Any Reason This Wouldn't Work?

[thompur]

Cleric 1 casts Shield Other on the Barbarian. Cleric 2 Casts Shield Other on Cleric 1. When Barbarian takes 40 pts of damage, Cl1 takes 20 of that and Cl2 takes 10 of the 20 from Cl1.

[KillianHawkeye]

Yeah, that won't work because the Shield Other spell only protects from hit point damage caused by "wounds and attacks (including that dealt by special abilities)," while the damage dealt BY the Shield Other spell is caused by magic. Therefore, somebody cannot use Shield Other to protect you from damage you take as a result of casting Shield Other on someone else.

Otherwise, two Clerics could just cast Shield Other on each other, and the universe would explode when you tried to figure out what happens when somebody attacks them.

[legionof1]

Possibly, " the subject takes only half damage from all wounds and attacks". depends on if the damage to cleric one is an considered an attack. I would be inclined to say no. But definitive language is lacking.

From a play viewpoint i would not particularly care total suffered damage remains constant and 2 spells burned to modify who receives it.

[grarrrg]

Cleric 1 casts Shield Other on the Barbarian. Cleric 2 Casts Shield Other on Cleric 1. When Barbarian takes 40 pts of damage, Cl1 takes 20 of that and Cl2 takes 10 of the 20 from Cl1.

To get around what the others have said, I'd say have both Clerics cast Shield Other directly on the Barbarian.

Going by a logical progression:
Barbarian is attacked for 40, Shield Other 1 kicks in, and redirects 20 damage to Cleric 1, then Shield Other 2 kicks in, and redirects 10 (half of the remaining damage) to Cleric 2.

In your example, the damage would be Barb 20, Cleric1 10, Cleric2 10.
My example is Barbarian 10, Cleric1 20, Cleric2 10.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

To get around what the others have said, I'd say have both Clerics cast Shield Other directly on the Barbarian.

I actually think that wouldn't work due to the rule against stacking an effect twice. I don't think Steve's Shield Other and Stacy's Shield Other are suffieciently different to allow them to layer like that.

However I'm pretty sure it does work the way the OP wants it to. The wording is awkward so I admit there is wiggle room to deny the transfer, but it's similar to Share Pain's wording and Share Pain chaining is a necesary peice to the Omnicificer.

[Heliomance]

Yeah, that won't work because the Shield Other spell only protects from hit point damage caused by "wounds and attacks (including that dealt by special abilities)," while the damage dealt BY the Shield Other spell is caused by magic. Therefore, somebody cannot use Shield Other to protect you from damage you take as a result of casting Shield Other on someone else.

Otherwise, two Clerics could just cast Shield Other on each other, and the universe would explode when you tried to figure out what happens when somebody attacks them.

The sum to infinity is relatively easy to work out, actually - the first one hit would take two thirds of the damage, and the other one would take one third.

[Curmudgeon]

It doesn't work, for two reasons:

Magic stacking rules say duplicates of the same magical effect don't add anything.
The spell says what the effect is:
Additionally, the subject takes only half damage from all wounds and attacks (including that dealt by special abilities) that deal hit point damage. Regardless of how many castings are in effect, the subject takes half damage from all wounds and attacks. There's no provision for any fraction other than one half.

[Heliomance]

It doesn't work, for two reasons:

Magic stacking rules say duplicates of the same magical effect don't add anything.
The spell says what the effect is: Regardless of how many castings are in effect, the subject takes half damage from all wounds and attacks. There's no provision for any fraction other than one half.


That second point is irrelevant - you're not taking a different fraction to a half, you're halving the half damage that you took.

You're probably right that it doesn't work because of magic stacking, but saying there's no provision for taking other fractions of damage is not a salient point.

[Gnome Alone]

Otherwise, two Clerics could just cast Shield Other on each other, and the universe would explode when you tried to figure out what happens when somebody attacks them.

Geekiest version of Zeno's Paradox I ever saw.

[Segev]

How do you claim that the damage taken by the redirection of Shield Other to you is not a "wound?"

If it's "magic," how is it different from the hp damage caused by MAgic Missile? Are we saying that spells which cause damage bypass Shield Other?

[Curmudgeon]

That second point is irrelevant - you're not taking a different fraction to a half, you're halving the half damage that you took.
Either you take damage or you don't. What gets through a Shield Other spell is half the damage of the wound/attack. The spell's output is not a new wound/attack.

[1pwny]

Either you take damage or you don't. What gets through a Shield Other spell is half the damage of the wound/attack. The spell's output is not a new wound/attack.

