Ok, I had an interesting happening the other day. My light armor fighter found himself facing a phalanx-fighting group, all wielding heavy shields. After the mage provided some well-place fireballs and other area of effect spells, the archers eventually took him down. The healer was being grappled by their commander's wartiger. The next phalanx was approaching, and would require some cunning on the part of myself and the rogue. So, I grabbed a random potion, and hoped it was a potion of some cure spell. Downing it, however, I discovered it was a potion of Girallon's Blessing (Spell Compendium spell granting an additional two arms; the DM does not use the restriction for potions that they cannot be personal range spells). With my new two arms, I had an idea. I quickly grabbed two tower shields. Reading the description, they grant partial cover against three sides, but not all four. So, I grabbed two, placing them at opposite squares. I figured, that grants me four-way protection. Since attacks of opportunity cannot be made against a target who has cover, I figured I could move indiscriminately.
So now, to move! I quickly downed one more potion: Expeditious Retreat (I have two more arms, so it wasn't a problem). Then, I rushed around the enemy phalanx while the rogue held action for me to get into position. Once I was there, I attacked from behind. Since I was attacking with two tower shields, I had a -4 to hit (penalties stack). The rogue had done something clever. He held his action for the phalanx-fighter to move his shield. Being attacked from behind, the fighter did just that, positioning his shield towards me, instead. This activated the rogue's held action. The rogue had held his action to charge (this is a contended rule in 3.5, and my DM has decided that it is perfectly acceptable to hold an action to charge, but you can only make a single move action). The rogue slashed and killed the target. Anyway, as we began picking apart the phalanx, it came to bear that I needed to make a jump check. This is where the trouble started... what was my armor check penalty? -10 or -19? (-1 from magical chain shirt, -9 from each MW tower shield, or is it -1 from magical chain shirt, -9 from one MW tower shield?)
The DM rules -19, which was just funny. Still, I am curious.
Neil Spalter wrote: I quickly grabbed two tower shields. Reading the description, they grant partial cover against three sides, but not all four. So, I grabbed two, placing them at opposite squares. I figured, that grants me four-way protection. Since attacks of opportunity cannot be made against a target who has cover, I figured I could move indiscriminately. The SRD doesn't describe tower shield cover as "three sides, but not all four." It might, however, grant cover against three of eight neighboring tiles. A palise could grant cover on 3/4 of your facings, but they are either free-standing or strapped to the crossbowman's back.
Yes, the Armor Check of two shields would stack.
This is from D&D, I'm not sure if it also applies to PathFinder, though.
By giving up all your attacks a round, you get full cover. Tha means melee, ranged, and area attcks fail o hit you. However, targeted spells, like Inflict Light Wounds, may still target you, (because they can just target the shield). There is no facing anymore, so I am either guessing you are using some sort of unearthed arcana rules variants, or didn't know that this changed a long time ago. Either way, Full Cover still means the above has 0% chance of hitting you.
The Armor check penulties, do not stack, because they are from the same specific source. Armor, shield, and encumbrence are different sources, so would stack, but two shields would not.
Additionally, depending on what you mean by "I needed to make a jump check", you could always opt to drop the shield(s) before hand.
Beckett wrote: The Armor check penulties, do not stack, because they are from the same specific source. Armor, shield, and encumbrence are different sources, so would stack, but two shields would not.
Additionally, depending on what you mean by "I needed to make a jump check", you could always opt to drop the shield(s) before hand.
While this is true for many things, most penalties do stack, even from the same source. I have always been confused by D&D penalties, because effects like Ray of Enfeeblement do not stack, yet other penalties do stack, even when from the same source, then other things like armor check penalties from the same sources then do/don't in different situations until I am thoroughly confused :P.
Anyway, about dropping the shields, that is entirely true, but I was not done using them for avoiding attacks of opportunity. I hadn't even though about how much ACP they added. I had maxed my Acrobatics skill, and I was wearing a Ring of Improved Jumping. Ordinarily, I'd have made the 5' leap no problem. So the DM told me to make the roll, and I laughed. He said, no, really! So I made the roll, and he subtracted 18 from that! I laughed and said what?!? He said, you forgot you are now holding two incredibly ungainly pieces of wood against your body! So, I stumbled and fell on my butt. Then, I got back up and continued as I had planned :D. It all worked out in the end. I was still curious.
Anyway, seems that this is a contended issue, as the poster above indicates that the penalties would indeed stack! Lol. Oh well. Probably best just to let the DMs rule it as they see it :D
Straybow wrote: Neil Spalter wrote: I quickly grabbed two tower shields. Reading the description, they grant partial cover against three sides, but not all four. So, I grabbed two, placing them at opposite squares. I figured, that grants me four-way protection. Since attacks of opportunity cannot be made against a target who has cover, I figured I could move indiscriminately. The SRD doesn't describe tower shield cover as "three sides, but not all four." It might, however, grant cover against three of eight neighboring tiles. A palise could grant cover on 3/4 of your facings, but they are either free-standing or strapped to the crossbowman's back.
Yes, the Armor Check of two shields would stack. Actually, the description I was referring to was in the FAQ. While it is true that facing was removed, a shield must still be placed on an "side" of your square. it grants AC from that side only, regardless of which way you are facing. According to the FAQ (and maybe i am misreading this), when used for total cover, it grants total cover from one side and from the two corners adjacent to that side. the adjacent sides, however, grant partial cover (+4 to AC and +2 to reflex saves). My character has a 22 strength, so he was definitely in his light load, even carrying two tower shields and wearing a magical chain shirt. Anyway, the FAQ claims that it takes a standard action to activate the total cover portion of the shield, but he can still move, and with his expeditious retreat active, that is still 60' per round where no one will take attacks of opportunity against him. With the +12 to Acrobatics for the purposes of jumping (from Expeditious Retreat), my 5th level fighter was sporting a +1 to Acrobatics for jumping (after bonuses and penalties). So, the DC was only a 10 to jump the 5 feet. I could have taken 10 and made it, but I thought I was going to succeed on a natural one, so I rolled it jokingly. When I rolled a 4 on the die, it was a failure.
