|
There are rules for what blocks line of effect for a divination spell. Unfortunately, there is no such definition for spells from other schools, thus we are into the realm of DM adjudication.
There is no difference in rules about line of effect for divination spells, any spell which deviates from the generic rule explicitly lists the exception in the text of the rule.
Some divination spells don't list this special exception (and thus use the same rules every other spell use).
So, we can either extend the rules for divinations to all magical effects. IE a sheet of lead will block a silence spell effect, and thus putting a silenced coin into a lead lined backpack would stop the effect.
Except no such rule exists to extend...
We can create some other objective term for what stop the effect on a spell by spell basis. IE silence is a sound based effect, and thus anything that stops sound would stop the silence effect.
Seems like a lot of work but sure.
Create your own, since there is no RAW on what blocks line of effect for a silence spell your made up rule is as good as mine.
More or less this is where we are. I like simple rules that are easy to adjudicate.
I like simple rules that are easy to adjudicate.
And I prefer consistent rules. The problem with defining walls as cover becomes "what is a wall?" The side of a tent isn't a wall, but what about a 20 foot thick mound of cloth? What about a quarter inch thick sheet of stone? What about a quarter inch thick sheet of adamantite?
I vastly prefer some form of object measurement like 3 feet of stone or a thin sheet of lead as the rule for what blocks a spells effect.
|
|
I like simple rules that are easy to adjudicate.And I prefer consistent rules. The problem with defining walls as cover becomes "what is a wall?" The side of a tent isn't a wall, but what about a 20 foot thick mound of cloth? What about a quarter inch thick sheet of stone? What about a quarter inch thick sheet of adamantite?
I vastly prefer some form of object measurement like 3 feet of stone or a thin sheet of lead as the rule for what blocks a spells effect.
How much more consistent can you get than "Can an arrow poke through it?"
You say you prefer consistent, simple is consistent.
When you start making a unique effect for every different sort of effect then your players have be on board with your definitions or they have guess whether a spell will work or not.
"Divination = 1 foot of stone, Evocation = 1" of stone, conjuration = 6" of stone, Sound based things it's at least 3" of cloth or 2" of stone, light based spells it's any amount of fabric..."
Simple is consistent and predictable, everyone knows where you are coming from. Anyone can answer "Does an arrow poke through it?"
You misunderstand me. My preferred solution is 3 feet of stone or a thin sheet of lead, which is the general standard for stopping divinations, stops all non-damaging magic effects. If the magic effect deals damage, then you use the hardness/hp of the material to see if the spell can break through. A 10d6 damage fireball is capable of destroying a wall that an 1d8 damage arrow could not pierce.
It is simple, and it is a lot more objective than saying walls stop magic effects.
|
|
You say you prefer consistent, simple is consistent.
When you start making a unique effect for every different sort of effect then your players have be on board with your definitions or they have guess whether a spell will work or not.
"Divination = 1 foot of stone, Evocation = 1" of stone, conjuration = 6" of stone, Sound based things it's at least 3" of cloth or 2" of stone, light based spells it's any amount of fabric..."
Simple is consistent and predictable, everyone knows where you are coming from. Anyone can answer "Does an arrow poke through it?"
You misunderstand me. My preferred solution is 3 feet of stone or a thin sheet of lead, which is the general standard for stopping divinations, stops all magic effects.
It is simple, and it is a lot more objective than saying walls stop magic effects.
It's also clearly against the rules unless you ignore the cover rules entirely.
Why if blindness/deafness are coupled together, aren't darkness/silence not in treated the same way? Why is interfering with light(waves) an evocation while interfering with sound (waves) an illusion(glamer)?
Ah that's a simple one ! It's because darkness is NOT interfering with Light, when you cast darkness you open a way from the shadow plan to your plan, you work with actual real energy from that plan, not with a mere illusion... It's the real stuff not a thing gnome can easily handle... ;)
As for the silence spell, or other burst or emanation spell : behind a tower shield : of course while you are behind the shield you are affected because you can only have one side of total cover, the others ones (be it the upper or right side if you choos left) does not provide total cover (ie : if you choos the left side then the right side is not a total cover)
For the others emanation spells : is there an emanation spell that cause damage ? Can't remember just now... well for light it's also the real stuff... come from the light plan, it's energy... much like our real life light in fact... ;p
I treat Darkness and light in the same way : it's an energy that cannot go through things tight shut, in a simple backpack it reduces the light but you can see a bunch of it (in case of darkness you'd see some shadow pouring from the backpack)
P.S. : almost forgot : if you have total concealment from a source that source has total concealment from you, meaning if by luck you have the time to put on a 5ft in front of you by 5ft left and right by 5ft uppon your head piece of paper around you I, has a DM, would agree that silence does not affect you... But you can't target a lot of things fom there too... :p
It's also clearly against the rules unless you ignore the cover rules entirely.You say you prefer consistent, simple is consistent.
