Is WotC Wrong? - Shield Other and Damage Reduction

[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.

Thanks!

 

[Sejs]

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.

Aah okay, so it's a mini Stoneskin then. Gotcha.

 

[BASHMAN]

You are correct because that makes more sense.

 

[wildstarsreach]

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

However, DR doesn't necessarily work against spell damage unless specifically meant against a type of damage.

The cleric above has armor against attacks that someone brings against hom. It would not work IMO for a spell that transmits damage from another. It isn't an attack that DR is meant to stop.

 

[phindar]

I think how you would split the damage depends on how you think Shield Other works. If it's outside the character's body (similar to a forcefield), then the spell takes half the incoming damage and transfers it to the caster, the other half goes to the character who then applies his DR. If its inside the character's body, the character is struck, applies DR, and then the reduced damage is split and half goes to the caster.

You can go one deeper, What if the Caster has DR? Does the spell transfer damage in the same way it is taken, so that if A is slashed for 10 points of damage, 5 points of Slashing Damage is subject to B's DR, or does B take 5 points of metaphysical damage? What if the Shielded character takes damage from an Inflict Wounds spell, and the caster of SO is undead and would normally be healed by that? (Or what if a mortal necromancer casts SO on his undead servant, which is then hit by a Cure spell?)

None of the above situations are covered directly by the wording of the spell, so its guesswork. I figure SO is like the forcefield, damage is transferred before DR is applied, and the transferred damage is unnamed, so the caster's immunities and defenses don't work. By casting the spell, the caster is accepting the damage, so he can't weasel out of it later by saying "I'm immune to fire/inflicts/slashing." It's just damage at that point.

But that may be a little too draconian. It might be more balanced to say that either the target's defenses apply (Resistances are applied before damage is split, the SO is internal to the target creature), or the damage is split evenly and resistances apply on both sides. It's either the forcefield that transfers damage by type, or an internal thing that transfers an unnamed damage type.

What does the mob think?

 

[Cabral]

I agree with wildstarsreach. The damage is restributed by the spell. DR doesn't apply to spell damage.

Option 1: The spell "absorbs" the damage before recipient's DR applies and no DR affects the damage.
Option 2: Apply DR and split the remainder.

 

[Artoomis]

I think we should start by quoting the spell language. I am sometimes amazed by how long a discussion can go on with no one actually quoting the spell for all to see:

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.

Focus
A pair of platinum rings (worth at least 50 gp each) worn by both you and the warded creature.

The way this is written, I think DR applies to the intial damage. Whatever damage is actually taken is split in half - DR does NOT apply to that damage as it is spell damage.

 

[Atavar]

The way this is written, I think DR applies to the intial damage. Whatever damage is actually taken is split in half - DR does NOT apply to that damage as it is spell damage.

I agree completely. Which is why I was so surprised at WotC's answer.

Later,

Atavar

 

[phindar]

It depends on if the damage is split before or after the subject of the spell takes it. WotC seems to be implying the "forcefield" reading of the spell, incoming damage is split before it gets to DR. If you interpret the spell as the damage is split after it is taken (after it gets through the DR or anything else), you'll think it works differently. Since neither viewpoint is spelled out in the wording of the spell, neither viewpoint is "incorrect". It's just a guess on how you think the spell should work.

 

[KarinsDad]

It depends on if the damage is split before or after the subject of the spell takes it. WotC seems to be implying the "forcefield" reading of the spell, incoming damage is split before it gets to DR. If you interpret the spell as the damage is split after it is taken (after it gets through the DR or anything else), you'll think it works differently. Since neither viewpoint is spelled out in the wording of the spell, neither viewpoint is "incorrect". It's just a guess on how you think the spell should work.

Although I agree with you that neither interpretation is explicitly spelled out, there is implicit support in the text for one interpretation over the other:

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.

...

Additionally, the subject takes only half damage from all wounds and attacks

Wounds are what occur after DR is subtracted, not before.