Shield Other Cheese

[bubba99]

I'm currently running Ravenloft for a party of 1 Fighter, 1 Rogue, and 2 Clerics. The clerics came up with this and as much as I may not like it I've never been one to penalize players for being clever. Still, I thought i'd check to see if I've overlooked something in the rules that would prohibit them from using shield other this way. It goes like this:
1st: The 2 clerics cast Shield Other on eachother. This effectively pools their HP.
2nd: Each cleric uses a scroll to cast Shield Other on the Fighter.
3rd: Each cleric uses a scroll to cast Shield Other on the Rogue.
Now when either the Fighter or Rogue get hit they keep only 1/3 the damage(my ruling due to not knowing how else to split the damage). The clerics stay in the back healing themselves. This effectively TRIPPLES the HP of both the Fighter and the Rogue. Did I miss something or should I just congradulate them for their cleverness.

 

[hong]

I don't think you can have two shield other spells active on the same recipient (or at least it won't be any more effective than only having 1 spell). Multiple effects from the same spell don't stack.

 

[Caliban]

Each time the fighter takes damage, half of that damage is transferred to each of the Clerics (i.e. 20 damage is dealt to the fighter, he takes 10 and each cleric takes 10 as well). Ditto for the rogue. They are basically increasing the damage they take, while not giving the fighter any additional benefit.

 

[Liquidsabre]

I agree with Caliban, when the fighter or rogue take half-damage each cleric takes half that damage. Furthermore, the amount of damage sent to the clerics cannot be again divided between them as they are not being "dealt" damage from a source (it's an effect of the spell) so the damage stops there.

On top of this everyone must remain within Close range of each other (around 30-ft) or else the spell ends. Which can be tough to do for an entire group. This makes the spell function the most effectively with a single casting on a single subject, probably as it should be. Though brownie points for the creativity. They are best just stikcing to a single casting of one on each the rogue and fighter respectively.

 

[bubba99]

The spell says that it creates a mystic connection between the warded creatures. All 'wounds' AND attacks that deal hp damage are split. Also I belive there is precedence for spells overlaping. charms are a good example. the duration of one may expire while the other is still effective. It does say that the amount of damage not taken by the warded creature is taken by you but this is effectively a wound so why could it not be split? Also Its a pretty strict interpretation of the sentence "The amount of damage not taken by the warded creature is taken by you." means this is a set amount. Consider this not so elaborate setup:
The fighter is warded by two clerics who are warding eachother. The fighter gets hit for 20 points. the spell cast first splits the damage - 10 to the first cleric who is warded by the 2nd thus 5 points each. Now the second spell cast triggers taking 5 points and sending it to the clerics. If this is not a fair interpretation of the rules could someone direct me to the pages that say otherwise? I don't like just making an abritrary ruling without having my facts strait.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Each time the fighter takes damage, half of that damage is transferred to each of the Clerics (i.e. 20 damage is dealt to the fighter, he takes 10 and each cleric takes 10 as well). Ditto for the rogue. They are basically increasing the damage they take, while not giving the fighter any additional benefit.

I can't see that interpretation as being viable. While there is one line in the spell description that could be interpreted that way (for the purposes of screwing the players), there are four seperate instances of the damage being described as transfered, split or divided. The spell doesn't generate damage, it moves it.

However I don't think the fighter takes a third, I think he takes half, with one quarter to one cleric and one quarter to the other.

 

[Caliban]

I can't see that interpretation as being viable.

More power to you.

 

[rvalle]

I don't think you can have two shield other spells active on the same recipient (or at least it won't be any more effective than only having 1 spell). Multiple effects from the same spell don't stack.

This sounds right to me. Why would the effects of this spell stack when others don't?

rv

 

[roguerouge]

On top of this everyone must remain within Close range of each other (around 30-ft) or else the spell ends. Which can be tough to do for an entire group. This makes the spell function the most effectively with a single casting on a single subject, probably as it should be. Though brownie points for the creativity. They are best just stikcing to a single casting of one on each the rogue and fighter respectively.

Ahh... there's the part that rebalances this approach. Go ahead, let them split the damage to the fighter between the two clerics (1/2 for the fighter, 1/4 to each cleric). You've already allowed them to do so and you like to reward ingenuity.

Being within 30' of everybody, however, makes them just begging for a fireball, not to mention being pretty constrained in their tactics. The rogue, in particular, is going to suffer the impact of this spell chain.

 

[Nail]

1st: The 2 clerics cast Shield Other on eachother. This effectively pools their HP.
2nd: Each cleric uses a scroll to cast Shield Other on the Fighter.
3rd: Each cleric uses a scroll to cast Shield Other on the Rogue.
Now when either the Fighter or Rogue get hit they keep only 1/3 the damage(my ruling due to not knowing how else to split the damage). The clerics stay in the back healing themselves. This effectively TRIPPLES the HP of both the Fighter and the Rogue. Did I miss something or should I just congradulate them for their cleverness.

Fun!

...but not unsolvable.

Just "follow the damage". If the Ftr takes damage, half of it is transferred to "Cleric A". (I've got NO IDEA why you thought "1/3" was appropriate!!) And then -- pay attention now -- 1/2 of that damage transferred to Cleric A is transferred to Cleric B. Then half is transferred again back to Cleric A, which transfers 1/2 of that back to Cleric B, which transfers half of that back to Cleric A......until eventually you figure out that simplicity is best, and Cleric A has taken 1/4 of the original damage, and Cleric B has taken the other 1/4 of the original damage. ....or I suppose you can calculate it out each and every time. (Watch out for those rounding errors!)

Why is this difficult?

Now, if you'd like to get truly tough, you could strictly read the sentence that talks about "attacks", and claim that the spell in question (Shield Other) is not an attack (it has a saving throw of "harmless"), and so the damage doesn't transfer.