When you start making a unique effect for every different sort of effect then your players have be on board with your definitions or they have guess whether a spell will work or not.
"Divination = 1 foot of stone, Evocation = 1" of stone, conjuration = 6" of stone, Sound based things it's at least 3" of cloth or 2" of stone, light based spells it's any amount of fabric..."
Simple is consistent and predictable, everyone knows where you are coming from. Anyone can answer "Does an arrow poke through it?"
You misunderstand me. My preferred solution is 3 feet of stone or a thin sheet of lead, which is the general standard for stopping divinations, stops all magic effects.
It is simple, and it is a lot more objective than saying walls stop magic effects.
I am using the cover rules. To you I say, define cover.
Against a divination spell, by the RAW, 3 feet of stone is cover and blocks line of effect, anything less is merely concealment and does not block line of effect.
Against a disintegrate spell, a sheet of cloth is full cover since the spell will hit the cloth and disintegrate it instead of what is behind it.
Against a fireball spell, that same sheet of cloth is only concealment.
If I'm understanding you correctly in regards to Tower Shields not providing cover from emanations, then, no, you're mistaken. It doesn't matter whether you have cover to the right or the left or overhead for that matter. As long as you have cover in regards to the source of the emanation, then you are not affected by the emanation.
If I'm understanding you correctly in regards to Tower Shields not providing cover from emanations, then, no, you're mistaken. It doesn't matter whether you have cover to the right or the left or overhead for that matter. As long as you have cover in regards to the source of the emanation, then you are not affected by the emanation.
Uh ? Sorry but the tower shield description specify :
By RAW you have total cover if :
Thus if I can draw a line to your left side (if you choose the right side with the tower shield) without crossing a "solid barrier" I can touch you... If you have a tower shield with archer in front of you to the left and to the right you have to choose which one can't fire at you but one of them can hit you...
It's the same with an emanation spell, you have to specify frome which corner you are covered, if the emanation can touch a corner that is not coevred you are hit by it... as simple as that :p
To make it simple : you tower shield can make a corner to the left side OR to the right side but not both, the AoE can choose which one it want to cross providing it goes far enough... Easier to catch ?
If you can position a tower shield so that it provides cover from a single archer, then you can position a tower shield so that it provides cover from a single emanation.
If you can position a tower shield so that it provides cover from a single archer, then you can position a tower shield so that it provides cover from a single emanation.
Except that emanation are Aoe... So if the emanation can go beyond your left corner (if you choose right corner for cover) then it can make the way to you... Think of water, if you shut tight your right side but there's enough water to make it to your left side you've done it for nigh... ;)
P.S. : With a board in front of you you can understand it quite easily, I've got the case just last week with one of my player, I demonstrate it quite easily : imagine a wave of water (well wave of magic in this case), if you shut tight in front of you and at your right (ie : front right corner in case of tower shield) and if the wave can make it as far as your left side then there is no corner to turn around, you're in the effect zone pal... :p
|
|
Except that emanation are Aoe... So if the emanation can go beyond your left corner (if you choose right corner for cover) then it can make the way to you... Think of water, if you shut tight your right side but there's enough water to make it to your left side you've done it for nigh... ;)If you can position a tower shield so that it provides cover from a single archer, then you can position a tower shield so that it provides cover from a single emanation.
Emanations by definition don't go around corners like water does.
Emanations by definition don't go around corners like water does.
Exactly so it don't go around your right side, but, by RAW, there's no corner on your left side... And total cover precise that if anyone of your corner is free you don't have total cover... Thus... ;)
Emanations do not behave like water. "Spreads" (like Fireball) behave like water.
Emanations behave like light in a vacuum, in this case, light from a single point. It travels in a completely straight line (barring curvature in space/time).
