"When you have a tower shield raised, you can use the
Take Cover action (page 471) to increase the circumstance
bonus to AC to +4. This lasts until the shield is no longer
raised." - page 277 second paragraph core book
Paragon's Guard
"Once you’ve had a moment to set your stance, you always have your shield ready without a thought. While you are in this stance, you constantly have your shield raised as if you’d used the Raise a Shield action, as long as you meet that action’s requirements." - page 151 core book bottom right
Several questions arise from this rule interaction and I have three theories (on one part of it) but Iam not sure which is correct.
Hypothesis A) Tower shields while raised and after using the Take Cover action provide all the benefits and have all the limitations of Greater Cover. Meaning Even with Paragon's Guard you must spend 1 action to take cover each turn if you attack etc.
Hypothesis B) Tower Shields while raised and after you use the Take Cover action do not provide Greater Cover and are not limited by its limitations. Meaning if you are in Paragon stance you maintain the +4 to ac after using take cover as long as you maintain the stance.
Hypothesis C) Tower shields only engage with the take cover rules in so far as its limitations. (For the wielder)
Quote: This lasts until you move from your current space, use an attack action, become unconscious, or end this effect as a free action. So you need to spend 1 action to Take Cover.
Then you keep the +4 until you move/attack.
So mostly using 1 action every turn.
Mellored wrote: Quote: This lasts until you move from your current space, use an attack action, become unconscious, or end this effect as a free action. So you need to spend 1 action to Take Cover.
Then you keep the +4 until you move/attack.
So mostly using 1 action every turn. So are you thinking hypothesis C is the intended one? Or do you think the intention is that you gain all the benefits of the take cover action (Such as the bonus to reflex vs aoe) as well as its limitations? Because "This lasts until the shield is no longer raised." contradicts what you quoted when combined with paragon and is specifically talking about tower shields.
Pretty sure permanent +4 is not intended.
Assuming you attack on your turn, you spend your last action to Take Cover. It stays up. Next turn, you move/attack, and use the last action to Take Cover.
So "A". Unless you don't move/attack, then you can just keep it.
That's quite balanced.
A fighter will be able to reach a tanky AC with some limitations
- a lvl 12 class feat
- 1 action per round required
- bad synergy with AoO ( since you will lose your cover if you attack)
- no shield block ( you wouldn't dare to destroy your fragile tower shield, which has neither no hp nor hardness)
But overall it, IMO, rocks ( since +2 AC is worth all of this).
Finally, this means that it could also be done by a lvl 20 champion, resulting in the highest armored class in the game.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
HumbleGamer wrote: That's quite balanced.
A fighter will be able to reach a tanky AC with some limitations
- a lvl 12 class feat
- 1 action per round required
- bad synergy with AoO ( since you will lose your cover if you attack)
- no shield block ( you wouldn't dare to destroy your fragile tower shield, which has neither no hp nor hardness)
But overall it, IMO, rocks ( since +2 AC is worth all of this).
Finally, this means that it could also be done by a lvl 20 champion, resulting in the highest armored class in the game.
I would counter that according to the first rule I quoted in the OP you would not lose the +4 to AC from AoO because "This lasts until the shield is no longer raised" which seems to specifically override the limitation from the cover rule (In regards to Tower Shields specifically). I'm really hoping to see this whole mess addressed in an errata. Currently we have a messy rules conflict where the interpretation is going to vary widely by DM and player. Its a recipe for headaches.
The take cover action comes to an end if you attack or perform another action.
Quote: Take Cover Single Action
Source Core Rulebook pg. 471 1.1
Requirements You are benefiting from cover, are near a feature that allows you to take cover, or are prone.
You press yourself against a wall or duck behind an obstacle to take better advantage of cover. If you would have standard cover, you instead gain greater cover, which provides a +4 circumstance bonus to AC; to Reflex saves against area effects; and to Stealth checks to Hide, Sneak, or otherwise avoid detection. Otherwise, you gain the benefits of standard cover (a +2 circumstance bonus instead).This lasts until you move from your current space, use an attack action, become unconscious, or end this effect as a free action
It's no different in any way if the cover you decide to use comes from a tower shield.
And the paragon stance has nothing to do with it.
As you also pointed out, with reflexive shield you gain +4 AC and reflex, but at a cost ( I mentioned all the disadvantages).
If you wanna rule that you don't lose cover even if you perform an attack, it's your own choice.
But I see nothing in either shield rules or tower shield rules, if not a link to take cover ( which explains how to get benefit from a cover).
HumbleGamer wrote: The take cover action comes to an end if you attack or perform another action.
Quote: Take Cover Single Action
Source Core Rulebook pg. 471 1.1
Requirements You are benefiting from cover, are near a feature that allows you to take cover, or are prone.
You press yourself against a wall or duck behind an obstacle to take better advantage of cover. If you would have standard cover, you instead gain greater cover, which provides a +4 circumstance bonus to AC; to Reflex saves against area effects; and to Stealth checks to Hide, Sneak, or otherwise avoid detection. Otherwise, you gain the benefits of standard cover (a +2 circumstance bonus instead).This lasts until you move from your current space, use an attack action, become unconscious, or end this effect as a free action
It's no different in any way if the cover you decide to use comes from a tower shield.
