When does Fire Shield burn you?

[tarsque]

Is it (all are for melee attacks without reach/unarmed attacks):

1) When a successful attack is made
2) When an attack would have hit the warded character's touch AC
3) Every attack, successful or not

From the SRD:
"This spell wreathes the character in flame and causes damage to each creature who attacks the character in melee."

then

"Any creature striking the character with its body or handheld weapons deals normal damage, but at the same time the attacker takes 1d6 points of damage +1 point per caster level."

First it sounds like any attack (#3) then it sounds like the attack must make contact (#2). However for it to be balance it seems like it should be only successful attacks (#1).

Opinions? Official clarifications?

BTW, my understanding is that it does no damage other than to attackers. So for instance a Fire Shield warded character could ride on a horse and cause no harm to the horse. Correct?

 

[Crothian]

I use number1, any hit the attacker also takes damage.

 

[Grazzt]

"Any creature striking the character with its body or handheld weapons deals normal damage, but at the same time the attacker takes 1d6 points of damage +1 point per caster level."

First it sounds like any attack (#3) then it sounds like the attack must make contact (#2). However for it to be balance it seems like it should be only successful attacks (#1).

Attacker must make contact with you in order to suffer fire damage from your fire shield.

""Any creature striking the character with its body or handheld weapons deals normal damage but at the same time the attacker takes 1d6 points of damage +1 point per caster level."

 

[doktorstick]

"Any creature striking the character with its body or handheld weapons deals normal damage but at the same time the attacker takes 1d6 points of damage +1 point per caster level."

This is ambiguous. I would only do it on a successful hit, but a legal interpretation is if the attack roll would hit as a touch attack (not necessarily damaging the target), the attacker would suffer the fire damage.

Unless the phrase "deals normal damage" is the qualifying statement. Meaning, unless you hit and do damage (overcoming DR for those that have DR), you would not be damaged by the fire. It would be silly if you hit, failed to overcome DR, and took no fire damage, though.

/ds

 

[LordAO]

It deals damage to the attacker regardless of whether or not the attack was successful. The only way to attack a character with fire shield safely is to use either a reach or ranged weapon.

 

[Grazzt]

It deals damage to the attacker regardless of whether or not the attack was successful. The only way to attack a character with fire shield safely is to use either a reach or ranged weapon.

You sure about that? Take the frost worm as a sort of example. They generate cold. Any time a character attacks unarmed or with natural weapons they suffer damage each time their attacks hit. MM, page 93.

Its sorta the same thing, only worded better, I guess.

 

[Mr.Binx]

The spell states that an attack must be made and the enscorcelled character must be struck by said attack for the attacker to be affected by the spell. Unless your horse is attacking you and hitting you with said attacks then your horse will be uninjured by the spell. Remember that imagined magic doesn't work along the lines laws of non-imagined reality. I'm pretty well assured that the spell was not meant to imbue one with the abilities of a Frost Worm or do anything other than what is described in the spell's description unless you begin creating additional affects above and beyond what the spell was created for: damaging antogonists in melee combat.

 

[Grazzt]

The spell states that an attack must be made and the enscorcelled character must be struck by said attack for the attacker to be affected by the spell. Unless your horse is attacking you and hitting you with said attacks then your horse will be uninjured by the spell. Remember that imagined magic doesn't work along the lines laws of non-imagined reality. I'm pretty well assured that the spell was not meant to imbue one with the abilities of a Frost Worm or do anything other than what is described in the spell's description unless you begin creating additional affects above and beyond what the spell was created for: damaging antogonists in melee combat.

Uh- might wanna reread my post. The frost worm example was used to state basically what you just said. Ya don't take fire damage unless you actually successfully hit the caster wrapped in fire shield. I used the frost worm example because ya dont take cold damage unless ya actually hit the frost worm.

 

[doktorstick]

...you actually successfully hit the caster...

Grazzt,

Do you mean "hit" as in "overcome total AC" or "hit" as in "touch the creature"? I can "hit" a creature but have my sword bounce off his natural hide.

Cheers,
/ds

 

[Grazzt]

Grazzt,

Do you mean "hit" as in "overcome total AC" or "hit" as in "touch the creature"? I can "hit" a creature but have my sword bounce off his natural hide.

Cheers,
/ds

Well damn doctor- ya gotta go and complicate things.

I would assume that the way the spell is worded means that you have to successfully hit (overcome AC) in order to sustain fire damage.