The entire point of being able to use a Tower Shield to provide total cover is...to provide total cover. Unless the source of the emanation is exactly on a diagonal of a grid relative to the person declaring cover, then choosing the side that most closely matches the facing of the emanation provides total cover.
In the corner case of an exact diagonal, in which no choice of facing for the cover would provide cover, only the most...restrictive...of DM's would prevent a player from positioning along the diagonal. Just because a grid square only provides 4 potential positions of the shield, shouldn't be used to deny a player from using the item as it is intended to be used.
Emanations behave like light in a vacuum, in this case, light from a single point. It travels in a completely straight line (barring curvature in space/time).
Hum... So you say that, with a tower shield, you can grant total cover to you AND all the people behind you in a cone since the emanation are blocked... Seems a little too strong to me, am I wrong ?
P.S. : And your erasing the 3rd dimension in your statement...
Exactly so it don't go around your right side, but, by RAW, there's no corner on your left side...
You're misunderstanding the cover mechanics. The defender doesn't pick one corner to be protected, he picks one corner to be vulnerable. If there is no line from the attacker to your vulnerable corner, you've got cover; other corners are irrelevant. Think of it this way: you don't actually fill a whole square, so you can dodge to one side of it and not care what hits the other side.
As for being too strong with a tower shield: I don't think so... tower shields are otherwise a fairly poor choice.
Edit: Rays work the same way in three dimensions as they do in two.
Exactly so it don't go around your right side, but, by RAW, there's no corner on your left side...You're misunderstanding the cover mechanics. The defender doesn't pick one corner to be protected, he picks one corner to be vulnerable. If there is no line from the attacker to your vulnerable corner, you've got cover; other corners are irrelevant. Think of it this way: you don't actually fill a whole square, so you can dodge to one side of it and not care what hits the other side.
As for being too strong with a tower shield: I don't think so... tower shields are otherwise a fairly poor choice.
Edit: Rays work the same way in three dimensions as they do in two.
Uh ? the rules says :
When using a tower shield in this way, you must choose one edge of your space. That edge is treated as a solid wall for attacks targeting youonly. You gain total cover for attacks that pass through this edge and no cover for attacks that do not pass through this edge
Am I missing some errata ? If so thanks for the tip... :)
A ray is not an AoE that cover the ceiling if needed... Let's says that the ceiling is 20ft high, if you are Spider Walking on the ceiling and I throw a silenced pebble under your square are you affected ?
If I cast a ray in the square below you are you affected ?
If a tower shield block LoS like LoS from light in vacuum can be blocked does all the line behind you be free of the spell as well ? (frankly I think I will houserule this if it's not raw just to see some of my players to take a tower shield for once... ;) )
The 3rd Dimension is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. At least I thought it was. If you want to include it, then, for example, a spider walking character on the ceiling could choose the downward facing "plane" to be blocked and therefore grant himself/herself cover, just as a character on the ground is actually choosing a forward facing "plane" to be blocked.
As for people behind the character gaining cover from emanations, the answer is "no." Here we run into the difference between IRL physics and magic. Only the shield bearer get's total cover. Everyone else is S.O.L. Why? Because that's what the rules say. Or rather, what they don't say.
It would be perfectly reasonable, however, to grant a bonus to the saving throw (if any), just as an intervening character grants soft cover against missile attacks.
Well, the rule for soft cover seems pretty cool for me, a +4 to ST seem fair... Just as a soft cover :)
But there's something naging me... if the caster is straight in front of my PC, he put his tower shield in front of the caster and say right side for the cover... Can I point to him that his left side is still unatended and will let the spell pass through ? Or am I wrong ?
Because an emanation will not got past a corner (the right side) but will got past the left side (no corner)
As I understand the owner of the shield pick a corner and that corner is "a corner wall" (5ft by 5 ft) but the emanation can go through because there's no corner on his left side to go around...
My error above... it's the attacker who chooses a source corner. Defender gets cover if there is any obstruction to a face of his square.
And that's also where your confusion is with the tower shield, I think. It doesn't provide cover on a corner, but on an entire edge. You wouldn't pick left or right, you'd pick front. Both the left and right corners of that edge are blocked.
