Topic: 1st lvl Shield Spell Questions

[providence13]

1. Does parrying a missile attack use 50%Act with this spell? Although it doesn't occupy a hand, it's used just like a normal shield.
My guess would be "no", but I wanted to ask around.

2. Is the shield from a Shield Spell subject to breakage from Shield Breaker weapons/magical effects? That could be a possibility..
Maybe an RR.

[markc]

1 and 2) No.
MDC

[Ecthelion]

1. Does parrying a missile attack use 50%Act with this spell? Although it doesn't occupy a hand, it's used just like a normal shield.
My guess would be "no", but I wanted to ask around.

I'd say yes. It does not occupy a hand, but just like with parrying normal weapons the character has to concentrate and spend activity.

2. Is the shield from a Shield Spell subject to breakage from Shield Breaker weapons/magical effects? That could be a possibility..
Maybe an RR.

I'd suggest making an RR in such cases.

[yammahoper]

1) yes.  it works as a notmal shield but requires no hands.

2) yes, it can break.  any crit indicating shield breakage would be resolved just as if a magic shiled were struck, an rr versus weapons level.  The shield spell would resist at the level of the caster.  A magic shield resist at the spell level needed to make it.

[markc]

1) The spell is an area of force that deflects in coming attacks, it takes no hands, AFAIK you cannot direct the spell to block specific attacks it blocks all attacks.
2) The description of the spell says it functions like a shield it does not summon a shield. As such it is a magical construct or plane of force and not subject to enchantment of shield breaker.


Yammahopper, Ecthelion
Q) What if the shield spell had a different name such as Attack Blocker, would the Shield Breaker enchantment still have a chance to break it in your game?  What about magical walls of any type?


MDC

[yammahoper]

lvl 3 mentalism attack avoidance, sheild: creates an invisible force sheild in front of the caster.  This functions as a normal sheild...except it does not occupy a hand.  This spell cannot be combined with a real sheild.

If it was an area of force, it probably could be combined with a sheild.  The spell you dscribe would make a great level 15-25 spell.

It IS a sheild, but a sheild of force.  It can be broken imo.

[providence13]

Thanks everyone.

If I had a physical shield, I could determine which of 2 attackers it blocks.
If the Shield spell acts as a normal shield, it should be similar. In that case, I can determine which attack it blocks.

I'm liking the idea of 50%Act vs Missiles...

[Ecthelion]

1) The spell is an area of force that deflects in coming attacks, it takes no hands, AFAIK you cannot direct the spell to block specific attacks it blocks all attacks.

It "functions as a normal shield" says the spell description. Therefore I would assume that it can be directed to intercept incoming attacks, just like a normal shield.

2) The description of the spell says it functions like a shield it does not summon a shield. As such it is a magical construct or plane of force and not subject to enchantment of shield breaker.

IMO that is debatable, which is why, in my first posting, I wrote that I'd "suggest" making an RR.

Yammahopper, Ecthelion
Q) What if the shield spell had a different name such as Attack Blocker, would the Shield Breaker enchantment still have a chance to break it in your game?  What about magical walls of any type?

In the end this would depend on the spell description of your "Attack Blocker" spell. The "Shield" spell explicitly states that the shield "functions as a normal shield". Thus it could even be subject to breakage like a normal shield. For other spells this could certainly be differently.

[Grinnen Baeritt]

I'd agree with mark here.

It's magic not a physical shield, more a magical barrier that has the same defensive bonus as a normal shield and can cover against the same number of (basically frontal) attacks, if the caster turns then the effect rotates with him. No concentration required and no control over it's useage thus no activity required.

Yes it's discription is subject to debate but in the absence of wording otherwise that does specifically state that an actual physical item being generated (or being augmented) like the slightly higher spell "Enchanted Shield", I'd plump for a simple force.

[yammahoper]

I disagree with an indestructable force generated by a low level spell.  The advantage of getting an rr when a critical demands the destruction of a shield when non magical shields doesn't is enough.

Still, I could live with either definition.  As a player I would prefer the unbreakable option.

[markc]

  IIRC now, in the past working with Rasyr the above question was discussed for quite sometime. The idea at the time IIRC was to get a good spell description to fix all of the various problems that arise from it lack of description in SL.
  At this time I do not remember what was decided as to what worked vs. the shield spell and what did not work.


 IMHO if you can direct the shield created by the spell then you would need some % activity to do so as opposed to it protecting a facing.


Hope that helps.
MDC

[Kristen Mork]

1. Does parrying a missile attack use 50%Act with this spell? Although it doesn't occupy a hand, it's used just like a normal shield.
My guess would be "no", but I wanted to ask around.

