I did bring up the clause that the attacks were only for those targeting the shield user only, but it didn't seem to be enough to convince the clear answer on the matter.
Seems like some more arguments are needed then.
The answer to A, B, and C are all "Yes". You're not actually setting up Total Cover. You're only getting it for the purpose of attacks targeting you.
It doesn't break line of sight. It doesn't break line of effect.
An enemy archer can decide to shoot right through your square when targeting an ally and only suffer the normal Soft Cover.
The existence of Mobile Fortress proves your group members wrong. Because if the Tower Shield actually set up Total Cover that enemies could benefit from, then it follows that any allies behind you would also be able to benefit from it. But they don't because the feat specifically allows your adjacent allies to benefit from it.
Good luck, game is a decade plus old and was given the middle finger from the authors only three years ago.
|
Personally, I feel that that the Total cover should work both ways, i.e. if you get total cover from attacker A, attacker A gets total cover from you, but it doesn't affect other people. But I dislike that you can't ready an action to attack the limb of a creature with reach, too. Both are personal preferences that go against RAW.
RAW, as Wonderstell said, is that the reply to all 3 questions is "Yes, you can."
The reason is because you're the guy holding the shield, you can just stick your sword arm around the edge of the shield (as if making a ranged attack from the corner of your square). The bigger issue for me is when the attacker comes up on the square that happens to be in the corner of the guy with the shield's square because that's how the map was drawn and you can't angle the shield to face that corner instead of a hard edge.
|
|
After AwesomenessDog I have checked the rules extensively. I must change my comment. Youcan't do A, B, or C.
The reason is because you're the guy holding the shield, you can just stick your sword arm around the edge of the shield (as if making a ranged attack from the corner of your square). The bigger issue for me is when the attacker comes up on the square that happens to be in the corner of the guy with the shield's square because that's how the map was drawn and you can't angle the shield to face that corner instead of a hard edge.
If you attack from the corner of your square and the map has a draw obstacle that extends to the corner of the square, your opponent benefits from Cover if you can draw a line that doesn't touch the obstacle from any corner of your square, Total cover if you can't draw a line that doesn't touch the obstacle from any corner of your square.
So the guy using a tower shield as you say would give his opponent 4 extra points of AC. And he would receive only Cover from the tower shield or the shield AC benefit.
Checking the rules, Total cover works in both directions, if you have total cover from someone, he has total cover from you. There are no rules that allow you to treat it differently. He can draw a line of effect, you can't draw a line of effect.
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.
So getting total cover is an alternative to getting the shield AC benefit.
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.
Granted, it says "for attacks targeting you only", but it man that it doesn't protect other people behind you. Extending that to say "and is totally transparent to you" is really well beyond the limits of good sense. Remember, the rules aren't written for lawyers. Even rule lawyers need to use good sense when reading them.
You gain total cover for attacks that pass through this edge and no cover for attacks that do not pass through this edge (see Chapter 8).
Think of it in a more realistic way, you can shift your shield an inch to the left and your hand reaches around, but this also only something you can do when you spent a feat for Mobile Bulwark style, as you burn your standard just turning this on for the round normally anyway. Total cover is actually less hindering than simply losing your ability to attack save an extremely rare AoO from a melee guy.
Just look at how you can very easily keep your weapon in a threatening position while yourself being entirely safe behind the shield. Sure, the enemy can try to side step (such as by a simple 5ft step off the shielded guy's turn), but you can keep the shield pointed at them or use terrain (such as a doorway) to prevent being sidestepped and block the only direction you could be attacked from anyway.
|
|
Think of it in a more realistic way, you can shift your shield an inch to the left and your hand reaches around, but this also only something you can do when you spent a feat for Mobile Bulwark style, as you burn your standard just turning this on for the round normally anyway. Total cover is actually less hindering than simply losing your ability to attack save an extremely rare AoO from a melee guy.
Just look at how you can very easily keep your weapon in a threatening position while yourself being entirely safe behind the shield. Sure, the enemy can try to side step (such as by a simple 5ft step off the shielded guy's turn), but you can keep the shield pointed at them or use terrain (such as a doorway) to prevent being sidestepped and block the only direction you could be attacked from anyway.
Think of it in a more realistic way, bulwark style allows you to attacks before placing the tower shield and getting total cover.
Attacking after using it to get total cover means that you are thrusting your weapon blindly behind a wall (and still exposing your arm) or that you are exposing yourself to attack.If your "totally safe" guy was fighting any experienced fighter, his right foot is an available target. Same thing for the left side of his body. I.e he is benefitting from the +4 AC bonus of a tower shield.
This or this is what a tower shield is. Total cover when you hide behind it reloading the crossbow or if you hide behind it to avoid attacks from a direction while fighting in another. +4 to the AC when firing the crossbow or attacking an opponent that is on the other side of the shield.
