If my opponent uses a tower shield for total cover and I am directly on the other side of the shield face. Am I treated as having partial or at least soft cover vs him?
It is my belief that I at the very least have soft cover if not partial cover and will not provoke attacks of opportunity.
|
If my opponent uses a tower shield for total cover and I am directly on the other side of the shield face. Am I treated as having partial or at least soft cover vs him?
It is my belief that I at the very least have soft cover if not partial cover and will not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Total cover goes both ways... If you can't attack him, he can't attack you.
--Vrock block
If my opponent uses a tower shield for total cover and I am directly on the other side of the shield face. Am I treated as having partial or at least soft cover vs him?
It is my belief that I at the very least have soft cover if not partial cover and will not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Total cover goes both ways... If you can't attack him, he can't attack you.
--Vrock block
I thought this was the case as well. However my DM quoted this line from the tower shield description.
"That edge is treated as a solid wall for attacks targeting you only."
I am pretty sure the intent was preventing allies granting each other total cover. However as it is written only the wielder of the shield gets the benefits of total cover. Unless we are both missing something.
My question is. Shouldn't I at least get partial or soft cover vs my opponent when he uses a tower shield for total cover. It isn't like he can just ignore the big huge shield in his way.
I think there are only two people in this scenario. One is the person taking cover behind the tower shield. The other is the person in front of the tower shield trying to attack the fellow taking cover.
Does the person attacking the fellow taking cover with his tower shield get any residual cover from the tower shield in the case of the tower shield wielder attacking him?
Example:
P
T
P = poster
T = tower shield wielder taking cover
Does "P" have any cover from attacks made by "T" due to T's tower shield? (Of course, this requires the assumption that "T" can actually attack after taking a standard action providing himself with total cover.)
I remember once upon a time reading a rule that said whoever was closer to the cover had cover, and if both were equal distance then both had cover from one another. That may just be my imagination though, or it may be some lingering memory of 3.5, I really don't know.
I'm curious about this also, but I suspect that "P" does not have any cover from "T's" tower shield. The tower shield's text does state"
"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."
OP -- please correct me if I have misinterpreted what you're asking.
I remember once upon a time reading a rule that said whoever was closer to the cover had cover, and if both were equal distance then both had cover from one another. That may just be my imagination though, or it may be some lingering memory of 3.5, I really don't know.
Low Obstacles and Cover: "A low obstacle (such as a wall no higher than half your height) provides cover, but only to creatures within 30 feet (6 squares) of it. The attacker can ignore the cover if he's closer to the obstacle than his target."
For the OP: The tower shield user is already taking a penalty for using it, it doesn't prevent him from doing anything else. (He's holding the thing, he can easily move it out of the way and smack you if you start casting or whatever)
You could -maybe- argue for Partial Cover, based on DM discretion, but I wouldn't allow it. He's already gimped by carrying the thing and spending his standard action to set it.
I remember once upon a time reading a rule that said whoever was closer to the cover had cover, and if both were equal distance then both had cover from one another. That may just be my imagination though, or it may be some lingering memory of 3.5, I really don't know.Low Obstacles and Cover: "A low obstacle (such as a wall no higher than half your height) provides cover, but only to creatures within 30 feet (6 squares) of it. The attacker can ignore the cover if he's closer to the obstacle than his target."
For the OP: The tower shield user is already taking a penalty for using it, it doesn't prevent him from doing anything else. (He's holding the thing, he can easily move it out of the way and smack you if you start casting or whatever)
You could -maybe- argue for Partial Cover, based on DM discretion, but I wouldn't allow it. He's already gimped by carrying the thing and spending his standard action to set it.
The -2 penalty is for the sheer weight and girth of the tower shield and has absolutely nothing to do with a cover bonus.
Nothing about the tower shield's verbage indicates it provides total cover to anyone but the shield's user. It does not remove line of effect to opponents on the other side of the shield, and explicitly lets an opponent target the shield's user with spells.
Similarly, nothing in the total cover verbage states it must be a reciprocal condition when anything applies it.
RAW, someone taking a standard action with a tower shield to gain total cover can still make attacks of opportunity against targets on the other side.
You only get attacks of opportunity against squares that you threaten, and you only threaten squares that you can attack. If you're hiding behind a shield for a round, you aren't attacking - you've taken a full defense action for a round. You couldn't make any fewer attacks of opportunity if you were unconscious.
Facade, your DM is right that only the shield bearer gets *total cover* from his shield, but anybody behind him should get the +4 AC soft cover bonus. Of course, if you're directly behind him, you get the soft cover regardless of whether or not he's hiding behind his shield. His body will stop an arrow just as easily as his shield will, as far as you are concerned. The shield is mostly for his own survival, unless your group is really into teamwork feats.
- JR
The -2 penalty is for the sheer weight and girth of the tower shield and has absolutely nothing to do with a cover bonus.
Which makes about 0 sense in a game with abstracted Strength ratings and warriors frequently out-benching and outlifting Mr Olympia - that some guy that can bench press a Mercedes is as 'encumbered' by the dinner table as Marty McGuffin the 10 Strength Muffin man.