Monk using jump to get around shield

[Tiew]

Hey, in a game I run the wizard cast shield on himself and backed into a corner of the small house. There were no spellcasters in the party and the melee characters were having a hard time hitting him since they couldn't get behind his shield and with it his AC was 25. (5th level game, the npc had good dex, mage armor, shield, and a ring of protection.)

Here's the question. The monk thought he should be able to jump up in the air above the npc's head and punch down on him, getting behind the plane of the shield. I said no way and he thought I was being unreasonable. (At least in the heat of the action, and that was a hot battle.) Do you think that was an unreasonable ruling?

 

[Pielorinho]

According to the rules, you're right. There's no facing in 3.5, and shield protects you from attacks from all sides.

If you use any sort of action-dice system in your game, however, this would be a great place for him to throw one in: that's a cool maneuver!

You could also have ruled that it was unexpected enough to count as a flanking attack: this wouldn't be by-the-rules, but it'd be pretty plausible that someone would be distracted by a monk punching their head from above. I know I'd be.

Daniel

 

[Jdvn1]

The rules are with you, Tiew. First of all, there's no concept of facing, so the shield is assumed to protect you no matter where the attack comes from. Secondly, you could always move your shield up to protect yourself from his attack.

 

[Storm Raven]

Here's the question. The monk thought he should be able to jump up in the air above the npc's head and punch down on him, getting behind the plane of the shield. I said no way and he thought I was being unreasonable. (At least in the heat of the action, and that was a hot battle.) Do you think that was an unreasonable ruling?

There is no facing in 3.* D&D. You can't jump over or go around someone's armor or shield. Even if their defense comes from a shield spell, since that has no directional component of any kind now.

 

[Tiew]

Sorry, should have clarified. We're still using 3.0 since we didn't feel like shelling out for new books.

 

[Jdvn1]

I believe it's the same in 3.0.

 

[Pielorinho]

Actually, in 3.0, he's got an argument.

In 3.0, IIRC, ON YOUR TURN you decide 4 contiguous squares of the 8 squares surrounding you from which shield protects you. Attacks coming from those directions receive the shield's AC bonus; attacks coming from other directions do not.

Presumably, in 3d-space you'd choose 13 of the 26 squares surrounding you (think about it...) from which you're protected, but the spell doesn't clarify that. Since it doesn't, I think the monk's got a case, that by moving to attack from an unprotected direction (above), he doesn't have to attack through the shield.

Daniel

 

[Jdvn1]

So, essentially, GM call due to a weird rule? I still vote no.

 

[kenobi65]

The issue then becomes, how do you adjudicate someone jumping as part of an attack? Do you make the PC make a Jump check? (Standing high jump, I'd guess.) Technically, then, the attack would fall in the middle of a move, since Jump is part of a move action.

(Note that I'm in favor of creative thinking by the players, and this definitely qualifies, but I'd make him do it right.)

 

[Pielorinho]

So, essentially, GM call due to a weird rule? I still vote no.

I try to make my default answer be "yes," although I sometimes forget that in the heat of combat: if a player wants to try something weird, and I'm not sure whether the rules allow it, I say, "Sure, why not?"

So in this case, I woulda said, "Sure, why not?"

Daniel