Just to point it out: you don't get to make an AoO if your target has Cover, even less if it has Total cover.
@Diego Rossi
Here's Mark Seifter weighing in on a relevant question.
Being the kineticist master that you are, what are your thoughts on this question? link Is any cover granted by the wall total cover? Or does it work like a normal wall and thus grants partial cover as appropriate.Much like a tower shield, it grants the total cover to very particular attacks (though it doesn't have the tower shield's limitations limiting to one character or allowing targeted spells to pass through). It's at its most powerful around doors and narrow corridors, in which venue I've seen it work to incredible effect. You could conceivably block someone from progressing down a 5-foot corridor for a very long time by readying actions to put up kinetic cover during their movement (or by pre-calling a series of them).
So according to Mark Seifter the Tower Shield's Total Cover is limited to a single character. Which means that only the character holding the shield is given Total Cover (for the purpose of attacks etc etc).
Which means that the Total Cover does not go both ways.
|
|
@Diego Rossi
Here's Mark Seifter weighing in on a relevant question.
Being the kineticist master that you are, what are your thoughts on this question? link Is any cover granted by the wall total cover? Or does it work like a normal wall and thus grants partial cover as appropriate.Much like a tower shield, it grants the total cover to very particular attacks (though it doesn't have the tower shield's limitations limiting to one character or allowing targeted spells to pass through). It's at its most powerful around doors and narrow corridors, in which venue I've seen it work to incredible effect. You could conceivably block someone from progressing down a 5-foot corridor for a very long time by readying actions to put up kinetic cover during their movement (or by pre-calling a series of them).So according to Mark Seifter the Tower Shield's Total Cover is limited to a single character. Which means that only the character holding the shield is given Total Cover (for the purpose of attacks etc etc).
Which means that the Total Cover does not go both ways.
Not really. What did he say? "though it doesn't have the tower shield's limitations limiting to one character".
The character is protected by total cover, the character is hindered by total cover. Total cover affects the character both ways.That is how it works if you use a bit of logic.
Note that Mark was replying to a very different question about kinetic cover, and the comment was made in passing. Turning it into a treatise on how tower shields work is stretching what he did say.
|
|
Neither you nor the tower shield takes up the whole 5' x 5' square. You can easily move within the square to attack around the shield, while hiding behind it when attacked. Also, attacks going past you can go around the shield (and you who are hiding behind it)
Schrodinger fighter. When I attack I am not hindered by total cover, when I defend I benefit from it.
You can do something like that with Mobile Bulwark: you attack using a standard action, move up to 5', then spend the move action to set up the tower shield and benefit from total cover.
But then you can't make an AoO on the side with total cover.
You can take AoO on the other 3 sides of the square, you have no LOS/LOE on the side with total cover.
You have total cover on that side, benefits, and hindrances.
You guys want to treat total cover as a one-way mirror, but total cover gives you both benefits and hindrances.
Not really. What did he say? "though it doesn't have the tower shield's limitations limiting to one character".
The character is protected by total cover, the character is hindered by total cover. Total cover affects the character both ways.
That is how it works if you use a bit of logic.
Dial down the condescending remarks a bit.
Much like a tower shield, it grants the total cover to very particular attacks (though it doesn't have the tower shield's limitations limiting to one character or allowing targeted spells to pass through). It's at its most powerful around doors and narrow corridors, in which venue I've seen it work to incredible effect. You could conceivably block someone from progressing down a 5-foot corridor for a very long time by readying actions to put up kinetic cover during their movement (or by pre-calling a series of them).
"Much like a tower shield, it grants the total cover to very particular attacks (though it doesn't have the tower shield's limitations limiting [Total Cover] to one character or allowing targeted spells to pass through).
I'm assuming that you were being deliberately obtuse since the sentence really couldn't be interpreted in any other feasible way. The subject of the matter is Total Cover so when speaking of the Tower Shield's limitation he is indeed referring to Total Cover. Which leads us to the conclusion that the Tower Shield only provides Total Cover (again, for the purpose of enemy attacks etc etc) to a single character.
Now. Let's talk about a statement you've repeated multiple times after you "checked the rules extensively".
The character is protected by total cover, the character is hindered by total cover. Total cover affects the character both ways.
You guys want to treat total cover as a one-way mirror, but total cover gives you both benefits and hindrances.
Nowhere in the description of Cover (or Concealment) can I see the apparent rule that Cover is a two-way street. Neither in the description of Total Cover. As a matter of fact it is entirely possible for someone to have Cover against enemy attacks while not suffering the penalties of it on their own attacks. The game is full of such examples.