But there's something naging me... if the caster is straight in front of my PC, he put his tower shield in front of the caster and say right side for the cover... Can I point to him that his left side is still unatended and will let the spell pass through ? Or am I wrong ?
Because an emanation will not got past a corner (the right side) but will got past the left side (no corner)
As I understand the owner of the shield pick a corner and that corner is "a corner wall" (5ft by 5 ft) but the emanation can go through because there's no corner on his left side to go around...
This thread is quite interesting, but I got to this post and thought, "Uh, what?"
If the caster is in front of him, why would he put the shield on his right side? He would put it on his front side.
Of course you say, "he put his tower shield in front of the caster and say right side for the cover". How is he putting the shield in front and on the right simultaneously?
There are only 4 sides: front, back, left and right. If the caster is in front of him, he chooses the front side and gets full cover from that caster. If he were to the right, he would chose the right side to get full cover.
Actually, there really isn't a front, back, left, or right. There is just a north, south, east and west. Characters have no facing in Pathfinder.
Edit: Ninja'd by tejón. Yeah, that's what I mean.
My error above... it's the attacker who chooses a source corner. Defender gets cover if there is any obstruction to a face of his square.
And that's also where your confusion is with the tower shield, I think. It doesn't provide cover on a corner, but on an entire edge. You wouldn't pick left or right, you'd pick front. Both the left and right corners of that edge are blocked.
Um... To be all clear...
Rules about the Tower Shield : "As a standard action, however, you can use a tower shield to grant you total cover until the beginning of your next turn. When using a tower shield in this way, you must choose one edge of your space. That edge is treated as a solid wall for attacks targeting you only."
(so much for providing soft cover behind you BUT in case of a wave spell like silent spell maybe...)
Rules about Total Cover (rule from the attacker point of view, ie a spreading pebble sometime :p ) : "If you don’t have line of effect to your target (that is, you cannot draw any line from your square to
your target’s square without crossing a solid barrier), he is considered to have total cover from you. You can’t make an
attack against a target that has total cover."
The rule for Emaation are : "It can’t affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don’t extend around corners).
It is to the responsability of the defender to choose a corner... and it is to the responsability of the GM to see if from the square where the effect come from no corner are available (thus conced total cover for the player).
But in tules the only case where emanation spell doesn't apply is when you have a corner blocking the effect...
But a silent spell is not a 2D effect like an arrow, it's a 3D effect (bubble like) do I have to take this in account (corner rule) ? if so you can't shield behind a tower shield for a silenced AoE...
Since it affect all emanating spell is there a general rule for this ? (please :) )
PS : as rule state if you are in fron of the caster and he cast an emanating spell you can choose right or left, east or west it's the same the up bypass so are the other side you do not choose...
Okay, I think I understand where you're coming from. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
When the rules refer to tracing a line from one square to another, they are not referring to the lines that make up the grid, but to the "white space" within.
Imagine a tic-tac-toe "board." The Attacker is standing in the top center square (north). The Defender is standing in the bottom center square (south). The center square is between them.
The Defender uses his tower shield to take cover from the Attacker, effectively declaring his "north" line to be a wall (the one that borders the center square). There is now no way to trace a line from inside the square that the attacker occupies to inside the square that the defender occupies. The Defender has Total Cover from the Attacker.
Even if the spell requires the Attacker to pick a grid intersection as the source of the emanation (this is mostly for the purposes of determining range on a grid map), there is still no way for a line from that grid intersection to enter the defender's square without crossing the "wall" of the Tower Shield. Tracing a line from grid intersection to grid intersection isn't enough. You have to be able to show line of effect into the square you're targeting, not just along one side or to one grid intersection.
There's an important distinction that I think everyone is missing. "Cover" is not the same thing as "total cover."
Tower shields grant cover, not total cover; however, they can be used for total cover (but protect you only). Really big trees grant cover, not total cover. Overturned tables grant cover, riding alongside your horse grants cover, large creatures grant cover.
Total cover happens only when "you don't have line of effect to your target (that is, you cannot draw any line from your square to your target's square without crossing a solid barrier)."
The issue is not whether an arrow can puncture the barrier or whether detect magic can divine through it. These things are spurious to the matter of emanations, which are specifically barred from affecting creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don't extend around corners).
So, the question to be answered is whether a closed backpack qualifies as a barrier to an emanation originating from within. I say it does.
