Just an FYI Bernid as a sometime DM of yours, I'd be zapping that Spirit Companion with Fire Shield and imposing the appropriate effects if the damage kills the SC.
The Spirit Companion isn't intended to make the character immune to things like Fire Shield imo, but rather make an interesting dynamic for a character that is different from other leaders (especially the PHB1 ones). So if you make OA's on a peep with a Fire Shield you should be taking the consequences of making such an attack.
And no a CS response carries very little weight with me, they are simply contradictory to often.
Spirit companions don't have hit points and have no rules for anything at all happening to them except for melee and ranged attacks. Personally, I think this is a bad decision and it actually led to me not using a spirit companion character for a few levels to avoid the cheesiness, but there you go. Your ruling doesn't matter for CS, it's explicitly against the rules for conjurations. Some groups would be cool with it, some aren't, but you're in the wrong if you get in an argument over it at a table.
So if you want the Fire Shield to still have an impact on the character, damage the Shaman. He's making a melee attack, after all. It's a little odd, but similar to the case of fire shield triggering on someone using an eldritch blade to melee attack from 5 squares away. I'd suggest describing it as fiery feedback similar to the feedback he takes from the spirit itself dying. And at least follows _some_ rule as written.
Keith Richmond Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
I wrote CS about the whole issue that the conjuration rules text says it creates an object or creature out of arcane energy. The gist of the conversation was this:
Me: You guys said it's a conjuration, not a creature, but the conjuration rules say a conjuration creates an object or a creature. So, a spirit companion is or is not a creature?
CS: The FAQ says a Spirit Companion is a conjuration, not a creature.
Me: Ok. You do realize that this FAQ entry flies in the face of the conjuration rules text in every publication it's been in, right?
CS: Umm... we sent this to the developers, hopefully we'll see a FAQ entry or update on it.
[line goes dead]
Heh.
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e?
1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
I wrote CS about the whole issue that the conjuration rules text says it creates an object or creature out of arcane energy. The gist of the conversation was this:
Me: You guys said it's a conjuration, not a creature,m but the conjuration rules say a conjuration creates an object or a creature. So, a spirit companion is or is not a creature.
CS: The FAQ says a Spirit Companion is a conjuration, not a creature.
Me: Ok. You do realize that this FAQ entry flies in the face of the conjuration rules text in every publication it's been in, right?
CS: Umm... we sent this to the developers, hopefully we'll see a FAQ entry or update on it.
[line goes dead]
Heh.
It's definately a problem with a keyword base rules system. It's the same problem in a lot of CCGs (White Wolf's V:tES is the worst for it that I know of in CCG land)
Personally I think they should have avoided the use of keywords like "Creature" or "Object" in the conjuration description and described them as something like a being or entity of pure energy.
As far as I can see there's no reference to "being" or "entity" as keywords in 4th ed. That would remove some of the confusion around them.
Spirit companions don't have hit points and have no rules for anything at all happening to them except for melee and ranged attacks. Personally, I think this is a bad decision and it actually led to me not using a spirit companion character for a few levels to avoid the cheesiness, but there you go. Your ruling doesn't matter for CS, it's explicitly against the rules for conjurations. Some groups would be cool with it, some aren't, but you're in the wrong if you get in an argument over it at a table.
So if you want the Fire Shield to still have an impact on the character, damage the Shaman. He's making a melee attack, after all. It's a little odd, but similar to the case of fire shield triggering on someone using an eldritch blade to melee attack from 5 squares away. I'd suggest describing it as fiery feedback similar to the feedback he takes from the spirit itself dying. And at least follows _some_ rule as written.
Actually my ruling I posted follows the part of the conjuration rules where it says that a conjuration creates an object or a creature. The Spirit Companion takes the form of a creature in all descriptive text, I've never seen it alluded to as a stick....sorry object. Use of words like "being" also imply creature. So I'm ruling it is a creature. (Part 1 of ruling)
So taking the text of fire shield - "Whenever a creature makes a melee attack roll against you" and saying the Spirit Companion is a creature which has explicit rules for its defences, and how it interacts with damage and the environment (ie the exceptions), the issue is reduced to "who takes the damage?"
The answer I give - the Spirit Companion (part 2 of ruling) - follows IMO the intent of the Spirit Compnaion (to go into melee rather than the Shaman), and creates less stretch of the funciton of the interacting powers than applying the damage directly to the Shaman, or negating the Fire Shield entirely (granting to much boon imo to the Spirit COmpanion).