Neil Spalter wrote: Actually, the description I was referring to was in the FAQ. While it is true that facing was removed, a shield must still be placed on an "side" of your square. it grants AC from that side only, regardless of which way you are facing. According to the FAQ (and maybe i am misreading this), when used for total cover, it grants total cover from one side and from the two corners adjacent to that side. the adjacent sides, however, grant partial cover (+4 to AC and +2 to reflex saves). My character has a 22 strength, so he was definitely in his light load, even carrying two tower shields and wearing a magical chain shirt. Anyway, the FAQ claims that it takes a standard action to activate the total cover portion of the shield, but he can still move, and with his expeditious retreat active, that is still 60' per round where no one will take attacks of opportunity against him. With the +12 to Acrobatics for the purposes of jumping (from Expeditious Retreat), my 5th level fighter was sporting a +1 to Acrobatics for jumping (after bonuses and penalties). So, the DC was only a 10 to jump the 5 feet. I could have taken 10 and made it, but I thought I was going to succeed on a natural one, so I rolled it jokingly. When I rolled a 4 on the die, it was a failure. Errr, not quite. From WotC's 3.5 FAQ: FAQ wrote: To claim total cover from a tower shield, you must use a standard action. The tower shield rules don’t say that, but that’s what they mean. Since you can take only one standard action each round, you cannot also attack, cast a spell, activate a magic item (except for some use-activated items), use a special ability, use total defense, or start or complete a full-round action during the same round you claim total cover from the shield. You can, however, take a move action before or after you claim cover from the shield.
Like other kinds of cover, the shield has to have a location relative to you on the battlefield. When you use the shield for cover, choose one edge of your space (not a corner). You have total cover against any attack’s line of effect that passes through that side of your space. If an attack’s line of effect goes through the corner of the side of your space that the shield blocks, you get cover from the shield (+4 AC, +2 on Reflex saves) instead of total cover.
So AC benefit of a shield does not have facing, but only tower shield cover (which benefits AC if the attacker's line of attack touches the corner). For melee attacks from adjacent tiles, that means total cover only against the one tile and AC benefit from corner attacks, and then only when you take the standard action.
You should be able to use the two tower shields for a combined +8 to AC, from all angles, which is better. As a DM I would apply a -4 penalty for attacks while using the second tower shield toward your AC (similar to using a heavy shield without proficiency, since you aren't exactly proficient in Two Shield Fighting). You'd basically be trading the AC bonus for attack penalty.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Per the Stacking Rules:
In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession). If the modifiers to a particular roll do not stack, only the best bonus and worst penalty applies. Dodge bonuses and circumstance bonuses however, do stack with one another unless otherwise specified.
Specifically, in regards to a Shield Bonus:
A shield bonus improves Armor Class and is granted by a shield or by a spell or magic effect that mimics a shield. Shield bonuses stack with all other bonuses to AC except other shield bonuses. A magic shield typically grants an enhancement bonus to the shield's shield bonus, which has the effect of increasing the shield's overall bonus to AC. A shield bonus granted by a spell or magic item typically takes the form of an invisible, tangible field of force that protects the recipient. A shield bonus doesn't apply against touch attacks.
FYI... Girallon's Blessing is a Touch ranged spell with a Target: Creature Touched so it's completely legal as a potion without your houserule.
--Jingle Bell Vrock!
Dragonchess Player wrote: Per the Stacking Rules:
In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession). If the modifiers to a particular roll do not stack, only the best bonus and worst penalty applies. Dodge bonuses and circumstance bonuses however, do stack with one another unless otherwise specified.
Specifically, in regards to a Shield Bonus:
A shield bonus improves Armor Class and is granted by a shield or by a spell or magic effect that mimics a shield. Shield bonuses stack with all other bonuses to AC except other shield bonuses. A magic shield typically grants an enhancement bonus to the shield's shield bonus, which has the effect of increasing the shield's overall bonus to AC. A shield bonus granted by a spell or magic item typically takes the form of an invisible, tangible field of force that protects the recipient. A shield bonus doesn't apply against touch attacks.
Yes, I was aware that I only got the shield bonus from one shield. My DM granted the partial cover versus all enemies, so it is too late to retroactively undo that, but my question was mostly about the Armor Check Penalty, which seems to be a point of contention still. No matter, really.
The rules aren't designed to account for use of two shields, which should stack. Obviously, two-armed people can't use two shields and attack, which makes it that much less likely to come up. And the doubled armor check penalties would make activities other than cowering more difficult.
Straybow wrote: The rules aren't designed to account for use of two shields, which should stack. Obviously, two-armed people can't use two shields and attack, which makes it that much less likely to come up. And the doubled armor check penalties would make activities other than cowering more difficult. Actually, on the WotC forum, someone had an excellent idea for how to adjudicate this situation: Have one shield turn into a cover bonus while the other shield remains a shield bonus. This means that if you have two shields and are standing behind cover (for partial cover), you get no benefit from the second shield, as you only use the best cover bonus. This would allow the ACs to stack. Probably need a feat to be able to use two shields in that way, though, without giving up some kind of an action (move or standard action each round to concentrate on defense, maybe?)
It already says you only get cover from a tower shield by using a standard action. It takes no special action or defense to use a shield. It is at least half passive, denying an opponent a large portion of your body as a target. The +4 for a tower shield is already a conservative value for its benefit.
Recent threads in General Discussion (Prerelease)
|