Tower shields grant cover, not total cover; however, they can be used for total cover (but protect you only). Really big trees grant cover, not total cover.
This is not correct. Tower Shields do not grant cover. They either provide a shield bonus of +4 -or- total cover. They do not grant cover.
And "really big trees" can grant cover or total cover depending on where they are relative to the attacker and the defender.
|
|
So, the question to be answered is whether a closed backpack qualifies as a barrier to an emanation originating from within. I say it does.
You have nicely ignored the whole point which is whether a leather pack is capable of providing ANY cover. If you had a diminutive creature in your pack would it provide cover? Not if it can piece through your pack. Cover is the ability to block something, not the ability to block sight (that's concealment).
You have nicely ignored the whole point which is whether a leather pack is capable of providing ANY cover.
Of course it is. Can you trace a line from the space of something contained within the pack to any corner of a space outside the pack without crossing a solid object? No, you cannot. The leather of the pack is a solid object, and it completely encloses the contents of the pack. Case closed.
|
|
You have nicely ignored the whole point which is whether a leather pack is capable of providing ANY cover.Of course it is. Can you trace a line from the space of something contained within the pack to any corner of a space outside the pack without crossing a solid object? No, you cannot. The leather of the pack is a solid object, and it completely encloses the contents of the pack. Case closed.
Yeah, that's true. Good enough anyhow.
It's worth noting that in most cases where you'd say "that shouldn't provide cover because the attack it's providing cover against would just blow through it", there are actual rules for blowing through cover. Fireball, for example, states that objects that are destroyed by the spell's damage do not provide cover and do not impede the ability of the spell to deal damage to targets past the no-longer-extant object.
You have nicely ignored the whole point which is whether a leather pack is capable of providing ANY cover.Of course it is. Can you trace a line from the space of something contained within the pack to any corner of a space outside the pack without crossing a solid object? No, you cannot. The leather of the pack is a solid object, and it completely encloses the contents of the pack. Case closed.
It's worth noting that in most cases where you'd say "that shouldn't provide cover because the attack it's providing cover against would just blow through it", there are actual rules for blowing through cover. Fireball, for example, states that objects that are destroyed by the spell's damage do not provide cover and do not impede the ability of the spell to deal damage to targets past the no-longer-extant object.
That's what I was trying to say. Thanks, Zurai.
So a Tower Shield can block Channel Energy now? A Tower Shield blocks Area Dispel Magic? I mean I can keep going. Where does it end? Since when is a Tower Shield a partial anti-magic shell?
I think you have to really look at what truly defines total cover. I think it's a bit silly to consider a hat a "solid barrier", or a shoe, or a backpack. A leather pack is somewhat porous, water would eventually drip through it. NOT a solid barrier. Same with a hat, or clothing. I think it's a little much to assume that mundane cloth objects could contain a magical spell in this way, or even a magic item that was not specifically built to block that spell or similar spells.
As for EX-DIM spaces, an extra dimensional space would prevent the spell from reaching the Material Plane(and I would argue the opening of the bag marks the point of demarcation for that space(no emanation from a haversack/bag of holding)) and so wouldn't even have to be considered in the total cover argument, as it doesn't even apply to this plane of existence.
Finally, did we do this yet?
A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, including creatures that you can't see. It can't affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don't extend around corners). The default shape for a burst effect is a sphere, but some burst spells are specifically described as cone-shaped. A burst's area defines how far from the point of origin the spell's effect extends.
and
Total Cover: If you don't have line of effect to your target (that is, you cannot draw any line from your square to your target's square without crossing a solid barrier), he is considered to have total cover from you. You can't make an attack against a target that has total cover.
and finally
Shield, Tower: This massive wooden shield is nearly as tall as you are. In most situations, it provides the indicated shield bonus to your AC. As a standard action, however, you can use a tower shield to grant you total cover until the beginning of your next turn. When using a tower shield in this way, you must choose one edge of your space. That edge is treated as a solid wall for attacks targeting you only. You gain total cover for attacks that pass through this edge and no cover for attacks that do not pass through this edge (see Combat). 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.
