Shield Other Maximum Targets?

[frankthedm]

BTW, How often did this come up? My players were extra careful to make sure the spell did not break when it was placed on the rogue who was doing recon, but i could see this being forgotton until it was far too late.

Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)

If you and the subject of the spell move out of range of each other, the spell ends.

 

[Sejs]

As long as the rings are a pair, it is cool. Now in my game, if someone wears the ring on thier breeding appendage, they are getting stunned for one round each time they take damage from the spell.

Oh that's just begging for someone to come along and cast Heat Metal...

BTW, anyone see a problem, balanace wise, letting a wizard being able to cast this spell? I had a Fighter/Abjurer in my game whose player made a compelling argument there were not a lot a ways to protect his allies at the lower level spell slots. It did not seem broken and it was kinda fun rending his HP through less protected allies. Just wondering if anybody forsees any problem with arcanists casting shield other. [besides dead arcanists]

None whatsoever. There are a number of spells that are one list or another with no particular justification other than 'because'. Why can only bards cast Modify Memory, clerics Shield Other, and druids Produce Flame? Any one of those would be reasonable as arcane spells.

 

[frankthedm]

Any one of those would be reasonable as arcane spells.

I gave produce flame to arcane pretty quickly. Though it does have a 5% backfire rate... man, I love natural ones.

 

[takasi]

BTW, How often did this come up?

Just played in a Shackled City session an hour ago and this came up. I'm playing a cleric and had the thief wearing one of my "bff" rings. I don't mind trailing but it's tough to sneak around when you've got a suit of half plate clanking behind you.

 

[Lorillomar]

Excellent use for a troll cohort ; )

Do we have a ruling on whether the [type] of damage carries over to the spellcaster? If, for example, your Troll cohort is a cleric and casts Shield Other on you, and you receive [fire] damage, does it do normal damage to said Troll or nonlethal?

 

[mvincent]

Do we have a ruling on whether the [type] of damage carries over to the spellcaster? If, for example, your Troll cohort is a cleric and casts Shield Other on you, and you receive [fire] damage, does it do normal damage to said Troll or nonlethal?

For simplicity, I'd rule that the [type] of damage carries over to the spellcaster. You should probably be outfitting your troll with fire resistance anyways though.

Also note: a minor ring of spell-storing (or a ring of friend shield) could allow you to accomplish this trick without the troll needing cleric levels.

 

[KarinsDad]

For simplicity, I'd rule that the [type] of damage carries over to the spellcaster. You should probably be outfitting your troll with fire resistance anyways though.

Neither interpretation is clearly defined and both of them have game ramifications.

If the type carries over, then the characters could be doubly protected by other spells. For example, PC1 gets hit with a 20 point Scorching Ray and his Energy Resistance Fire 10 drops it to 10, he takes 5 and PC2 Cleric who also has Energy Resistance Fire 10 takes 0.

If the type does not carry over, than PC2 Cleric Troll would take nonlethal damage from fire damage by PC1 (if neither of them had Energy Resistance Fire).

It would be nice if it were defined since either interpretation would tactically change other combinations of spells / effects that PCs would take to maximize the situation. It's annoying when this happens because a PC concept for one DM's campaign is then less effective in a different DM's campaign.

 

[frankthedm]

It would be nice if it were defined since either interpretation would tactically change other combinations of spells / effects that PCs would take to maximize the situation. It's annoying when this happens because a PC concept for one DM's campaign is then less effective in a different DM's campaign.

Sorry if some DMs not agreeing how things should be bothers you. Building character concepts based on debatable interpretations and corner cases of the rule set don’t deserve to be rewarded IMHO.

I rule the shield other spell itself does the damage, bypassing the casters resistances & DR. and if the damage is lethal to the spell recipient, the damage is lethal to the caster.