Fortunatly I would also be happy to let the Player of a Shaman take back the OA or whatever rather than just enforce the ruling on them, if they were not aware of my thoughts before hand. (And as Benird knows where to find me if he wants to change my mind before a game I figure he will let me know if there is a problem )
Actually my ruling I posted follows the part of the conjuration rules where it says that a conjuration creates an object or a creature. The Spirit Companion takes the form of a creature in all descriptive text, I've never seen it alluded to as a stick....sorry object. Use of words like "being" also imply creature. So I'm ruling it is a creature. (Part 1 of ruling)
So taking the text of fire shield - "Whenever a creature makes a melee attack roll against you" and saying the Spirit Companion is a creature which has explicit rules for its defences, and how it interacts with damage and the environment (ie the exceptions), the issue is reduced to "who takes the damage?"
The answer I give - the Spirit Companion (part 2 of ruling) - follows IMO the intent of the Spirit Compnaion (to go into melee rather than the Shaman), and creates less stretch of the funciton of the interacting powers than applying the damage directly to the Shaman, or negating the Fire Shield entirely (granting to much boon imo to the Spirit COmpanion).
And that's fine... but the problem is that damage from any source other than a melee or ranged attack literally does nothing to the spirit companion. The conjuration 'lacks hit points' per RAW. So expect the shaman to nod and go 'Okay, it's fine' just like if you tried to tell a wizard that his Flaming Sphere took damage from something. I don't _like_ that, but it is still the case. Similarly, it's immune to damage for starting in an aura, ongoing damage in any way, an attack that 'pushes' the spirit companion doesn't work, etc... conjurations are currently working very stupidly in the rules. In a home game I'd be inclined to work with a shaman player (or work with a DM if I played a shaman - I'm currently avoiding the class) so that the whole thing made sense for everyone involved, maybe move it towards something closer to the beastmaster ranger's companion.
But, in LFR, that's not the case. So I might feel free to discuss conjuration stuff with a player beforehand (and have, in one group) and say how I'd like certain things to work out, but knowingly go against the rules that you do clearly know, with or without a CS ruling, expressly against the wish of the player, just because you don't like it? No. Bad. Have a discussion with the player, meeting of minds, rule appropriately, or don't DM for that character.
Keith Richmond Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
And that's fine... but the problem is that damage from any source other than a melee or ranged attack literally does nothing to the spirit companion.
It is not entirely unreasonable to assume the damage from fire shield is a melee attack. After all, it is caused by a melee attack. I do not care in particular whether the companion takes the damage fro fireshield specifially though I lean to ruling it does), but I do think it is silly to assume it is not a creature.
Conjurations are objects or creatures (iml), so (imo) a spirit companion is a creature.
And consider the consequences if we rule it isnt: if I have a NPC shaman, no PC can harm the companion, since all PC powers target creatures.
It is not entirely unreasonable to assume the damage from fire shield is a melee attack. After all, it is caused by a melee attack.
It is unreasonable to assume it's a melee attack. Those are keyworded rules terms. It also needs to be targeted by the attack, which it wasn't. If it's any consolation, it also takes no damage from dancing on lava. Yes, I understand and sympathize that you really want the ruling that fire shield applies to work and in the thematic way you desire, but stretching with things like 'it might be a melee attack' doesn't work.
I do not care in particular whether the companion takes the damage fro fireshield specifially though I lean to ruling it does), but I do think it is silly to assume it is not a creature.
Yeah, it's fine for it to be a creature. Whether it's a creature has nothing to do with whether fire shield works, though
And consider the consequences if we rule it isnt: if I have a NPC shaman, no PC can harm the companion, since all PC powers target creatures.
Do you think that PCs can't harm doors, since they're not creatures?
Keith Richmond Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
And that's fine... but the problem is that damage from any source other than a melee or ranged attack literally does nothing to the spirit companion. The conjuration 'lacks hit points' per RAW. So expect the shaman to nod and go 'Okay, it's fine' just like if you tried to tell a wizard that his Flaming Sphere took damage from something. I don't _like_ that, but it is still the case. Similarly, it's immune to damage for starting in an aura, ongoing damage in any way, an attack that 'pushes' the spirit companion doesn't work, etc... conjurations are currently working very stupidly in the rules. In a home game I'd be inclined to work with a shaman player (or work with a DM if I played a shaman - I'm currently avoiding the class) so that the whole thing made sense for everyone involved, maybe move it towards something closer to the beastmaster ranger's companion.
But, in LFR, that's not the case. So I might feel free to discuss conjuration stuff with a player beforehand (and have, in one group) and say how I'd like certain things to work out, but knowingly go against the rules that you do clearly know, with or without a CS ruling, expressly against the wish of the player, just because you don't like it? No. Bad. Have a discussion with the player, meeting of minds, rule appropriately, or don't DM for that character.