Yes, but I think the point they're making is that Shield Other, as an ability, goes on the stack. So it would go like this:

Cleric 1 would take 20 damage.
Cleric 2's Shield Other triggers.
Cleric 2 would take 10 damage.
Cleric 1's Shield Other triggers.
Cleric 1 would take 5 damage.
Cleric 2's Shield Other triggers.
Cleric 2 would take 2.5 damage.
Cleric 1's Shield Other triggers.
Cleric 1 would take 1.25 damage.
Cleric 2's Shield Other triggers.
Cleric 2 would take 0.625 damage.
Cleric 1's Shield Other triggers.


And on and on. Heliomance said that the damage, when plugged into a series and solved, turns out to be 13.3333333333 and 6.66666666666 to Cleric 1 and Cleric 2 respectively.

[Curmudgeon]

Yes, but I think the point they're making is that Shield Other, as an ability, goes on the stack.
There's no stack. There's the damage from the wound/attack, and thereafter it's not from the wound/attack: it's from Shield Other instead.

[Heliomance]

There's no stack. There's the damage from the wound/attack, and thereafter it's not from the wound/attack: it's from Shield Other instead.

And Shield Other causes wounds.

[Duke of Urrel]

Additionally, the subject takes only half damage from all wounds and attacks (including that dealt by special abilities) that deal hit point damage. The amount of damage not taken by the warded creature is taken by you.

The phrase "all wounds" seems to refer to anything that can cause a wound, including the Shield Other spell. I don't know how to avoid KillianHawkeye's paradox, except by a house rule. A similar paradox is avoided by the rule that prevents two Antimagic Fields from having any effect on each other.

There's another point to make about the text above. Following the usual rule that any fraction must be dropped, "only half damage" may actually be less than half of an odd number of Hit-Points. Consequently, the "amount of damage not taken by the warded creature," which the cleric must accept, may be more than half. For example, if you cast the Shield Other spell upon a comrade and she takes 5 Hit-Points of damage, the spell reduces her damage to 2 Hit-Points and inflicts 3 Hit-Points upon you.

[Extra Anchovies]

And Shield Other causes wounds.

All wounds cause hit point damage.

Not all hit point damage is caused by wounds.

It's a squares-and-rectangles type of setup.

[Duke of Urrel]

All wounds cause hit point damage.

Not all hit point damage is caused by wounds.

It's a squares-and-rectangles type of setup.

It's true that not all Hit-Point damage is caused by wounding, but wounding, in the magical world of D&D, is not caused exclusively by physical trauma. There is also magical trauma, such as that which is produced by the Inflict Light Wounds spell etc. I believe the Shield Other spell is a spell of this kind, because its own description says that it transfers wounds.

[icefractal]

I don't really see a problem with the "Clerics shielding each-other" thing. I mean technically it's an infinite series, but in practice it just means that the original takes 2/3 of the damage and the other takes 1/3. And anyone watching with Arcane Sight sees an impressive arc of magic between the two.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

I mean technically it's an infinite series

Not even technically. D&D has a release valve for fractions in the form of forced rounding. 1 hp is literally the smallest unit of hp damage possible. 20>10>5>3>2>1.

[kernal42]

Not even technically. D&D has a release valve for fractions in the form of forced rounding. 1 hp is literally the smallest unit of hp damage possible. 20>10>5>3>2>1.

You're rounding up (half of 5 equals 3), so half of 1 equals 1. The correct series would therefore be:
20>10>5>3>2>1>1>1>1>1>1>1>1........

Or you can round down:
20>10>5>2>1

Do the rules clarify rounding up or down?

[Extra Anchovies]

You're rounding up (half of 5 equals 3), so half of 1 equals 1. The correct series would therefore be:
20>10>5>3>2>1>1>1>1>1>1>1>1........

Or you can round down:
20>10>5>2>1

Do the rules clarify rounding up or down?

They say to almost always round down, but damage (among other things) is minimum 1. This seems like it would lead to the first situation. However, the above series aren't describing a number of separate HP losses, but are the calculations for a single HP loss (this works since Shield Other triggers at the moment the damage is taken, rather than immediately after). Since there's already at least 1 HP being lost, the second series is correct.

[grarrrg]

Do the rules clarify rounding up or down?
They say to almost always round down

Pretty sure the question was specifically about how Shield Other is worded:
"the subject takes only half damage from all wounds and attacks (including that dealt by special abilities) that deal hit point damage. The amount of damage not taken by the warded creature is taken by you."


damage (among other things) is minimum 1.
And if you want to get _really_ technical, only damage rolls are minimum 1 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#roundingFractions), damage that is not tied to a roll has no such minimum. :smalltongue:

This means that the target of the spell gets to use the 'always round down' rule, and the caster winds up with 'damage(round up)'.
In the case of 2 Clerics targeting each other, this would result in an endless loop, as that last HP would always get passed on.
So let's just go ahead and apply the 'minimum 1 damage', that way whoever the "first" to be assigned that last 1 is stuck with it.

