RAW silliness: shieldbearer spell

[Dimers]

The Spell Compendium spell shieldbearer (Sorc/Wiz, 1st level) targets a touched shield. It makes the shield stay floating near a person you choose, granting its AC bonus to that person.

The spell doesn't specify the shield has to be unattended or in the party's possession, and there's no save or SR. So unintended consequence #1 is getting to use your enemy's equipment. Thanks for bringing us that present, buddy! The spell doesn't specify a touch attack roll is necessary, so I guess it's not.

The spell doesn't remove the shield from whoever was holding it before -- unintended consequence #2, it can provide the AC bonus to two creatures (or more, if it's cast multiple times). That's good if an ally was using it, bad if an enemy was.

If the original bearer of the shield refuses to let go of it, apparently she has to stay within 1 foot of the chosen ally, unintended consequence #3. Pretty nice lockdown for a level 1 spell with no save or SR.

And here's where we start to get into Dysfunctional-Rules-thread territory. It's apparently left up to DM adjudication what happens when the beneficiary moves away from someone holding the shield. Walking away is one thing, but teleporting? Earthgliding? For that matter, what happens to the shield itself when the benficiary goes somewhere the shield is physically incapable of moving or "floating", as with earthglide? One aspect of shieldbearer already got entered (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?283778-Dysfunctional-Rules-III-100-Rules-Legal-110-Silly/page14) in thread number three, so I'm reluctant to revisit the issue in another thread. Feels like poaching someone else's territory.

[Saintheart]

Handy spell to get a ruling on if anyone wants the AC of a tower shield but doesn't want to suck up the -2 to combat rolls that it imposes. The -2 comes from encumbrance, which your aren't suffering since you aren't wearing it.

Alternatively, exotic shields now provide their AC benefits without a feat.

Or if you can persist it, handy for casters who want AC. No arcane spell failure chance because you're not wearing it, you're not "treated as" wearing it, it adds a shield bonus to your AC "as if" you were wearing it. All the benefits, none of the drawbacks.

[Dimers]

If the GM allows custom magic items, you don't even have to go through the trouble of persisting it. 8000gp gives you the effect as a continual item -- unlike with weapons, there's no "dancing" shield enchantment to compare the price against. But that's a different category of unintended consequences, one that comes with a lot more RAW caveats.

[Ignimortis]

If the GM allows custom magic items, you don't even have to go through the trouble of persisting it. 8000gp gives you the effect as a continual item -- unlike with weapons, there's no "dancing" shield enchantment to compare the price against. But that's a different category of unintended consequences, one that comes with a lot more RAW caveats.

Yes, there is. Animated shield is in the SRD and it's far worse than this: +2 bonus price, only frees up a hand and doesn't free you from the consequences of wearing a shield, such as ASF, ACP, and so on.

[Dimers]

Hah, I thought I remembered an enchantment like that. I only looked for the name "dancing" and didn't notice "animated" in the list.

[loky1109]

Do you wanna silliness?
Cast it on the Shield guardian. )))

[bekeleven]

The Spell Compendium spell shieldbearer (Sorc/Wiz, 1st level) targets a touched shield.
[...]
The spell doesn't specify a touch attack roll is necessary, so I guess it's not.

Ok but I feel like you just answered your own question here.


You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

[Dimers]

See, that would be reasonable, but I couldn't find support for it in RAW. I mean, since you're not targeting the opponent, just an item they happen to be holding. Maybe there's a clarification in the Rules Compendium? I don't own that.

[daremetoidareyo]

I think we should take a moment to address the beetle buckler in the room, cuz it says something delightful I bet

[sleepyphoenixx]

See, that would be reasonable, but I couldn't find support for it in RAW. I mean, since you're not targeting the opponent, just an item they happen to be holding. Maybe there's a clarification in the Rules Compendium? I don't own that.

The general rules for attacking a held or worn item are covered under the Sunder special attack.



You don’t use an opposed attack roll to damage a carried or worn object. Instead, just make an attack roll against the object’s AC. A carried or worn object’s AC is equal to 10 + its size modifier + the Dexterity modifier of the carrying or wearing character. Attacking a carried or worn object provokes an attack of opportunity just as attacking a held object does. To attempt to snatch away an item worn by a defender rather than damage it, see Disarm. You can’t sunder armor worn by another character.

[Dimers]

It's not described as an attack in the spell text, it's not an attempt to damage or destroy the item, and it's not even necessarily an attempt to "snatch away" an item -- perhaps keeping the shield-wearer next to the beneficiary is exactly what you want.

Don't get me wrong, I think a touch attack roll is an appropriate ruling (if you're even allowing the spell's other RAW-ridiculousness), I'm just not yet convinced the rules demand it.

[sleepyphoenixx]

It's not described as an attack in the spell text, it's not an attempt to damage or destroy the item, and it's not even necessarily an attempt to "snatch away" an item -- perhaps keeping the shield-wearer next to the beneficiary is exactly what you want.

Don't get me wrong, I think a touch attack roll is an appropriate ruling (if you're even allowing the spell's other RAW-ridiculousness), I'm just not yet convinced the rules demand it.

That's in the general rules for spell effects:

Attacks

Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents are considered attacks. Attempts to turn or rebuke undead count as attacks. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don’t harm anyone.

Trying to cast Shieldbearer on your opponents shield is clearly an attempt to hamper him, so it's an attack.

[Dimers]

I'll buy that. Good catch. :smallcool: