"Shield Other" question

[Hypersmurf]

According to the spell description, "some of the subject's wounds are transferred to you".

Should that be read literally, or is it just flavour text?

What I'm getting at - does the damage simply come off the cleric's hit point total, or does he receive the damage in the form it originally afflicted his ally?

For example - the subject is fireballed for 32 points of damage. 16 goes to him, 16 to the cleric. If the cleric has Endure Elements : Fire up, will it absorb 5 of those points?

For example - the subject is hit with a greataxe for ten points of damage. Does the troll cleric who Shield Othered him take 5 points of direct hit point damage, or 5 points of subdual damage?

-Hyp.

 

[Jack Haggerty]

Huh...

Good question.

The SRD says, "Additionally, the subject takes only half damage from all wounds and attacks (including those inflicted by special abilities) that deal it hit point damage. The amount of damage not taken by the warded creature is taken by the character."

In the absence of anything specific from a rulebook or "Sage", I'd assume the damage taken by the caster to be damage of the type inflicted upon the target... Bludgoening, slashing, fire, cold, acid, whatever.

But that doesn't necessarily mean I'm right.

 

[bret]

I would not allow the cleric to be protected from any damage. I would inflict have of the damage that the fighter would have taken (after any other protections) on the cleric.

There are two reasons for this:
1. It would get very complicated figuring damage if you don't do this.
2. You have to avoid stacking defenses against the same attack. You can't give the same protection twice.


Consider a fighter with Endure Elements: Fire cast on him and a Cleric that casts Shield Other on the fighter and then Resist Elements: Fire on himself.

The fighter gets hit by two fiery bolts from Flame Arrow for 8d6 damage, total of 28 damage. I would subtrace the 5 damage off the top, inflicting 23/2 = 12 damage on the fighter and 11 on the cleric. You can't count both the spells as protection against the same source of damage.

Simpler case, both have Endure Fire on them. In this case, you can't have the two spells stack against the same damage source. There can only be total of 5 fire damage that you are protected against.


I think that any protection spells would have to be cast on the other person.

 

[Xahn'Tyr]

the subject takes only half damage from all wounds and attacks (including those inflicted by special abilities) that deal it hit point damage. The amount of damage not taken by the warded creature is taken by the character.

To me, it looks like the damage is cut in half right after it is rolled, but before it is applied to the victim. Half the damage goes to the victim and the other half (rounded up) goes to the cleric. Then each, independently, applies any defenses that they may have and takes the rest as damage. I don't see any reason that the damage would lose it's "type" specification anywhere in this process.

As a final point, the cleric is doing this to help out a comrade, so I'd be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt (otherwise he will be quite justified to say "tough luck" to his wimpy elven buddy).

A little clarification in the text would certainly go a long way here though.

 

[SableWyvern]

I agree with Xahn'Tyr's interpretation. Easy to visualise, easy to apply.

 

[bret]

YOu mean easy to visualize, easy to apply, easy to abuse?

Third level cleric casts Endure Elements on himself and a fighter. Casts Shield Other on the fighter. For his two Endure spells, he gets an effective Resistence of 10. Gets even worse when you start considering something like Stoneskin.

It gets really crazy if you start looking at things like Protection from Fire. If the fighter had a Protection from Fire but the cleric didn't, are you saying that the cleric would take half damage while the fighter takes nothing? Does you answer change if the Protection was big enough where without the Shield Other the fighter still wouldn't have taken any damage?


The quoted text says nothing about the order that protections are applied. I'm pointing out why I think the other protections should be applied before halfing damage. In my opinion, only the damage that would have gotten through to the fighter should be split, and none of the cleric's protections should be effeetive against that damage.

 

[Artoomis]

I never considered this before (and my character uses Shield Other all the time).

The relevant lines from the spell are:

Additionally, the subject takes only half damage from all wounds and attacks (including those inflicted by special abilities) that deal it hit point damage. The amount of damage not taken by the warded creature is taken by the character.

The first question, then, is how does one take half damage? Before or after one applies resistances, etc? The answer, I think, is that you check to see what damage you are going to take, and then take half of that.

The remaining half is the amount going to the shielding charatcter (cleric or paladin).

Now, what kind of damage is it? Darn good question. I don't think there is any guidance for this, but here is what I imagine happening.

You are "shielded" by a cleric. You and the cleric both have DR 15/+2 (somehow). You are hit by a +1 weapon for 31 points.

We subtract 15 for DR, leaving 16 points. You get half of that, or 8 points.

Now what does the cleric get?

Choice 1: None, becuase DR 15/+2 soaks up all 8 points.
Choice 2: 8 points becausse you "share" the damage taken.

I think it is number 2, and I think this example is a bit clearer than fire or some other energy damage, but the logic is the same.

How's that? Make sense?

 

[SpikeyFreak]

I agree with Xahn.

bret: I don't think that the benefit you would be gaining in your example is too great for having cast 3 defensive spells. That's quite an expenditure for defense.

--Shielded Spikey

 

[dcollins]

I actually agree with Artoomis here. The damage should be divided not after it is "dealt" (i.e., when attacker rolls X amount), but rather when it is "taken" (per spell description, i.e., when the hit points are marked off the character). Hence protections apply for the target to the total, not for the cleric to the halved amount.

 

[Xahn'Tyr]

I can certainly see it going either way. But with the Art/Collins interpretation, consider the following:

- Cleric is immune to fire and is shielding a dumb fighter.
- Fighter gets hit by a fireball for 30 points.
- Fighter takes 15 points of fire damage.
- Cleric takes 15 points of fire damage even though he is immune to fire.

That last bit just doesn't sit well with me. If the cleric has taken steps to protect himself from fire, he should not be getting burned. I'm just not comfortable with the damage losing it's "Fire" attribute somewhere in the process and bypassing the cleric's defence. I want the fire damage to stay fire damage, and so I want each person to apply their own defences (or lack of defences).

Note that if the fighter were immune to fire but the cleric was not, then in my system the cleric would be hurt while in yours he would not. In the end, I guess both ways are roughly equivalent; so I'd just aim for consistency. Just be sure to ask the DM which way he is going to run it so that you can place the protection spells accordingly.


This is a good question though, and I am surprised that I have never run accross it before (I use Shield Other quite often).