Shield Other + Damage Reduction

[Kahuna Burger]

The cat still takes 30 pts of damage, it just so happens that the cat is dead when it reaches -10.

If the death of the subject doesn't end the spell, would additional damage in the same or subsequent rounds continue to be "split"?

 

[Nareau]

For example, would you argue that the Shield Other still works if the Ghaele is standing in an Antimagic Field because it does not, per se, target the caster and therefore does not require Line of Effect?

That's a MUCH more interesting question than the one I asked. Does the spell cease to function if the Ghaele dies, gets turned to stone, or put into an Antimagic field? Is there any rule that specifies an Antimagic field blocks "mystic connections"? I see no RAW reason it should, so long as it stays within range of the spell's subject.

I think it's also important to remember that the Shield Other spell isn't actually damaging the Ghaele, nor is the effect that's damaging his cat. However, the damage is being transferred to him.

[Edit: Furthermore, I'm not seeing any rule that says a spell ends when its subject dies. Is that correct?]

Nareau

 

[Pyrex]

If the death of the subject doesn't end the spell, would additional damage in the same or subsequent rounds continue to be "split"?

The lynchpin of my argument is that my reading is that the damage is split (with half being assigned to the Ghaele) before the cat acquires the 'Dead' condition.

If you continue to beat the cat (or, perhaps more fittingly a horse) after it is dead (and is hence an Object, and no longer a Creature, and therefore no longer a valid target for Shield Other*) the Ghaele obviously shouldn't continue to take split damage.

*Let's not start that argument again please.

 

[Pyrex]

That's a MUCH more interesting question than the one I asked. Does the spell cease to function if the Ghaele dies, gets turned to stone, or put into an Antimagic field? Is there any rule that specifies an Antimagic field blocks "mystic connections"? I see no RAW reason it should, so long as it stays within range of the spell's subject.

Except for the part where an Antimagic Field blocks Line of Effect. In absence of clear evidence to the contrary, in my game I would rule that Sheild Other requires Line of Effect between the Caster and the Target. I would also rule that this particular spell ends when either target (Hah! I declared the caster a Target! ) ceases being a Creature.

I think it's also important to remember that the Shield Other spell isn't actually damaging the Ghaele, nor is the effect that's damaging his cat. However, the damage is being transferred to him.

I don't believe that's entirely clear. Having the Shield Other being the effect that deals damage to the caster is an equally valid reading of the spell. What if the caster had, say DR 10/Cold Iron and the target was struck with a Cold Iron weapon. Are you really saying the Caster's DR should apply against the portion of the damage shunted to him by the Shield Other spell?

[Edit: Furthermore, I'm not seeing any rule that says a spell ends when its subject dies. Is that correct?]

Nareau

*pretends not to see Can of Worms*

 

[Nareau]

I'm going to go ahead and post the SRD description of the spell, for clarity's sake:

Shield Other
Abjuration
Level: Clr 2, Pal 2, Protection 2
Components: V, S, F
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One creature
Duration: 1 hour/level (D)
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless)
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless)

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.

Except for the part where an Antimagic Field blocks Line of Effect. In absence of clear evidence to the contrary, in my game I would rule that Sheild Other requires Line of Effect between the Caster and the Target.

Interesting. So if the target moves around a corner from the caster, the spell immediately ends? That seems like a pretty major change to the spell.

I would also rule that this particular spell ends when either target (Hah! I declared the caster a Target! ) ceases being a Creature.

I think this is a pretty good argument that the spell should be rewritten. But I'm sticking to my guns that the caster is not typically a target of the spell. The spell explicitly states that it targets one creature.

I don't believe that's entirely clear. Having the Shield Other being the effect that deals damage to the caster is an equally valid reading of the spell.

I might agree with you, except I think that leads to some unnecessarily complicated places (like requiring line of effect for the spell to continue working, or having an Antimagic field negate the transfer of wounds, or allowing the caster's magic immunity to enter into it). A close reading indicates the spell transfers wounds, but it does not inflict damage.

What if the caster had, say DR 10/Cold Iron and the target was struck with a Cold Iron weapon. Are you really saying the Caster's DR should apply against the portion of the damage shunted to him by the Shield Other spell?

I had originally thought that it should (hence my questions about energy resistance and fire). I'm thinking that's not a very accurate interpretation of the spell's effect, though. Not only that, but such an interpretation also leads to some weird places (IE, wounds getting "lost" after being transferred).

Thanks for your insights! You're making me think about aspects of the spell I wouldn't have otherwise considered.

Nareau

 

[Pyrex]

Interesting. So if the target moves around a corner from the caster, the spell immediately ends? That seems like a pretty major change to the spell.

The spell is Range: Close already, so requiring Line of Effect for the entire duration may not be necessary.

I think this is a pretty good argument that the spell should be rewritten. But I'm sticking to my guns that the caster is not typically a target of the spell. The spell explicitly states that it targets one creature.

Yes, it does. Which leaves an absolute mystery as to how it affects the caster at all. Which is why we're discussing the intent of the spell as much as its written effect.

I might agree with you, except I think that leads to some unnecessarily complicated places (like requiring line of effect for the spell to continue working, or having an Antimagic field negate the transfer of wounds, or allowing the caster's magic immunity to enter into it). A close reading indicates the spell transfers wounds, but it does not inflict damage.

So how exactly do the wounds propogate to the caster inside an Antimagic Field if not by magic?

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Yes, it does. Which leaves an absolute mystery as to how it affects the caster at all. Which is why we're discussing the intent of the spell as much as its written effect.

....

So how exactly do the wounds propogate to the caster inside an Antimagic Field if not by magic?

So If I cast Shield Other then hide in an antimagic field, the spell keeps working because it's target is outside the field, and sends half his damage flying towards me, but can't effect me in the field....

(kidding, kidding....)

 

[frankthedm]

Count me in with the group that says Shield Other itself deals untyped magical damage. This prevents most abuses.

I'd also say the spell stops working if either person is in an anti magic field.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Part of the problem here is the inexact usage of "dealt" and "taken". These terms need to be equal to deal with this kind of situation.

They aren't.

[glossary]deal damage[/glossary]: Cause damage to a target with a successful attack. How much damage is dealt is usually expressed in terms of dice (for example, 2d6+4) and may have a situational modifier as well. However, damage dealt by a weapon or spell does not necessarily equal damage taken by the target, because the target may have special defenses that negate some or all of the damage.

-Hyp.

 

[Pielorinho]

Count me in with the group that says Shield Other itself deals untyped magical damage. This prevents most abuses.

What about spell resistance?

Daniel