This was what I argued at the time and why it was decided that the Fire Shield didn't affectthe spirit.
The keyword on the fire Shield power is Personal and so therefore is neither a melee nor a ranged attack and therefore may not affect the spirit. It the fire Shiled power had text like, "Make a melee attack against a creature who hit you with a melle attack. This attack automaticly hits." Then it could be argued about whether a conguration is a creature or not, which CS has stated a number of times consistently that they're not.
Calite and I can take this up off the forum though since we're both in the same play group.
No, it is perfectly reasonable. It is not actually stated what the attack is. That may have been an oversight. so it is reasonable to make an assumption on the type of attack. One can assume it was ment to be an melee attack (there is no data to say it is, but neither is there data to say it isn't - fater all it is not defined as ranged, area, close burst, or close blast either). That assumption may be wrong, but it is not unreasonable.
Yes, I understand and sympathize that you really want the ruling that fire shield applies to work
No, I don't care much. I *think* it is logical for it to work, mostly on the basis that the function of the fireshield is to disuade craetures to attack. I may be wrong, but I am not trusting CS to give a proper ruling.
Do you think that PCs can't harm doors, since they're not creatures?
Well, since this whole discussion is only focused on the RAW, I guess they wouldn't.
No, it is perfectly reasonable. It is not actually stated what the attack is. That may have been an oversight. so it is reasonable to make an assumption on the type of attack. One can assume it was ment to be an melee attack (there is no data to say it is, but neither is there data to say it isn't - fater all it is not defined as ranged, area, close burst, or close blast either). That assumption may be wrong, but it is not unreasonable.
I guess I was not clear. Fire Shield is not an attack at all. Ie, abilities which trigger off of someone being subject to an attack, or a melee attack, will _never_ trigger off someone taking damage from a fire shield. As a helpful hint, the relevant keywords are 'Melee' and 'Attack', and the lack thereof speaks volumes.
Yes, I understand and sympathize that you really want the ruling that fire shield applies to work
No, I don't care much. I *think* it is logical for it to work, mostly on the basis that the function of the fireshield is to disuade craetures to attack. I may be wrong, but I am not trusting CS to give a proper ruling.
There are some interesting things that can or can't be figured out about this, but it is literally _impossible_ for fire shield to do anything to a shaman conjuration, whether CS rules or not. The same applies, fwiw, to chillborn auras, dragon breath, beholder explosions, abyssal horde ghoul explosions, and any number of abilities. Anything that is not a melee or ranged attack, basically. Including, for ref, an ability that was 'An enemy within 10 squares takes one billion damage'. Shaman conjurations have the following rule: 'The spirit can be targeted by melee or ranged attacks, although it lacks hit points. If a single melee or ranged attack deals damage to the spirit equal to 10 + one-half your level or higher, the spirit disappears, and you take damage equal to 5 + one-half your level. Otherwise, the spirit is unaffected by the attack.' Other than that, they may only be affected by abilities that target conjurations. Like Dispel Magic and a bare smattering of other abilities.
They're particularly frustrating at low level where entire sets of creatures can't do anything to them, even on a crit. And they can't even bull rush the conjuration out of the way.
Do you think that PCs can't harm doors, since they're not creatures?
Well, since this whole discussion is only focused on the RAW, I guess they wouldn't.
Heh. There is actually a difference between normal DMing - such as deciding which objects can or can't be attacked (that being up to the DM), how many hp they have, etc, and completely ignoring the rules for certain things. Basically having fire shield damage a shaman's spirit companion is (sadly and mysteriously) equivalent to fire shield damaging a blade barrier or flaming sphere. Or to going 'Hmm, the minion crit the spirit companion, it dies' even though the minion can only do 5 and could never, ever, ever do anything to the spirit companion. Great for a home campaign, but antagonistic behavior in LFR. Though I totally think something like doing an arcana stunt to have your fire shield pop a Bigby's Icy Grasp would be pretty nifty
Just don't blatantly disregard the rules for the most integral part of the shaman class cause it doesn't sit right or seems against common sense. Cause, by design, it doesn't make sense, so it's just asking for trouble. Maybe with lots of liquor it makes sense. And an eye closed. No, the other one. Yeah, now the spirit floating over the pit that no one can forcibly move, doesn't provoke opportunity attacks when it moves around, and whose melee attacks come from a guy standing 20 squares away totally makes sense
P.S. Again with the obvious caveat that a DM and PC can work things out between them to make the rules work however they want. It's just one or the other trying to blatantly change the rules against the wishes of the other that's bad.
Keith Richmond Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
)