Who knew this would be such a contentious topic!  In my opinion, any restrictions that you place on a shield (e.g., parrying a missile attack requires 50% activity) should be placed on a shield spell.  I don't use that rule, but if I did it would apply to normal shields and to the shield spell.

Basically, a shield spell protects against one attack of your choosing.

Mark: Blocking all attacks is a significant bonus for a low level spell.  Most low-level defensive spells provide +10 to DB.  Your interpretation makes the shield spell +25 to DB (since it effects all attacks).  So, I disagree simply from the perspective of game balance.

Yamma: I agree that a low level spell shouldn't create an indestructible force; that's ripe for abuse by clever players.  I don't have a problem with shield breaker spells/effects/whatnot being used to get rid of a shield spell.  The basic benefits of the spell are a) no weight and b) doesn't occupy a hand.  That seems like enough of a benefit.

[MariusH]

1) I say it functions as a "normal shield" in this respect. To me, that means it can be used against one attack (we also allow it against all attacks from one opponent, and in rare cases against several attack from the same position, like both a wolf and the orc riding the wolf). No extra activity for using the SHIELD BONUS (+25) against a missile attack, but then you can't use it against another attack that round. For an ordinary shield, the shield can only be used against attacks on your "shield side", that should probably be the case for the spell as well.

IN ADDITION, the spell, just like any other shield, allows you to missile parry. To me, that's something ELSE than applying your shield against an attack. For example, in melee, we allow players to use the shield against one opponent, and attack/parry with the weapon against another opponent. The opponent you use the shield against, could very well be using missile. MISSILE PARRY is when you PARRY an incoming missile attack, by reducing your OB. It is MINIMUM a 50% activity. I say if you only use 50%, you can parry with 50% of your OB, if you want to use 100% of your OB, it takes 100% activity.

2) I think I'd only allow magical effects to destroy a shield spell.

[providence13]

I disagree with an indestructable force generated by a low level spell.  The advantage of getting an rr when a critical demands the destruction of a shield when non magical shields doesn't is enough.

I've been studying TreasureCo lately and that was part of the reason for my original post. For Weapon IV Effects: Armor and Shield Slayer, non-magic items save as 1st lvl. This is against a 25th lvl spell for Weapon IV, so the chance of actually making the RR is pretty slim.
As you say, the Shield spell is only first lvl, which led me to believe that it isn't any stronger than a normal, mundane shield. But I'm not telling you how to play. 
We play making the roll vs. the caster's lvl or for us, the level based on number of Ranks in that List.

Now if you meant  normal crits resulting in shield/weapon broken, we roll vs Breakage. But that might be a HR.

[providence13]

As to the awesome power of the Shield spell..
I just saw 20. Rune of Dancing under Bladerunes, Closed Arcane.

"when placed on a shield.. full effect of shield without occupying a hand.
1 rnd/lvl"

it's equal to a 20th lvl spell.

[Marc R]

heh, the use of that rune on a weapon is a bit more nasty. .

on the flip side, the spell shield has no break factor, so you can use it on howitzer shells without losing it.

[providence13]

OK, I waited to see if someone would bring it up.

"acts as a normal shield (subtracting 25 from appropriate attacks, etc)"

wait for it..

Then you should also be able to make a blunt weapon attack with it.
Shield Bash. 
You wouldn't be able to see it coming.
That should definitely require 60 to 100%Act just like a melee attack.
The range could only be normal melee, but your hands are free..
Also, it has no encumbrance and it can't be dropped.

[markc]

 IMHO you would have to also include the dancing weapon rune to have the shield attack. IMHO When it says acts as a shield in the text it is assuming you use it defensively only.
MDC

[Marc R]

There's been discussion of if you could us the shield spell to bash, or ram with it. . .or the more creative angle of "Can I chop people up with the edge of my little force field shield?". . .I think all said efforts got a "no" officially.

I might allow it to be used to block something, not sure, GM call wise. . .like if rats are pouring out of a hole in the wall and you cover it with your shield to stop them from doing so. . .but even that's off-text use of the spell.

[markc]

I might allow it to be used to block something, not sure, GM call wise. . .like if rats are pouring out of a hole in the wall and you cover it with your shield to stop them from doing so. . .but even that's off-text use of the spell.

 Yes for this stuff IMHO it would be more wall like as it is stuck to your side (R or L) as a shield would be. IMHO it is also more force like and that you could move through it with effort. So I would rule that the rats could move through the "Shield Spell Wall" with a maneuver roll. If they seceded with the insane spell mastery number I assigned to the task. Much easier trying to cast a spell above your level then bending a lower spell to do stuff it is not designed to do, IMHO.


MDC