When does Fire Shield burn you?

[Gromm]

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


Meaning that you don't take damage unless you do it.

This is how the game works. If you attack someone and hit them it means you overcame thier armor class. The spell does not say, "if you strike a creature, or roll high enough to hit with a touch attack you take damage", it says when you deal damage you take damage at the same time.

It could even be said that a touch attack that didn't deal damage wouldn't activate the shield, since the you aren't dealing damage (which is the point at which you take damage), though I don't think that was the intent of the spell.

And just in case you don't believe me:
PHB p279

hit: Make a successful attack roll.

 

[Wolf72]

did anyone answer the touch attack thing yet? what if you just want to use a touch spell (inflict ... or cure even)?

(or did I miss it?). Right now I'm assuming (based on the above posts) that a touch attack still triggers a fire shield attack.

 

[doktorstick]

Even though I posed the question, simply because this is a rules forum, I don't play it as such. If you overcome total AC, as in your start rolling damage, it burns you. If you try to touch the character, it burns you. Real simple. Game moves fast. Nobody has ever questioned it in my games.

/ds

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I must say that I agree with the majority of the others here. The wording of the spell in the PHB seems to clearly state that the attacker only takes damage from the fire shield if s/he actually deals damage to the wizard (or would have if it hadn't been stopped by DR).

Now for another question. In the experience of other gamers here, does that make fire shield a very weak spell (except for melee oriented sun domain clerics)? It seems to me that since most wizards who end up in melee are screwed anyway and those that aren't survive by virtue of their high AC (shield spell plus armor plus protection from evil plus dex plus cat's grace plus a real shield, plus haste, etc) the only real use of the spell is it's protection against elemental attacks. For a fighter/wizard who only gets hit on a 19-20, it's not worth the use of a 4th level spell slot that could have been stoneskin or improved invisibility and an action that could have been an attack or a protection from evil spell. For the wizard who doesn't want to engage in melee, it seems that stoneskin or dimension door would be better choices. Does your experience bear this supposition out?

 

[Grazzt]

If you overcome total AC, as in your start rolling damage, it burns you. If you try to touch the character, it burns you. Real simple. Game moves fast. Nobody has ever questioned it in my games.

/ds

Yeppers- that is how I play it as well. And nobody has questioned it in my game either.

As a side note- remember how it worked in 1e?

 

[Wolf72]

didn't it smack you for the exact same amount of dmg that you did to the protected creature? (you choose at casting cold or fire dmg)

 

[Grazzt]

didn't it smack you for the exact same amount of dmg that you did to the protected creature? (you choose at casting cold or fire dmg)

Twice the damage you dealt to the caster that was protected.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think that you have to use common sense for spells that are unclear.

In this case, damage should not be the relevant factor. Attempting to attack should be the relevant factor.

So, if someone attacks you, and they actually touch you, they are damaged.

It should not matter if your DR or Immunity to Acid or armor portion of AC or any other protections prevent them from actually damaging you (with whatever attack they are using), merely that they attempted to attack you, touched you, and got burned in return.

"Any creature striking the character with its body or handheld weapons deals normal damage"

A literal interpretation of this can be as follows: If I hit you with a touch attack, I deal normal damage of X. If I hit you with a regular attack that would have hit your touch attack AC but fails to hit your total AC, I deal normal damage of 0. Just because the damage in this case would be zero (stopped by armor) does not invalidate the statement that you got struck.

So, you can interpret this fairly easily to mean that touch attacks are affected.

What good is a damage shield type spell that only damages if the opponent successfully damages you? This gives high hit point opponents too much of an advantage. One full round attack by a combative type character could result in death for the Wizard, but just major damage for his opponent. If though, normal attacks that still hit touch attack AC damage the opponent, then the opposite can happen. The Wizard might take no damage, but his opponent might take a lot of damage.

Also, the spell is kind of bogus in that you cannot use it offensively either. The Wizard cannot grapple an opponent and damage him with the spell.

In my campaign, I would allow that. The Wizard should be able to control the spell such that if he gets on his horse, he can prevent it from damaging the horse (which it would not do as written anyway), but if he grapples someone, he can ensure that it damages him as long as he touches him.

 

[Darklone]

I don't have my PHB here, but the SRD states clearly to me that anyone attacking the caster (edit: in melee) takes damage, if he hits or not. The next sentence only states that the fire shield does not protect the caster from the damage in case the attacker actually hits him.

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't have my PHB here, but the SRD states clearly to me that anyone attacking the caster (edit: in melee) takes damage, if he hits or not. The next sentence only states that the fire shield does not protect the caster from the damage in case the attacker actually hits him.

The first sentence taken by itself can be interpreted that way. But, I do not think that is a reasonable interpretation taking into account the entire description of the spell.

The second sentence really does clarify the first sentence in that you must strike the protected character to actually take damage from the Fire Shield. It does this because it indicates the amount of damage taken when the creature actually strikes. There is no indication as to the amount of damage taken if the creature does not strike (as if the first sentence took precedence). You could assume that it is the same amount of damage, but the spell does not actually state that.

I think you really have to look at the entire description of the spell, not just the literal description of only the first sentence.

The only real question is: what does the word strike mean? Is touching striking? If so, then merely hitting touch AC is sufficient to take damage back. And, there is a reasonable argument that this can occur since striking the character with enough for touch AC, but not enough for total AC, does have a damage correspondence in the game. The damage is zero, but that's ok.

If you have a Monk/Cleric holding an Inflict Light Wounds spell and he attacks with a Monk unarmed strike, if he hits the touch AC, he will still Inflict Light Wounds, even though he does zero damage for the actual unarmed strike.