Shield Spell no help for touch attacks

[KarinsDad]

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

I probably agree with this since incorporeal creatures cannot affect the material world (this is not listed under incorporeal, but it is discussed under manifestation in the Ghost Template in the MM). The only attacks they have which can affect the material world are those that are explicitly called out (i.e their supernatural abilities including their "touch attack" and their spells).

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...

Well, the manifestation description states that spells work against material opponents unless they are touch spells. So, the Fireball would work. The Shocking Grasp would not. The manifested incorporeal creatures ranged touch spells should work, but this is unclear (does the touch spell prohibition apply to ranged touch spells as well? It shouldn't, but a literal interpretation of it might be that).

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

The advantage of deflection bonuses is that it works against manifested incorporeal creatures (MM pg. 6).

The disadvantage is that it does not stack with other deflection bonuses (e.g. Ring of Protection).

I personally would like the Shield spell to be a cover bonus except for the "no AoO at half or better cover" rule.

So, this leaves deflection bonus as the best alternative. IMO.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I personally would like the Shield spell to be a cover bonus except for the "no AoO at half or better cover" rule.

A +4 Cover bonus - even though it's the same bonus you'd get from half-cover - doesn't convey any of the other effects of half-cover.

It's why the 3E FAQ says "Shield gives a +7 Cover bonus, not 3/4 cover".

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

A +4 Cover bonus - even though it's the same bonus you'd get from half-cover - doesn't convey any of the other effects of half-cover.

It's why the 3E FAQ says "Shield gives a +7 Cover bonus, not 3/4 cover".

Yes, the tomatoes, tomahtoes change.

The original 3E Shield spell stated a 3/4s cover and also explicitly said "+7 AC and +3 on reflex saves".

Suddenly, everyone got their panties in a bind that the +3 reflex save and the no AoOs against 3/4s cover when the cover was invisible.

They went from trying to have the spell follow the standard cover rules (the best way to write spells because there are fewer exceptions to the rules) to making up new rules (a cover AC bonus without actual cover benefits which just becomes confusing for some people since such a thing doesn't exist anywhere in the rules).

Personally, I thought that if something solid is in the way, there should be cover (not just a cover AC bonus).

And, btw, there is no such thing in the rules as a cover bonus. You won't find it in the list of bonuses that magic (spell or item) can give in the DMG. There is a cover AC bonus and a cover save bonus both solely given due to cover, but no cover bonus.

 

[Hypersmurf]

And, btw, there is no such thing in the rules as a cover bonus. You won't find it in the list of bonuses that magic (spell or item) can give in the DMG. There is a cover AC bonus and a cover save bonus both solely given due to cover, but no cover bonus.

Alchemical bonus isn't listed in the DMG either - but it's introduced in the BoVD.

A Dancing shield (Sword and Fist) also provides a "Cover bonus to AC".

The FAQ answer on Shield is explicitly errata - "The text of the Shield spell is erroneous", or words to that effect. As errata, it introduces the Cover bonus.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

A Dancing shield (Sword and Fist) also provides a "Cover bonus to AC".

The FAQ answer on Shield is explicitly errata - "The text of the Shield spell is erroneous", or words to that effect. As errata, it introduces the Cover bonus.

Actually, I do not care if they call it a "cover AC bonus" or a "cover bonus to AC", but just calling it a cover bonus is misleading since there is also a "cover save bonus".

The old FAQ I have on this system uses both terms interchangeably.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Actually, I do not care if they call it a "cover AC bonus" or a "cover bonus to AC", but just calling it a cover bonus is misleading since there is also a "cover save bonus".

The old FAQ I have on this system uses both terms interchangeably.

From the 3E Main FAQ, v06272003 (latest 3E FAQ):

The spell description is erroneous. The spell grants a +7
cover bonus to Armor Class, not three-quarters cover. It does
not negate attacks of opportunity, nor does it provide any
saving throw bonuses. The spell's cover bonus to Armor Class
applies to any attacks opportunity made from the half of the
battlefield covered by the shield.

Happy?

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

From the 3E Main FAQ, v06272003 (latest 3E FAQ):

The spell description is erroneous. The spell grants a +7
cover bonus to Armor Class, not three-quarters cover. It does
not negate attacks of opportunity, nor does it provide any
saving throw bonuses. The spell's cover bonus to Armor Class
applies to any attacks opportunity made from the half of the
battlefield covered by the shield.
-Hyp.

Well, it didn't say cover bonus in your copy, so why did you post that it did?

It did state it in a different question in the copy I have, but it's not a big deal. The intent is clear, I just wish they would stick with the terminology from the PHB.

Happy?

I'm always happy.