Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 280875" data-attributes="member: 2011">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.</blockquote>

Verification