Fire Shield, how and when does it damage?

[Umbranar]

Hello Playgrounders,

I can not find a clear explanation for the following:

-Fire Shield SRD-
"Any creature striking you with its body or a handheld weapon deals normal damage, but at the same time the attacker takes 1d6 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +15). "

The problem is the word "striking". Does could mean the following:

-Attacker takes damageon every attack regardless of hit or miss;
-Attacker takes damage on every successfull hit;
-Attackers takes damage once per round if atleast one hit.

We ruled the last option ourselves but I want the official mechanic.

[Ashtagon]

I believe the second (every successful attack) is the correct interpretation.

[TuggyNE]

An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target’s Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.

There you have it.

[ArcturusV]

Officially I'd say Ashtagon gave you the right of it. It says "Strike", which means that you actually land a hit. Rather than "Attack" which would be Miss or Hit, or "Uses an Attack Action against" which would be things like Full Round Attack patterns, using Touch Attack Spells, etc. Nor does it have a "Max: Once per round per target" or similar line which would imply the third option.

Plus side is that Touch Attack Spells wouldn't trigger Fire Shield by the writing. Least near as I can figure. Despite the "Touch" in Touch Attack it isn't attacking with your Body (Unarmed Strikes, Natural Attacks) or a Handheld Weapon. Least by RAW, near as I can figure.

[BWR]

Using your body to deliver hostile spells isn't an attack?
Whatever won't they think of next?

[TuggyNE]

Plus side is that Touch Attack Spells wouldn't trigger Fire Shield by the writing. Least near as I can figure. Despite the "Touch" in Touch Attack it isn't attacking with your Body (Unarmed Strikes, Natural Attacks) or a Handheld Weapon. Least by RAW, near as I can figure.

Er, what precisely are you making those attack rolls with? "Attacking with your body" isn't specifically defined, much less limited to the two attacks you named, so it would be reasonable to assume that reaching out and poking someone with a spell-charged finger counts.

[nyjastul69]

Officially I'd say Ashtagon gave you the right of it. It says "Strike", which means that you actually land a hit. Rather than "Attack" which would be Miss or Hit, or "Uses an Attack Action against" which would be things like Full Round Attack patterns, using Touch Attack Spells, etc. Nor does it have a "Max: Once per round per target" or similar line which would imply the third option.

Plus side is that Touch Attack Spells wouldn't trigger Fire Shield by the writing. Least near as I can figure. Despite the "Touch" in Touch Attack it isn't attacking with your Body (Unarmed Strikes, Natural Attacks) or a Handheld Weapon. Least by RAW, near as I can figure.

Touch attacks certainly would take damage. A ranged touch attack would not. Ranged touch attacks are different than touch attacks.

[Umbranar]

Thx, I thought it was like this.
The confusion came with us, not being native English speakers and the fact that neither "hit" nor "attack" was in the disciption.

[Bakkan]

Ah, yes, that could cause some confusion. For future reference, 'hit' and 'strike' are (almost always) synonyms.

EDIT: Unless you're playing baseball, in which case they're mutually exclusive.

[Diarmuid]

Ah, yes, that could cause some confusion. For future reference, 'hit' and 'strike' are (almost always) synonyms.

EDIT: Unless you're playing baseball, in which case they're mutually exclusive.

I respectfully disagree. Every pitch that is swung on, whether it becomes a foul ball, a hit, or an out is considered a "strike" for the pitcher's pitch count/strike % stats.

On to the more germaine topic. I'm assuming my group has been playing this right, but figured I'd check with the playgrounders. If an attack results in a "hit" that deals no damage due to DR or some other form of chicanery, would the Fire Shield still deal damage to the attacker? (my group has been playing this as it does)

Similarly, a "hit" is negated due to something else (miss chance, mirror image, etc), does the fire shield deal damage. (we've been playing this as no, but I'm betting someone could make an argument, however illogical, that by RAW it should. Curious to see said arguments).

[Douglas]

On to the more germaine topic. I'm assuming my group has been playing this right, but figured I'd check with the playgrounders. If an attack results in a "hit" that deals no damage due to DR or some other form of chicanery, would the Fire Shield still deal damage to the attacker? (my group has been playing this as it does)

Similarly, a "hit" is negated due to something else (miss chance, mirror image, etc), does the fire shield deal damage. (we've been playing this as no, but I'm betting someone could make an argument, however illogical, that by RAW it should. Curious to see said arguments).
Attack negation that makes the attack not hit after all prevents the fire shield damage. Attack negation that allows the attack to still hit but prevents it from having any effect allows fire shield to trigger.

Miss chance: no fire shield
Damage reduction: yes fire shield