awalloftext's page

The whole "is the +4 from the shield or from cover" thing is made even more murky by the fact that, on the actual statistics for the Tower Shield, the +4 is listed as a potential option for the shield's AC bonus in parentheses. It just has the little note for how to actually activate it.

There's also this sentence I'm the rules for shields, which immediately follows the section on raising shields:

When you have a tower shield raised, you can use the Take Cover action (page 418) to increase the circumstance bonus to AC to +4

... which to me, is frustrating because its not specified if you're increasing the shield's innate AC Bonus or the cover's bonus. I tend to think it's the shield given the surrounding context, but the Cover interpretation seems like a common one.

I wish they had changed the wording in the remaster to make it more clear. Something along the lines of just "while you have your tower shield raised, you can use the Take Cover action to gain the benefits of Greater Cover" - that, along with removing the (+4) under the item's "AC Bonus" would've sufficed for clarification.

Cause Security (Shield of Spirits) gives them a +1 status bonus to AC. But the shield bonus from Greater Security gives a +X circumstance bonus to AC.

That is a rules nightmare just there. I suspect that most GMs will give you the +X status bonus to AC rather than giving your companion a status and a circumstance bonus to AC. Still at least they can add their own shield to it.

Oh god, I didn't even notice THAT discrepancy.

I would presume the RAI is that Greater Security doesn't increase the +1 status bonus, it just replaces it with a +X circumstance bonus. I tend to lean that way over just increasing the status bonus to +X, as Greater Security grants "the same bonus to AC your shield grants" (which would be circumstance). Although, debatable for sure.

But yeah, I imagine no table in their right mind would allow the +1 status AND a +X circumstance from one spell. Even if it were done in a balanced way, just feels... messy. And as far as I know, there currently exists no effect in the game that adds both a status and circumstance bonus to the same attribute at the same time. So no precedent either.

Well you're talking about a fairly unusual combo which relies on some rules only published last month. That few people will actually try (IMO) because it gives up lay on hands, requires 2 feats, and in play requires 2a in the first round to get the spell up then 1-2a every round dedicated to unmoving defense to keep it going, and which doesn't let you attack if you want to keep it going.

So it's probably a bit premature to expect the player base to have tried it out extensively and come up with some universal understanding of TGTBT, meh, TBTBT, whether the +4 should apply to anyone affected by the spell or just someone taking cover, etc.

I mean... that's kinda why I linked the rules directly, so folks could read over them. I don't expect there to LITERALLY be a universal consensus from direct playtesting experience; I'm speaking figuratively. As in, just curious if the board thinks this read of the rules is correct/possible.

Of course, that's not to suggest it's some hyper-optimal, game breaking combo. I do think the combo's viable got legs for a Champion focusing on Shields of the Spirit - but as you mention, it requires heavy investment from both feats and action economy. It could be an option, although likely not one to use every round in every combat.

Again, just trying to get a general temperature of "is this possible" and "do these rules work how I'm reading them."

Firstly, just no. Simply no. GMs are allowed to do that :)

Naturally! "This seems too strong" or "this seems too good to be true" is always an acceptable answer (from the GM).

Secondly, no. Neither Greater Security nor Shields of the Spirit give full 'condition' 'protected by your shield' in all its details. They also don't give 'the same bonus to AC your shield grants to you', just 'the same bonus to AC your shield grants' which is still only +2.

See, this I'm not so sure about, hence my original post.

What Greater Security DOES give is: "the same bonus to AC your shield grants"

Which, can be +4 - as specified both in the third paragraph of the rules for Shields, and in the AC bonus listed in parentheses on the actual Tower Shield item.

Suffice to say, if you were my GM, I'd say "fair enough" - but I'm curious if this would be a universal reaction.

This is reference to the Champion's new remastered Focus spell, Shields of the Spirit, its upgrades, and how it relates to the increase to AC when taking cover behind a Tower Shield.

Relevant feats/rules: Security, Greater Secruity, specifics of increasing AC with tower shields (third paragraph).

So, basically, am I reading this right? Greater Security provides a +4 AC to my target so long as I fully bunker down in a tower shield each turn?

My thinking here is that the shield rules say that the Take Cover action with a tower shield specifically increases its AC bonus to +4, rather than giving you a separate additional AC bonus from cover. Therefore, per the wording of Greater Security, that increase in AC bonus should also apply to Security's target, yes?

This bonus would presumably last until a Champion moves or attacks (for example, with a Reactive Strike), at which point the bonus would return to +2. Or until the Champion's next turn, at which point they would have to Raise Shield and Take Cover once again. Seems fairly strong so long as I have the RAW correct here.