Shield Another + Xzibit

[jiriku]

Partly to give me a headache and partly to provide material for their Yo Dawg! jokes, my players, whose party includes four casters capable of casting shield other, are planning to establish an interlocking network of shield other spells on one another.

So what happens when:
Two PCs cast shield other targeting the same recipient?
A PC casts shield other targeting his familiar and uses Share Spells to share it with his familiar?
All PCs gather in a circle and everyone casts shield other targeting the PC to his left?
Two players have shield other active on one another at the same time, but I throw the rulebook at both of them? :smalltongue:

[Xiander]

From the description of shield other. my own emphasis

Additionally, the subject takes only half damage from all wounds and attacks (including that dealt by special abilities) that deal hit point damage.

The easiest thing for a GM to do is to rule that damage transferred, from the shieldee to the shielder by the spell, is dealt neither by an attack or a wound and thus cannot be halved by the spell.

Another route which does however require mild house ruling is to say that damage taken by the shielder cannot be prevented by any means.

Both solves the problem without making the spell less useful.

[Fouredged Sword]

I would just house rule that you spit the damage among the whole shielded group through all the links. Less paperwork and it lets your party do what they want without becomeing overpowered. A single bard warweaver could actualy effectivly heal the party, and a power attacking ubercharger could hit them all at once. Just form a sheet with each party member's and the conections he/she has to others through shield.

[Arbitrarity]

For "all PC's cast shield other on target to left"
For two characters, the primary target hit will take 2/3 of the damage, and the secondary target will take 1/3. Of course, this is the result of the limit of the feedback loop. With three, the primary target takes 4/7 the damage, second takes 2/7, third takes 1/7. With 4, the interactions are more difficult to map, but for a standard "rotation", you're looking at 8/15, 4/15, 2/15, and 1/15, and you can expand that to more easily.
In general, the 2/3 1/3 split works for characters who cast shield other at one another. If you want two shield other spells on the same target, either rule they don't stack, houserule split 1/4 the damage to each of the secondary targets, split it evenly among them, or rule the first takes "priority", and so the shielded character takes 1/4, primary shield other caster takes 1/2, and secondary takes 1/4.

[stainboy]

I vote they create a damage circuit. Every point of damage goes into an infinite loop rather than applying to a character. First one who breaks the circuit takes all the damage, meaning whoever's spell runs out first probably dies ten times over. Let them figure the second part out for themselves.

yo dawg I herd u like shield other so we put a shield other in ur shield other so you can OHGODNOOOOOOO

[Asheram]

For "all PC's cast shield other on target to left"
For two characters, the primary target hit will take 2/3 of the damage, and the secondary target will take 1/3. Of course, this is the result of the limit of the feedback loop. With three, the primary target takes 4/7 the damage, second takes 2/7, third takes 1/7. With 4, the interactions are more difficult to map, but for a standard "rotation", you're looking at 8/15, 4/15, 2/15, and 1/15, and you can expand that to more easily.
In general, the 2/3 1/3 split works for characters who cast shield other at one another. If you want two shield other spells on the same target, either rule they don't stack, houserule split 1/4 the damage to each of the secondary targets, split it evenly among them, or rule the first takes "priority", and so the shielded character takes 1/4, primary shield other caster takes 1/2, and secondary takes 1/4.

Wouldn't the fact that they're all shielding eachother mean that the damage would go in an infinite loop, the damage itself becoming infinitely small but since it's a loop it'd also be infinitely much?

Or how was it now? Did you round up or down when it came to damage?

Edit: But I also agree with Xiander, the loop wouldn't work without some Really good will from the DM.

[JaronK]

In a two person loop, where person A takes 64 damage from a hit and persons A and B have shield another effects up, here's what happens.

Person A is assigned 64 damage. This is then split to 32 to A, 32 to B.
Person B's shield activates, so it sends 16 of that damage back to A. Now it's 48 A, 16 B.
Person A's shield activates, sending 8 of that back to B. Now it's 40 A, 24 B.
Person B's shield activates, sending 4 of that back to A. Now it's 44 A, 20 B.
Person A's shield activates, sending 2 of that back to B. Now its 42 A, 22 B.
Person B's shield activates, sending 1 of that back to A. Now it's 43 A, 21 B.

And it stops there. End result? As stated earlier, the person who initially took the damage ends up taking 2/3 of the damage (rounded up) and the other shield person takes 1/3 (rounding down).

If it's a three way chain (A to B to C to A) then you get this:

Person A takes 64 damage, sending 32 of that to B (A32, B32, C0).
Person B sends 16 damage to C (A32, B16, C16)
Person C sends 8 damage to A (A40, B16, C8)
Person A sends 4 damage to B (A36, B20, C8
Person B sends 2 damage to C (A36, B18, C10)
Person C sends 1 damage to A (A37, B18, C9)

So in the end, when Person A gets hit, Person C takes 1/7th the damage (rounding down), Person B takes 2/7th (rounding down), and Person A takes 4/7th the damage (rounding up, possibly with a remainder).

It's not actually that complex, you just have to figure it out for the number of people in the party.

JaronK

[term1nally s1ck]

Partly to give me a headache and partly to provide material for their Yo Dawg! jokes, my players, whose party includes four casters capable of casting shield other, are planning to establish an interlocking network of shield other spells on one another.

So what happens when:
1) Two PCs cast shield other targeting the same recipient?
2) A PC casts shield other targeting his familiar and uses Share Spells to share it with his familiar?
3) All PCs gather in a circle and everyone casts shield other targeting the PC to his left?
4) Two players have shield other active on one another at the same time, but I throw the rulebook at both of them? :smalltongue:

1) The recipient takes half the damage of attacks, and the two people with it cast take half the damage that would be dealt. The spell is VERY specific, and cuts damage takn in half but any damage no taken is passed on, and can be passed on multiple times if multiple spells are on. Bad idea.

2) The Familiar takes full damage from attacks, but 1/2 is spell damage, and the PC takes 1/2 that damage. Bad idea.

3) IF any of them take damage, they ALL take a ton of damage. In 3.5, damage is minimum 1 when halved. It loops around the circle FOREVER, dealing 1 damage to them all until the first one dies, at which point the loop breaks, obviously. TERRIBLE idea.

4) As above, one dies, and the other is horribly injured by that single book throw. Bad tactic is bad.

@JaronK, I think you forget the minimum 1 rule. Damage is rounded down min 1.