[Extra Anchovies]

Pretty sure the question was specifically about how Shield Other is worded:
"the subject takes only half damage from all wounds and attacks (including that dealt by special abilities) that deal hit point damage. The amount of damage not taken by the warded creature is taken by you."

From the SRD:

Rounding Fractions
In general, if you wind up with a fraction, round down, even if the fraction is one-half or larger.

Exception: Certain rolls, such as damage and hit points, have a minimum of 1.
Shield Other doesn't mention rounding, and is thus subject to the general rule (and its exception; if you cast Shield Other and your target would take only 1 point of damage, you take it instead).

[thompur]

You're rounding up (half of 5 equals 3), so half of 1 equals 1. The correct series would therefore be:
20>10>5>3>2>1>1>1>1>1>1>1>1........

Or you can round down:
20>10>5>2>1

Do the rules clarify rounding up or down?
If it did work that way, wouldn't the second "1" and each subsequent "1" be non-lethal damage?

[grarrrg]

Shield Other doesn't mention rounding, and is thus subject to the general rule (and its exception; if you cast Shield Other and your target would take only 1 point of damage, you take it instead).

Dude. That is pretty much exactly what I said in my last post.

[Segev]

I always run it thusly, if it comes up: Cleric A is subjected to 20 damage, and thus takes 10 and Cleric 1 is subjected to 10. Cleric 1 takes 5 of those, and Cleric A is subjected to 5. Cleric A takes 2 of those (rounding down is nice, here!), and Cleric 1 is subjected to 2 of those (again, rounding down is nice!). Cleric 1 takes 1 of those, and Cleric A is subjected to 1, which he doesn't take because it rounds down to zero when halved.

So Cleric A has taken 10+2 = 12, and Cleric 1 has taken 5+1 = 6. The rounding has actually worked out in their favor, causing 2 of the 20 hp (that's 10% of it!) to be taken by nobody.

[KillianHawkeye]

If it did work that way, wouldn't the second "1" and each subsequent "1" be non-lethal damage?

Where did you get this idea? There is no provision being discussed which would transform lethal damage into nonlethal damage. :smallconfused:

[thompur]

Where did you get this idea? There is no provision being discussed which would transform lethal damage into nonlethal damage. :smallconfused:

I's't there a rule that says that any damage that is reduced to less than 1 hp does 1 hp of non-lethal? or is that only for instances where the attacker has a penalty to damage like 1d3-2 and a hit will result in 1 lethal hp or 1 non-lethal hp. Or does that only work that way for "mundane" damage.

[SinsI]

What if one of the clerics is an Animated Object that has Hardness? How would it affect Shield Other?

[Studoku]

I's't there a rule that says that any damage that is reduced to less than 1 hp does 1 hp of non-lethal? or is that only for instances where the attacker has a penalty to damage like 1d3-2 and a hit will result in 1 lethal hp or 1 non-lethal hp. Or does that only work that way for "mundane" damage.
Not in the core rules or anything I've heard of.

Either this is very obscure or it's a house rule.

[thompur]

Not in the core rules or anything I've heard of.

Either this is very obscure or it's a house rule.

Maybe it's a Pathfinder thing.

[grarrrg]

I always run it thusly, if it comes up: Cleric A is subjected to 20 damage, and thus takes 10 and Cleric 1 is subjected to 10. Cleric 1 takes 5 of those, and Cleric A is subjected to 5. Cleric A takes 2 of those (rounding down is nice, here!), and Cleric 1 is subjected to 2 of those (again, rounding down is nice!). Cleric 1 takes 1 of those, and Cleric A is subjected to 1, which he doesn't take because it rounds down to zero when halved.

So Cleric A has taken 10+2 = 12, and Cleric 1 has taken 5+1 = 6. The rounding has actually worked out in their favor, causing 2 of the 20 hp (that's 10% of it!) to be taken by nobody.

Reread the spell.
"the subject takes only half damage from all wounds and attacks...The amount of damage not taken by the warded creature is taken by you"
The 'target' takes half damage, and gets to benefit from the round-down. The Caster takes 'whatever is left'.

If it said "target and caster each take half of the damage" then you would be correct, but they worded it so that you can't gain any 'reduced damage' by rounding.

[Stygofthedump]

so a party of 5 clerics all casting on each of the other 4... DM bans the spell?

[SinsI]

so a party of 5 clerics all casting on each of the other 4... DM bans the spell?
I'd rule that each of them receives 1/5 of the damage

[grarrrg]

so a party of 5 clerics all casting on each of the other 4... DM bans the spell?

DM sends a flying DMG at one of the players.
Then the DM tells them to hit each other enough times to "even things out".