Is WotC Wrong? - Shield Other and Damage Reduction

[Atavar]

Hello Everyone,

One of my players recently asked WotC customer service about how DR works with the shield other spell. Here is the gist of WotC's answer:

-
Split the damage per the shield other spell, and then apply each person's DR separately to the damage received.
-

For example, the cleric casts shield other on the warforged fighter. The fighter has DR 3/-. The fighter is hit with a regular longsword for 8 points of damage. Per WotC's response, the fighter and the cleric each take 4 points of damage; the cleric takes all 4 points, while the fighter with DR only takes 1 point after damage reduction.

This absolutely contradicts my understanding of how shield other and DR are supposed to interact. In the above example, it was my understanding that the fighter is hit for 8 points, which is then reduced to 5 points after applying his own DR. The shield other then splits the 5 points of damage, with half (i.e. 2) of the points going to the fighter, and the remainder (i.e. 3) of the points going to the cleric.

It was also my understanding that if the cleric happened to have any DR then the damage he takes via shield other would not be reduced because DR would not apply in that instance. It would not apply because the damage is essentially untyped magical damage by the time it gets to the cleric, and that kind of damage is not subject to damage reduction.

So, per the RAW, am I correct, is WotC correct, or are we both wrong for some reason?

BTW, I invoked Rule Zero to have it work like I think it should for my campaign. Why? My cleric plans on making stonemeld armor from the Eberron Campaign Setting book. In part, the armor grants DR 5/-. He also plans to apply an armor crystal from the Magic Item Compendium that grants DR 5/- to armor. The DRs DO stack per the RAW, so he would have DR 10/- with this armor. If that were the case, and if shield other and DR worked like WotC says, then the recipient would need to take over 20 points of damage from a single source before ANY of the damage actually got through to damage the cleric.

Thanks,

Atavar

 

[Nifft]

It's my understanding that you are correct.

Note that "CustServ" is not the most reliable orifice of WotC.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Atavar]

Note that "CustServ" is not the most reliable orifice of WotC.

I mentioned that to my player as well. He didn't even try to fight me on my ruling. I think this was one of those rare instances where even the player thought that an "official" rule would be too powerful for the players.

Thank goodness he doesn't want to play a planar shephard....

Later,

Atavar

 

[Hypersmurf]

It's... murkily worded, but I think I'd be inclined to say that the literal wording supports CustServ's response; if you check the glossary, you'll see there's a difference between damage taken and damage dealt.

An attack deals 9 points of damage; the defender takes 4 points of damage, because of his DR 5.

It seems to me, though it's not phrased as explicitly as one might wish, that what Shield Other splits is the damage dealt by the attack, not the damage taken by the defender.

On the other hand, those terms aren't even used consistently in the core rules; the DR text refers to "attacks that deal no damage due to DR", even though DR has no effect on damage dealt, only damage taken.

An even more stringent reading of the Shield Other text might suggest that the target cannot benefit from DR, since the spell dictates damage taken directly, and thus DR is sidestepped.

Alternatively, a different emphasis might create another oddity - let's say 20 damage is dealt to our friend with DR 5; he takes half (10), and his DR further reduces this to 5. So he takes 5 damage; the damage he did not take (20 - 5 = 15) goes to the caster, who takes 15 points.

The wording is a mess, in other words, and I think you can be comfortable ruling whatever feels best for your game

-Hyp.

 

[RigaMortus2]

I would say that once you know the damage amount, you apply DR and then split it via Shield Other.

However, if the person receiving the damage from Shield Other is the one with DR, it would bypass the DR because they are taking damage from a spell (Shield Other), not directly from a physical attack.

 

[Bad Paper]

Note that "CustServ" is not the most reliable orifice of WotC.

On the contrary: I have found this particular orifice to be quite "regular," IYKWIM.

 

[Sejs]

My cleric plans on making stonemeld armor from the Eberron Campaign Setting book. In part, the armor grants DR 5/-. He also plans to apply an armor crystal from the Magic Item Compendium that grants DR 5/- to armor. The DRs DO stack per the RAW, so he would have DR 10/- with this armor.

Is the stacking speciffically called out as a feature of the armor crystal?

Because if it's not, then the DR does not stack.

 

[Atavar]

Is the stacking speciffically called out as a feature of the armor crystal?

Because if it's not, then the DR does not stack.

I don't have the book with me at the moment, but unless I totally misunderstood my player the item explicitly states that it does stack.

Can someone with the Magic Item Comendium handy verify this for me please? It is an armor crystal that grants DR 5/-. I don't remember the name of it.

Thanks,

Atavar

 

[billd91]

I would say that once you know the damage amount, you apply DR and then split it via Shield Other.

However, if the person receiving the damage from Shield Other is the one with DR, it would bypass the DR because they are taking damage from a spell (Shield Other), not directly from a physical attack.

I think this fits best with the first line of the spell, it's "flavor". If the target's DR protects it from some damage, that's a lesser wound that needs to be divided and transfered to the caster. And since it's a wound that's transfered, it seems reasonable that the caster's DR would not apply. It's not an attack that's divided up and applied to each, it's the wound that transfers.

Of course, this means that burning the target could transfer a burn wound to a caster immune to fire. I find that pretty interesting.

 

[Marshall]

I don't have the book with me at the moment, but unless I totally misunderstood my player the item explicitly states that it does stack.

Can someone with the Magic Item Comendium handy verify this for me please? It is an armor crystal that grants DR 5/-. I don't remember the name of it.

Thanks,

Atavar

Ironward Diamond and your player is correct, it specifically states that it stacks. Its also limited to absorbing 50pts of damage per day. So around ten hits.