Shield Spell no help for touch attacks

[swrushing]

I was noticing that the shield spell, long time favorite of PC mages, no longer helps against touch attacks. So, it would seem easier, perhaps nearly automatic, to whack mages and their ilk with things like disintigrate, ray of enfeeblement and the like.

How has this change played out in your 3.5 games?

What would you say to classing shield as a deflection bonus or cover bonus, to differentiate it from shield bonuses to reflect the fact that you are not in contact with the shield spell force thingy?

 

[rhammer2]

I agree with you, IMC I still use Shield as a cover bonus.

This thread should be moved to House Rules...

I was noticing that the shield spell, long time favorite of PC mages, no longer helps against touch attacks. So, it would seem easier, perhaps nearly automatic, to whack mages and their ilk with things like disintigrate, ray of enfeeblement and the like.

How has this change played out in your 3.5 games?

What would you say to classing shield as a deflection bonus or cover bonus, to differentiate it from shield bonuses to reflect the fact that you are not in contact with the shield spell force thingy?

 

[Fredrik Svanberg]

I was noticing that the shield spell, long time favorite of PC mages, no longer helps against touch attacks. So, it would seem easier, perhaps nearly automatic, to whack mages and their ilk with things like disintigrate, ray of enfeeblement and the like.

How has this change played out in your 3.5 games?

What would you say to classing shield as a deflection bonus or cover bonus, to differentiate it from shield bonuses to reflect the fact that you are not in contact with the shield spell force thingy?

Wouldn't the ability to protect against incorporeal touch attacks imply that the shield also protects against normal touch attacks, since incorporeal touch attacks are in general better than normal touch attacks? The reasoning - "it is a force effect" - would seem to apply to corporeal as well as incorporeal foes.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

Good point.

On one hand, touch attacks ignore shield AC bonus. On the other hand, incorporeal touch attacks do NOT ignore armor or shield AC boni if they come from a force effect.

If you go by the letter of the rule, though, Shield only helps against Incorporeal touch attacks.

AR

 

[AuraSeer]

Wouldn't the ability to protect against incorporeal touch attacks imply that the shield also protects against normal touch attacks[...]

No. An "Incorporeal Touch" attack is not the same thing as a "Touch" attack. Something that affects one attack type is not necessarily relevant to the other.

 

[swrushing]

Actually, no. You have your notions swapped and comingled and cross pollinated.

From incorporeal...

"The physical attacks of incorporeal creatures ignore material armor, even magic armor, unless it is made of force (such as mage armor or bracers of armor) or has the ghost touch ability. "

There is no "incorporeral touch attack" rule for force effects... there is just the PHYSICAL attack special rule.

There is the specificTOUCH ATTACK rule.

"Touch Attacks: Some attacks disregard armor, including shields and natural armor. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee). When you are the target of a touch attack, your AC doesn't include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. All other modifiers, such as your size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) apply normally."

Touch attacks and incorporeal physical attacks share some similarities... both will ignore armor and shields in most cases... but the specific "force effect applies" is for incorporeal physical attacks, not for touch attacks.

So, while they share some properties, they are two totally separate game mechanics with their own rules and the KEY difference between them is that force effects matter for incorporeal physical and do not matter for touch attacks.

BTW, if you did count force effects for touch attacks, then things like mage armor and bracers would count too, which is not, IMO, what people would see as reasonable.

To me, the shield bonus should have been for "shields" carried on your person and lumped in with armor (as they are now) but the shield spell (which is separate from you physically) should be a different category for "stuff between us" which would IMO be either a cover bonus or a deflection bonus.

Wouldn't the ability to protect against incorporeal touch attacks imply that the shield also protects against normal touch attacks, since incorporeal touch attacks are in general better than normal touch attacks? The reasoning - "it is a force effect" - would seem to apply to corporeal as well as incorporeal foes.

 

[Hypersmurf]

"The physical attacks of incorporeal creatures ignore material armor, even magic armor, unless it is made of force (such as mage armor or bracers of armor) or has the ghost touch ability. "

There is no "incorporeral touch attack" rule for force effects... there is just the PHYSICAL attack special rule.

All the physical attacks of incorporeal creatures are incorporeal touch attacks, and they are affected by armor and shield bonuses arising from force effects.

An "incorporeal touch attack" is not a form of touch attack that is incorporeal. It doesn't follow the rules for touch attacks; it follows the rules for the physical attacks of incorporeal creatures.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

All the physical attacks of incorporeal creatures are incorporeal touch attacks, and they are affected by armor and shield bonuses arising from force effects.

An "incorporeal touch attack" is not a form of touch attack that is incorporeal. It doesn't follow the rules for touch attacks; it follows the rules for the physical attacks of incorporeal creatures.

Agreed.

However, there could be an exception to this.

Say, for example, that you had a Ghost Rust Monster.

Could it attack with its antennae to rust an object when manifested?

If so, then its attack would follow both the manifested ghost attack rules and the touch attack rules.

Ghosts cannot affect material creatures with spell touch attacks, but that does not necessarily mean that they cannot affect material creatures with normal touch attacks. It appears to be DM dependent.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Could it attack with its antennae to rust an object when manifested?

I'd say no - it's incorporeal. But it's not as clearly defined as I'd like.

Hmm. In fact, I can't actually see a written reason an incorporeal spellcaster couldn't hit corporeal creatures with a fireball or a shocking grasp...

-Hyp.

 

[Storminator]

I was noticing that the shield spell, long time favorite of PC mages, no longer helps against touch attacks. So, it would seem easier, perhaps nearly automatic, to whack mages and their ilk with things like disintigrate, ray of enfeeblement and the like.

How has this change played out in your 3.5 games?

What would you say to classing shield as a deflection bonus or cover bonus, to differentiate it from shield bonuses to reflect the fact that you are not in contact with the shield spell force thingy?

I much prefer Shield to be a deflection bonus. I haven't actually ruled that way in my games, but I think it's a good idea.

PS