Fire Sheild

[Markn]

Empower Spell

Can empower spell be used on a spell with long duration? I ask this in this thread as one player thought of combining that with Fire Shield and that makes the spell even more sick. Especially since it is sudden empower and he is a warmage.

 

[Thanee]

Yes, you can use it that way.

(I think Mass Fireshield is also in one of the Complete books, probably Arcane.)

Bye
Thanee

 

[Diirk]

Yeah, its almost the same as the miniature's version, same level and everything... but given that mass cures are 4 levels higher than their single target counterparts, mass buffs are too... why is mass fire shield only 1 level higher ? Giving the entire party +4 to their strength is somehow a more worthwhile effect than giving the entire party half damage from fire attacks and 1d6 + 9 (or more) cold damage when they're attacked ?

It should be at least 7th level imo.

 

[Jdvn1]

If it's in the Complete books as well, I'd use that version. More recent.

 

[Thanee]

Yeah, "Mass" should be at the very least +2 (as with Darkvision, I think), or +3 (same as Chain Spell, Chain Lightning, etc).

Bye
Thanee

 

[Scharlata]

Legions Fire Shield I believe is from the Miniature's Handbook.[...]

Hi!

Just for the record:

Fire Shield, Legion's is a 5th-level Sor/Wiz/Wmg spell from the Miniatures Handbook (p. 36): It allows the caster to affect ALL allies in a 20-ft.-rad. burst.

Fire Shield, Mass is a 5th-level Sor/Wiz/Wmg spell from the Complete Arcane (p. 106): It allows the caster to affect 1 or more allied creatures, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart.

Fire Shield and/or the 5th-level version seem not to be found in any of the FAQ to derive more information from.

I personally would read it as damage when hit, not when attempted and failed to hit.

You might consider another option before banning the Legion's or Mass version of Fire Shield: Consider to make the Material component less affordable, increasing the price up to 250 gp per casting (as suited to your campaign). That might introduce a rethinking of casting these spells on a regular basis.

Kind regards

 

[Egres]

I personally would read it as damage when hit, not when attempted and failed to hit.

And you would be right.

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).

 

[Christian]

Was 3.0 fire shield different?

For the record, fire shield was a personal spell in 3.0 as well.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I do use that when I can. However, the current campaign is the Adventure Path from the Dungeon magazine. It really is a spectacular campaign but there are a lot of animals, beasts, magical beasts and so forth. They don't have the option of pulling out their bows.

They do, however, have the option of not attacking the guy that is on fire. Say bye bye mage, even if you allow the spell as-is

Nor do npc fighters that have powerful (or at least more powerful) melee weapons.

Yes they do. When you'll die from attacking someone in melee, attacking them at range is a far superior tactic.

Or just waiting for the spell to expire.

 

[Markn]

Replies...

Scharlata

That is correct, damage is only done when there is a successful hit.

Saeviomagy

Fire shield is a spell that a the caster can only cast on himself which in turn does protect the caster...Additionally, attacking from range is not a far superior tactic if you have a much more potent melee weapon. Combats essentially come down to who can deal the most amount of damage in the least amount of time. The one exception is that you'll run if you realize that your damage output (and those of your allies) does not match your opponents.


Just for the record, after realizing that fire shield is personal only and hence can only be casted on the caster himself this spell makes a lot more sense. It protects the caster and nine times out of ten it will be a wizard that can't take a bunch of melee attacks from big damage dealers. Up till now our whole group has misread it and have allowed it to be casted on others. As for mass and legions versions I really see no need for this and actually think it may be a mistake on the designers part. First, as many people have pointed mass versions are usually several levels higher than the single person casting of it. Mass Fire Shield isn't. Secondly, and this is a biggie to me, how can you have a mass or legions version of a spell that can only target the caster? After flipping through the PHB, MHB, CA, CD and so on and looking at mass spells they are spells that allow you to cast the single person version on other people. The two exceptions to this rule are Legions Fire Shield (and mass fire shield but it is essentially the same spell) and Legions Shield of Faith. These two spells make me believe they were poorly designed and don't make much sense. Has anyone else noticed this discrepency?