribing shield with a sudden aura of omni-directional protection.
I said nothing about using tower shields for cover. I think seeking spells will shoot around tower shields used for cover because its being used as cover.
OmniMage wrote:
In general, I think its best to think of the shield spell as another kind of lesser globe of invulnerability.
The example I used with globe of invulnerability was to point out that its perfectly legal for some spells to block spells. Shield just blocks only 1 spell, and thats magic missile. For everything else, there's a shield bonus to AC.
@Pizza Lord This is not the rules forum it is the advice forum. If it where I would point out that Shield states it negates magic missile, it does not say it blocks it in any way shape or form. It does not mention how it is negated, just that it does. So, RAW shield negates a magic missile no matter what metamagic feat is applied, unless the metamagic feat specifically states otherwise. Since seeking does not state it allows it to bypass a shield spell it does not.
My post is a possible explanation on how it does so. There is nothing in the rules that prevents shield from working the way I suggested. Shield also specifies it only negates magic missiles directed at the caster. So, you could have a tiny creature that is completely behind the shield spell (let’s say a small insect on the arm of the caster) and target that creature with a standard magic missile. That creature would still be hit by the magic missile because it is not targeting the caster of the shield.
Shield also specifies it only negates magic missiles directed at the caster. So, you could have a tiny creature that is completely behind the shield spell (let’s say a small insect on the arm of the caster) and target that creature with a standard magic missile. That creature would still be hit by the magic missile because it is not targeting the caster of the shield.
That's a good example. A familiar one a caster's shoulder could just be picked off (unless they used Share Spell and cast shield on them as well), regardless of them being in the caster's space or behind the shield.
A good point. That's the kind of easy to explain statement that would be easy for a player to understand.
I was thinking. You are reasoning that the narrative aspects of the situation should trump the rules. For instance, the seeking spell feat changes how magic missile works, so you're ruling that it can therefore get around the spell shield blocking magic missile by literally getting around the force disc.
However, many of us are reasoning that the rules should trump the narrative aspects. Because shield blocks magic missile in the rules, we are arguing that shield will block a seeking magic missile. Nothing about the seeking spell feat says it does anything special for magic missile and shield, so we are saying that nothing has changed.
It seems like we're giving you the answer to a math problem when you are expecting a short paragraph. With that in mind, I think there might not be much point in arguing any further.
I should note that other seeking spells still need to make attack rolls. Though ranged touch gets to ignore shields and armor. The way I see it, touching the armor or shield counts as touching the target. There is no need to avoid the shield, and slip in through a crack or hole in the armor. If anything, they might make you a bigger target (though I will not make a house rule about it).
...
You don't need to house rule in something that is already part of the rules. It's also useless to talk about using tower shield's cover against spells.
Tower shield say this:
"You gain total cover for attacks that pass through this edge and no cover for attacks that do not pass through this edge (see Combat). The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding. "
it's funny how a lot of people remember that tower shield give cover yet fail to remember that it does squat vs spells. (unless it's a spell that does not ignore ac, like stone disk.)
