New and Different Question about Shield

[EOL]

From the SRD:

The disk moves out of the way when the character attacks, so it does not provide cover to opponents

The question is this, are there situations where the shield is facing in the right direction, but because the caster is acting the shield does not protect him from an attack. There are a couple of potential situations I'm thinking of (though I'm sure there are others):

1- Someone readies an action to attack the wizard when he casts a spell. Wizard starts casting, shield moves, Readied attack goes off against AC without shield. I can see arguments both ways

2- The Wizard Bullrushes. (I don't know why a wizard would Bullrush but work with me here) does the invisibile disk of force remain in front of him the whole time? It would seem to me that it would have to move out of the way in order for the bullrush to be successful.

I've been playing it such that shield always counts as long as it's facing the right direction regardless of what the wizard and his opponent are doing, but I got to thinking about it today and started wondering about this question.

 

[Henrix]

I've been playing it such that shield always counts as long as it's facing the right direction regardless of what the wizard and his opponent are doing, but I got to thinking about it today and started wondering about this question.

I think that is absolutely the right intuition.

Remeber that Shield gives a cover bonus, but not actual cover (which basically means it does not preven AoO's).

 

[hong]

The SRD quote basically means that the opponent can't get any benefit from the shield spell. This is in contrast to, say, a tower shield, which grants people on both sides of it a cover bonus to AC.

As to whether the shield spell provides actual cover, the PHB and SRD both say it does (thus negating AoOs). Various WOTC people are of the opposite opinion, but there's been nothing official in either the errata or Sage rulings.

 

[Henrix]

As to whether the shield spell provides actual cover, the PHB and SRD both say it does (thus negating AoOs). Various WOTC people are of the opposite opinion, but there's been nothing official in either the errata or Sage rulings.

I thought that was the sage answer?
*Checks what it says on the Black Pages *
You're right, sorry about that.

 

[EOL]

The SRD quote basically means that the opponent can't get any benefit from the shield spell. This is in contrast to, say, a tower shield, which grants people on both sides of it a cover bonus to AC.

As to whether the shield spell provides actual cover, the PHB and SRD both say it does (thus negating AoOs). Various WOTC people are of the opposite opinion, but there's been nothing official in either the errata or Sage rulings.

I'm not asking whether or not there are situations were it might give cover to the opponent I'm asking if there are situations where it might not give cover to the caster against his opponent.

In other words (referencing your quote above) I'm not asking if the opponent can gain any benefit from the shield spell (the answer to that question is obviously no) I'm asking if there is ever a situation where the caster (assuming the shield is facing in the right direction) would not get the benefit of the shield?

 

[Henrix]

I'm asking if there is ever a situation where the caster (assuming the shield is facing in the right direction) would not get the benefit of the shield?

There are no exceptions anywhere in the rules, or anywhere else that I've seen. And I can't imagine that there should be.

Of course if you intend to grapple a black ooze or bull rush a salmander, then it won't help you.
But I'd say that even if you're grappling a salamander, and the salamander tries to hit you with (light) weapon, then the Shield would be there.

 

[Xahn'Tyr]

A Shield spell would be useless when grappling since you are both in the same square. You're not going to be able to place the plane of the shield anywhere such that it will be between you and the other grappler(s) in this situation.

With regards to readying to strike when the caster attacks; my guess would be that it would not work - just like a real shield on your left arm is out of the way of your sword in your right hand but still blocking the enemy.

 

[Henrix]

Well, yes, you're probably right, albeit there's nothing that says a Shield only protects the border of a square!
It speaks of "you" and "half the battlefield".
But I agree it would be hard to keep it between you and someone you're grappling with.

 

[hong]

A shield spell is irrelevant anyway in a grapple. To deal damage when grappling, you have to succeed at an opposed grapple check, which doesn't take AC into account.

 

[TrizzlWizzl]

Right, but to start a grapple you gotta make a melee touch attack which provokes an AoO (right?). So the original poster is asking whether or not the shield bonus applies during an attack action which would provoke an AoO.

Assuming I have the question right, I'd rule that if someone readied an action to attack the caster as he's attacking, then no... the shield bonus doesn't apply (it 'moves out of the way'). So if the shielded caster makes an attack that provokes an AoO, his shield bonus doesn't apply.

I mean... it's a first level spell for crying out loud. +7 is pretty huge and it doesn't strike me as out of place for there to be some kind of weakness inherent in the spell.

Note: this whole post is from memory, so if I'm wrong about any rules stuff... I don't have the books in front of me (yeah, I could go look in the SRD but I'm lazy).