|
| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I'm running a home game where one of my players is a dwarf fighter clanking around with a tower shield. This player has a good level of system mastery.
We are at lower levels, and in a few encounters now, he has planted the tower shield to grand himself total cover, using up the standard action. If he's at a choke point, or something similar, he will be impervious to attack, but believes that he will be able to make attacks of opportunity against anyone he threatens, since the tower shield grants one-way total cover for its wielder.
My question is whether the tower shield user should be able to make attacks of opportunity against anyone directly in front of the planted 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. You gain total cover for attacks that pass through this edge and no cover for attacks that do not pass through this edge (see cover, Core Rulebook 195). 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. You cannot bash with a tower shield, nor can you use your shield hand for anything else.
RAW, he reads that as saying that that he is the sole beneficiary of the cover; to me, RAI, that means that someone (allies) behind him does not also get total cover, not that the cover is like a one-way mirror.
I don't see much question on this on the message boards, and this player's reasoning is that the -2 penalty to attacks and the ACP of -10 is balanced to offset the benefit of being able to AoO from behind an impenetrable shield.
I don't want to rule it out completely by GM fiat; I want to have a basis within the rules if I do say AoO's are not allowed. So I'm curious how others read the tower shield rules.
RAW is a little iffy.
...logic is less iffy. :)
My opinion:
When you have total cover from one edge, then you can't attack through that edge. You are hiding behind your tower shield, if you stick your head out and an arm to strike at something, then you aren't crouching behind your shield, and you don't have total cover.
The -2 and -10 are because it's big and unwieldy. It's not a price you pay to be able to carry around your own cover.
I wouldn't allow him to make AoO through that edge.
"That edge is treated as a solid wall for attacks targeting you only." makes it pretty clear: He can still attack. Just as anyone behind him would not gain the benefit of the cover (except for the normal soft cover of having a body in the way.) If he cannot attack through the line, then effectively everyone behind him should also gain advantage of the cover which is currently not the case.
A cute compromise is to have a eye slit in the tower shield so that planting the shield provides improved cover for attacks targeting you only.
It also says "(see cover,..." and the shield(at least in my games) doesn't transform into 5-foot by 8-foot solid wall.
It's the character that hides behind the shield, and thereby losing line of effect through the shield, and therefore considers creatures on the other side of the shield as having total cover.
And any cover prevents AoO.
I say cover goes both ways, at least for adjacent creatures.
Except unlike most cover, the character can move this cover while making an attack. I think he should still get the AoO, but I agree that it isn't clear.
maybe, but turns are simultaneous, so if he moves his cover he might get attacked.
I would also rule that he loses his shield bonus against attacks from other directions, it's not really RAW, just verisimilitude. Does anyone do that?
|
He is planting a mobile wall in front of him, so no, no AoO along that edge, reading the wording to infer that it makes the shield some sort of one way "force field" is ridiculous gamesmanship, the wording of "attacks targeting you only" is to prevent a conga line of players behind a single tower shield, which is why there are feats and such for that. If he were able to threaten that facing, he would be open to that facing. That said, AoO's to the sides should be handled as normal.
I agree with the above statements as they are logical. But rules are rarely logical. FAQ candidate?
|
|
You know, I actually think the player is right one this one.
The Tower Shield says the following:
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...When employing a tower shield in combat, you take a –2 penalty on attack rolls because of the shield's encumbrance.
So, about the cover: note the portion in bold. It is a solid wall for attacks targeting the shield-wielder only; so the 'solid wall' does not exist for the dwarf (since he is not attacking himself). Therefore, he cannot loose attacks of opportunity due to a shield wall that does not exist to him. It can be an effective tactic, but he does loose his normal attacks.
Keep in mind that the description does not say that the shield is planted in the ground or somehow secured in place as a true wall. Instead, I see it as the shield being used differently. Instead, the shield-wielder is planting himself defensively...but he still has the ability to take a quick swipe if the opportunity presents itself.
One thing to note: When the tower shield is used for cover, he looses the AC bonus from the shield, but keeps the -2 attack penalty. Why? The description states that in most situations, it provides the indicated shield bonus to your AC. As a standard action, however...The however refers back to the AB bonus...which means that using the shield for cover negates the AC bonus; and lastly, the the shield is still 'employed' when used for cover, so the -2 penalty is in effect.
Lastly, even though the rules state that you cannot attack an opponent with total cover, I would have no problem stating that the shield could be attacked with a sunder or bull rush since the shield cannot provide cover for itself.
RAW, the player seems to be correct.
I think it's probably better to rule that the cover works both ways, but such an act is a house rule.