(per the PRD)
So a burst spell hit's anything in it's area(even if you can't see it) but can't hit something with total cover. A tower shield provides total cover, but not against targeted spells. A burst spell's target is anything within it's area. Since the shield is a part of your character by the RAW, it would seem reasonable that a burst spell WOULD still hit you. That would go for your clothes, or a shield of force hat, or holding a rug in front of you. It would not seem to count if you were behind a real(and separate) wall of force, stone/wood wall, etc. As for putting a hat over the coin...well, refer to above. Is a hat REALLY a solid barrier? Maybe if you dropped a stone wall or a few cubic feet of dirt or a thick table etc...but not a hat. Also creatures are considered soft cover, and not a solid object or "barrier". I very much doubt a leather pack would be considered a solid object (and therefore "total cover") if a person is not(even a large creature with a leathery, or even scaly, hide).
Caith, you're missing several points:
1. AoE spells do not target creatures; they merely fill an area. Targeted spells--the kind that tower shields don't block--are spells with a range of ray, touch, ranged touch, one creature, etc. Area spells do not target a creature; therefore, a tower shield will provide total cover to its wielder...provided that he has already employed it for such a use, which must happen on his turn and before the spell goes off. It also requires being faced in the right direction, which any spellcaster can circumvent by moving around a bit.
2. You're equating leather with clothing again, which is not a logical connection. As has been pointed out rather clearly and multiple times, a shoe or hat or set of clothing don't protect the wearer, but if a very small item (the point of origin of an emanamtion spell) is contained within these things, it just very well might. This determination is probably best left to your DM.
3. Extra-dimensional spaces bring their own set of issues, but I think since the effect isn't on the Material Plane you'd be hard pressed to say why it would affect someone on that plane.
You ARE correct in boiling down the argument to one of "what constitutes a solid barrier." I believe by this point, we'll just have to leave that up to each group to decide for themselves. I will rule in my games that a leather pack blocks emanations originating from within. Many will rule likewise; many others won't.
Finally, if there's a concern that your emanation's point of origin is going to snuffed out by someone stepping on it, choose a point of origin like a stagecoach, a door, the side of a barn...
So a Tower Shield can block Channel Energy now? A Tower Shield blocks Area Dispel Magic? I mean I can keep going. Where does it end? Since when is a Tower Shield a partial anti-magic shell?
Assuming that the effects you mention are burst or emanations, then, yes, total cover from a TS defeats them. The number of effects that a TS works against is miniscule compared to the effects that it doesn't work against. Not to mention the inherent penalties associated with using one in melee combat as well as those for using it for total cover. If it were overpowered, or even vaguely effective, then you might actually see players choosing to use a TS, something that I've yet to see happen.
"Using a TS gives me a -2 on all my attacks?"
"Yes."
"All the time?"
"Yes."
"And no shield bash?"
"No."
"And if weighs 45 pounds?"
"Yes."
"And there's a max dex penalty of +2?
"Yes."
"And total cover only applies to enemies pretty much in a straight line right in front of me?"
"Yes."
"And I either have to have a action readied or declare Total Cover as my standard action during my round?"
"Yes."
"Heavy shield it is."
Making a viable character that uses a TS is incredibly difficult. Have you ever seen a build posted that features one? Ever seen a character opt to use one? And making use of total cover from TS is more difficult still.
So a Tower Shield can block Channel Energy now? A Tower Shield blocks Area Dispel Magic? I mean I can keep going. Where does it end? Since when is a Tower Shield a partial anti-magic shell?
Assuming that the effects you mention are burst or emanations, then, yes, total cover from a TS defeats them. The number of effects that a TS works against is miniscule compared to the effects that it doesn't work against. Not to mention the inherent penalties associated with using one in melee combat as well as those for using it for total cover. If it were overpowered, or even vaguely effective, then you might actually see players choosing to use a TS, something that I've yet to see happen.
"Using a TS gives me a -2 on all my attacks?"
"Yes."
"All the time?"
"Yes."
"And no shield bash?"
"No."
"And if weighs 45 pounds?"
"Yes."
"And there's a max dex penalty of +2?
"Yes."
"And total cover only applies to enemies pretty much in a straight line right in front of me?"
"Yes."
"And I either have to have a action readied or declare Total Cover as my standard action during my round?"
"Yes."
"Heavy shield it is."Making a viable character that uses a TS is incredibly difficult. Have you ever seen a build posted that features one? Ever seen a character opt to use one? And making use of total cover from TS is more difficult still.
It really isn't that big of a deal.