If you attempt to sunder a shield that is being actively wielded by an opponent you have to best their CMD. But if the opponent is taking full cover behind a tower shield, shouldn't it be easier to attack the shield itself? I mean, they don't even as much as the slightest bit of themselves exposed, and can't even make an AoO, even if you don't have the improved sunder feat.
In fact they can't make AoOs or attack at all in the direction they've elected to be protected from. So if one you're standing on one side of their shield, and they're taking total cover on the other side, shouldn't it relatively easier to attack the shield?
Aw, c'mon. No one wants to weigh in?
Would treating a sunder attack against a tower shield that is being used as full cover as an attack against an unattended object (just for determining whether the attack hits, not for any resistances, etc.), be out of line?
Would treating a sunder attack against a tower shield that is being used as full cover as an attack against an unattended object (just for determining whether the attack hits, not for any resistances, etc.), be out of line?
I have no problem with that, myself, for the reasons you outline.
I would apply any defensive bonuses the character has going (deflection AC, blur) but it would seem to be much easier than overcoming CMD, at least vs. "worthy" opponents. And even if you succeed easily, you've used an attack on gear instead of the opposition themselves, so the Tower Shield still did it's job for it's wielder. I can see this house-rule making Adamantine Tower Shields much more popular, though.
|
Not necessarily.
Interestingly enough, while you're granted 100% cover, the entry states that it's for attacks specifically targeting the wielder only.
So the wielder of the tower shield has complete cover from you, but he can still see you just fine. You're not granted any cover from the wielder's tower shield.
This of it like this. He's got the shield in-between you and him. He's taking the occasional peek out to see what you're doing, but keeps well behind the cover.
Heck, he might even just have a small slot in it with which to see in front of him. Or to the side. Or wherever he put the cover line.
Aw, c'mon. No one wants to weigh in?
Would treating a sunder attack against a tower shield that is being used as full cover as an attack against an unattended object (just for determining whether the attack hits, not for any resistances, etc.), be out of line?
I'd say no. I'd reason that the shield can still be angled to deflect the impact of the sunder attempt. In other words, I wouldn't consider it an unattended object as the wielder can move the shield in response to attacks specifically against it.
Not necessarily.
Interestingly enough, while you're granted 100% cover, the entry states that it's for attacks specifically targeting the wielder only.
So the wielder of the tower shield has complete cover from you, but he can still see you just fine. You're not granted any cover from the wielder's tower shield.
Well, I'm pretty sure that's not quite right. The opponent (guy without the shield) doesn't get full cover from 3rd party attacks, but he does have full cover from the the shield bearer. The Shield bearer and the opponent, short of magic, can't attack each other at all, not even for AoO's. Bull Rush and Sunder being the exceptions. If the shield bearer can still see and react to the attacker, then he or she doesn't have full cover, they have improved cover at best (like through an arrow slot), so making Sunder easier seems reasonable to me.
Caveat: I am relying on the expanded info on Tower Shields from the 3.5 FAQ.
You continue to threaten the area around you while you use
the shield for cover; however, it provides your opponents with
the same benefits you get. You cannot make attacks through the
side of your space that the shield blocks, and should you attack
through the corners of that space, your foe gets cover against
your attack.
|
|
Yeah, as is my penchant, I'm just using the pathfinder material. Specifically page 153 Shield, Tower
It's specific in that it grants "you" total cover until the beginning of your next turn.
"You gain total cover for attacks that pass through this edge and no cover for attacks that do not pass through this edge. The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding."
Might be an oversight that needs to be clarified, and I can certainly see a dm ruling that it provides cover both ways.