Could you use Shield Other and Spell Immunity in tandem?

[Valicore]

Creating a NPC party for my group. Five lvl 10 npcs based in the desert. Here is my idea. The cleric of the team will use dual wands to heal the others. Originally my plan was having shield other cast on the sorcerer and an archer. In finishing th cleric i decided on the protection domain. In looking at spell immunity i was wondering it use, given i shouldn't use my knowledge of the players abilities in making these characters. As i was debating picking spells the sorcerer would use so as to reduce friendly fire, i glanced at shield other which is 2nd in the protection domain list. If the cleric used shield other to protect the others of the party, and then casting Spell immunity on itself would it be immune to the shared damage? Effectivly granting the party, so long as it stays within 50' or so of the cleric half the damage from any source?

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

I'd say the spell is not being cast on the cleric, so Spell Immunity doesn't apply. The Cleric isn't suffering the effects of the spell, they're taking damage via the Shield Other link only. Also, note that if you have multiple Shield Other spells cast and someone hits the group with a area-of-effect spell it's a really good way to have a very dead cleric very fast.

Note as well that Shield Other only affects one other person at a time so you'd need multiple castings to make this work. Plus a pair of platinum rings for each casting. My recommendation would be only to do this if your Cleric is prepared to spend the entire combat hiding somewhere and using their best cure spell on themselves each round!

 

[delericho]

No. Because Shield Other doesn't transfer the spell effect, it only transfers the damage taken by the target. So while the Cleric may be immune to fireball, he's not actually being hit by that spell - he's just taking the (untyped) damage on behalf of the character he is shielding.

 

[Valicore]

Im not talking about the cleric being immune to fireball. Im saying that the cleric having already cast shield other on an ally, then cast Spell immunity from shield other shouldn't take damage from the shield other spell which is what is dealing the damage.

 

[Greenfield]

First of all, I believe that you cast Shield Other on someone else, not yourself, so your own Spell Immunity wouldn't apply.

Second, I don't believe you can use Spell Immunity to make yourself immune to a spell that's already in place on you.

And finally, if you could make yourself immune to Shield Other after it was cast, as a DM I'd rule that the spell is indeed no longer working, and your partners (the one you're trying to shield) will now take all of their own damage normally, since half of it can no longer be diverted to you.

Point 3 is my own opinion as a DM. The first two are, I believe, straight from the rules.

 

[Sunseeker]

As far as I'm aware, Shield Other does not state it's damage cannot be prevented, and Spell Immunity does not state you can't use it against your own spells and effects, it just says "any one spell".

As a DM however, this is not a tactic I would allow my players to get away with for more than one session.

 

[Greenfield]

[h=1]Shield Other[/h] [h=4]Abjuration[/h]

Level:	Clr 2, Pal 2, Protection 2
Components:	V, S, F
Casting Time:	1 standard action
Range:	Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target:	One creature
Duration:	1 hour/level (D)
Saving Throw:	Will negates (harmless)
Spell Resistance:	Yes (harmless)

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 that 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.
[h=6]Focus[/h] A pair of platinum rings (worth at least 50 gp each) worn by both you and the warded creature.

As stated in the spell description, you cast this spell on "one creature", not yourself.

Making yourself immune to it won't mean anything since the spell isn't cast on you.

Additionally, you aren't taking any damage from the spell. You're taking damage from whatever hit the spell's target, be it a weapon or a spell.

Sorry, but this idea is dead in the water.

 

[Valicore]

As stated in the spell description, you cast this spell on "one creature", not yourself.

Making yourself immune to it won't mean anything since the spell isn't cast on you.

Additionally, you aren't taking any damage from the spell. You're taking damage from whatever hit the spell's target, be it a weapon or a spell.

Sorry, but this idea is dead in the water.

If someone were to cast fire shield on themselves, wouldnt you allow a spell immunity fire shield, to prevent the damage you would take from the retributive fire damage from the fire shield. A wall of fire isnt cast upon a target, but it still effects creatures passing through it. If you were spell immune to wall of fire you should be able to dance in it back and forth in it if you wished.

As far as i have looked the cleric, if it had damage reduction or elemental resistance, doesnt get to further mitigate the damage with those reductions. Delericho has even confirmed that the cleric isnt taking half sword damage, or fire damage. Just half damage that is untyped, the shield other spell just harms the cleric for half the damage the protected creature would have taken. Spell immunity states that it basically grants unbeatable spell resistance to spell named. The spell cast on creature will still send half its damage to the cleric.

I will admit this is a powerful combination, and as a DM i have looked for ways to break it that make sense of more than "i dont want the players to use this". Its kinda like using fire shield and stone skin in concert. If afterwards the players decide to try this out i would kick myself for giving them the idea, but still allow it. i hate clerics being used only as healing kits.

 

[delericho]

If someone were to cast fire shield on themselves, wouldnt you allow a spell immunity fire shield, to prevent the damage you would take from the retributive fire damage from the fire shield.

Well, yes. Because the description of fire shield specifically notes that spell resistance (and thus spell immunity) can negate the retributative damage.

A wall of fire isnt cast upon a target, but it still effects creatures passing through it. If you were spell immune to wall of fire you should be able to dance in it back and forth in it if you wished.

Indeed.

As far as i have looked the cleric, if it had damage reduction or elemental resistance, doesnt get to further mitigate the damage with those reductions. Delericho has even confirmed that the cleric isnt taking half sword damage, or fire damage. Just half damage that is untyped, the shield other spell just harms the cleric for half the damage the protected creature would have taken. Spell immunity states that it basically grants unbeatable spell resistance to spell named. The spell cast on creature will still send half its damage to the cleric.

In this instance, spell resistance applies to the character receiving the spell, not to the character who is taking the damage. So, if you cast spell immunity (shield other) then the effect would be that that character then could not benefit from shield other.

I will admit this is a powerful combination, and as a DM i have looked for ways to break it that make sense of more than "i dont want the players to use this". Its kinda like using fire shield and stone skin in concert. If afterwards the players decide to try this out i would kick myself for giving them the idea, but still allow it. i hate clerics being used only as healing kits.

The difference is that the combination of fire shield and stoneskin works fine in the rules. The combination of shield other and spell immunity does not. And trust me - the potential for abuse of spells in the game is such that you are much better off applying all the limitations as written, rather than being lenient and opening your game to the consequences. Let the players find other, rules-legal combinations with which to break your game!

 

[airwalkrr]

So Tom the cleric casts shield other on Bill the fighter, then Tom the cleric casts spell immunity (magic missile) on himself. Bill the fighter gets hit by a magic missile. If you question is whether either or both of them take damage from the spell, the answer is both. Bill the fighter is not immune to magic missile so he takes full damage. Then, as a function of the shield other spell, half the damage is transferred to Tom the cleric; it is irrelevant where the damage came from.