And the paragon stance has nothing to do with it.
As you also pointed out, with reflexive shield you gain +4 AC and reflex, but at a cost ( I mentioned all the disadvantages).
If you wanna rule that you don't lose cover even if you perform an attack, it's your own choice.
But I see nothing in either shield rules or tower shield rules, if not a link to take cover ( which explains how to get benefit from a cover).
This was my original understanding of how a tower shield works just as you say. I believe it is implied that you gain greater cover when you use the take cover action. However none of the people in my gaming groups agreed on a particular interpretation. Many of them pointed out that if the tower shield gave greater cover why does it not specifically say so in the rules for tower shields. Those rules imply that you only get a circ bonus to AC. They followed on to say if that is the case then you do not count as being in any sort of cover even though you used the take cover action.
Serious_Squirrel wrote:
I would counter that according to the first rule I quoted in the OP you would not lose the +4 to AC from AoO because "This lasts until the shield is no longer raised" which seems to specifically override the limitation from the cover rule (In regards to Tower Shields specifically). I'm really hoping to see this whole mess addressed in an errata. Currently we have a messy rules conflict where the interpretation is going to vary widely by DM and player. Its a recipe for headaches
that is an additional requirement.
It does not replace the other requirements any more than "these temporary hit points last until the end of your turn" replaces them being removed by damage.
So you get +4 until the shield is lowered, you move, or you attack. The stance removes the first one.
That said... nothing about sustaining spells...
Mellored wrote: Serious_Squirrel wrote:
I would counter that according to the first rule I quoted in the OP you would not lose the +4 to AC from AoO because "This lasts until the shield is no longer raised" which seems to specifically override the limitation from the cover rule (In regards to Tower Shields specifically). I'm really hoping to see this whole mess addressed in an errata. Currently we have a messy rules conflict where the interpretation is going to vary widely by DM and player. Its a recipe for headaches
that is an additional requirement.
It does not replace the other requirements any more than "these temporary hit points last until the end of your turn" replaces them being removed by damage.
So you get +4 until the shield is lowered, you move, or you attack. The stance removes the first one.
That said... nothing about sustaining spells... If that is the case I hope they errata it and change that to say "This lasts until the beginning of your next turn, provided the shield remains raised." Which is much more strait forward and used frequently elsewhere in the book.
Where would be the trade off then?
HumbleGamer wrote: Where would be the trade off then? I'm not sure which part you are referring to.
Serious_Squirrel wrote: Mellored wrote: Serious_Squirrel wrote:
I would counter that according to the first rule I quoted in the OP you would not lose the +4 to AC from AoO because "This lasts until the shield is no longer raised" which seems to specifically override the limitation from the cover rule (In regards to Tower Shields specifically). I'm really hoping to see this whole mess addressed in an errata. Currently we have a messy rules conflict where the interpretation is going to vary widely by DM and player. Its a recipe for headaches
that is an additional requirement.
It does not replace the other requirements any more than "these temporary hit points last until the end of your turn" replaces them being removed by damage.
So you get +4 until the shield is lowered, you move, or you attack. The stance removes the first one.
That said... nothing about sustaining spells... If that is the case I hope they errata it and change that to say "This lasts until the beginning of your next turn, provided the shield remains raised." Which is much more strait forward and used frequently elsewhere in the book. then you could not have a fighter with a stance hiding behind a shield sustaining spells...
Hmm... fighter / bard...
Of course, being a fighter and not attacking is pretty big waste of the +2 to-hit.
Mellored wrote: Serious_Squirrel wrote: Mellored wrote: Serious_Squirrel wrote:
I would counter that according to the first rule I quoted in the OP you would not lose the +4 to AC from AoO because "This lasts until the shield is no longer raised" which seems to specifically override the limitation from the cover rule (In regards to Tower Shields specifically). I'm really hoping to see this whole mess addressed in an errata. Currently we have a messy rules conflict where the interpretation is going to vary widely by DM and player. Its a recipe for headaches
that is an additional requirement.
It does not replace the other requirements any more than "these temporary hit points last until the end of your turn" replaces them being removed by damage.
So you get +4 until the shield is lowered, you move, or you attack. The stance removes the first one.
That said... nothing about sustaining spells... If that is the case I hope they errata it and change that to say "This lasts until the beginning of your next turn, provided the shield remains raised." Which is much more strait forward and used frequently elsewhere in the book. then you could not have a fighter with a stance hiding behind a shield sustaining spells...
Hmm... fighter / bard...
Of course, being a fighter and not attacking is pretty big waste of the +2 to-hit. Well you could get into some fighter bard hijinks with the tower shield and use desperate finisher to two weapon flurry. (Depending on how all this stuff is interpreted at a given table anyways.)
Recent threads in Rules Discussion
|