You are wrong on multiple levels. Not only are you trying to convince us that the general rules for cover say something they don't, you have also failed to account for how the Tower Shield is an exception to the normal rules for Total Cover.
The "attacking around the edge" is just explaining how in an out of game abstraction sense the guy with the shield (and MBS) can control their shield and weapon to still threaten "around the edge" of their shield. At least, that's how I was using it. And yeah, the Tower Shield user who uses the standard action without being able to ensure someone directly in front of them can't just 5ft step diagonally around them actually is worse off, as they no longer have their shield bonus and no cover.
Except you're not deploying it like a pavise shield, you're just fixing the direction that you hold it towards to no longer offer the option for anyone to hit past your shield, but losing any benefit you normal gain from it in the process, for just one round. After that round, if you dont continue to burn standard actions, you automatically revert to normal. You don't have to pick it back up and un deploy it like you would a pavise.
|
|
That edge is treated as a solid wall for attacks targeting you only.
...
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.
Just to point out the limits of the strict reading of "attacks targeting you":
- no protection against scatter weapons, breath weapons, and splash damage from splash weapons;- no protection against bursts and emanations, they don't target you.
You have a "solid wall" that doesn't half of the things that a solid wall does.
|
|
The character is protected by total cover, the character is hindered by total cover. Total cover affects the character both ways.You guys want to treat total cover as a one-way mirror, but total cover gives you both benefits and hindrances.Nowhere in the description of Cover (or Concealment) can I see the apparent rule that Cover is a two-way street. Neither in the description of Total Cover. As a matter of fact it is entirely possible for someone to have Cover against enemy attacks while not suffering the penalties of it on their own attacks. The game is full of such examples.
You are wrong on multiple levels. Not only are you trying to convince us that the general rules for cover say something they don't, you have also failed to account for how the Tower Shield is an exception to the normal rules for Total Cover.
1) It is possible to deny Cover:
a) in melee, if the attacker is large or larger, has reach, and can attack from a square that hasn't cover;b) if a low obstacle provides Cover and you are closer to the obstacle than the target;
c) Big creatures use one of their squares to determine cover in melee, both when attacking and defending.
Can you cite any other example?
And a) and c), while in different parts of the rule, say essentially the same thing "larger or larger creatures have different rules".
2) "Nowhere in the description of Cover can I see the apparent rule that Cover is a two-way street." Read how you check if someone has Cover or Total Cover, page 195 of the Core Rulebook. Then explain how it isn't two-way, with the three exceptions above.
That edge is treated as a solid wall for attacks targeting you only.
...
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.
Just to point out the limits of the strict reading of "attacks targeting you":
- no protection against scatter weapons, breath weapons, and splash damage from splash weapons;
- no protection against bursts and emanations, they don't target you.You have a "solid wall" that doesn't half of the things that a solid wall does.
Well yeah. I don't think anyone here is saying that the Tower Shield would block dragonfire. It doesn't. A fireball goes straight through and you don't even get a bonus to reflex saves from cover. If it doesn't have an attack roll then it's unaffected by the Tower Shield's Total Cover. Because it isn't a solid wall for every purpose. It is only a solid wall for one singular purpose. Attacks.
Your reductio ad absurdum argument has lead you to say things I thought were obvious. A bit of a miscommunication here.
|
|
A scatter attack makes several attack rolls, but it doesn't target the creatures in its cone.
When a scatter weapon attacks all creatures within a cone, it makes a separate attack roll against each creature within the cone.
The requisite for the tower shield to work as a wall is "attacks targeting you". But scatter attacks don't target anyone.
If that requirement isn't met, it doesn't grant cover.The whole argument that the tower shield used this way grants total cover only to you, and not to the creatures on the other side of the wall, is based on that line. But then you should accept all the limits of that line.
A scatter attack makes several attack rolls, but it doesn't target the creatures in its cone.
On what basis do you make this claim? Magic Missile and Arrow Eruption both affect multiple creatures and are "targeting" every single one of them. Just affecting more than one creature does not prevent it from "targeting" them. And as Arrow Eruption also involves making attack rolls I think it's very applicable to the Scatter Weapon situation.
The whole argument that the tower shield used this way grants total cover only to you, and not to the creatures on the other side of the wall, is based on that line. But then you should accept all the limits of that line.
I disagree, as you're the one hung up on "solid wall" while the rest of description is quite clear that it only deals with granting the wearer Total Cover. It repeatedly states that you are the one getting a benefit. Not that you are creating Total Cover or a Solid Wall for all to use.
When employing a tower shield in combat, you take a –2 penalty on attack rolls because of the shield’s encumbrance.
But let us jump back to your previous post again.
Just to point out the limits of the strict reading of "attacks targeting you":
- no protection against scatter weapons, breath weapons, and splash damage from splash weapons;
- no protection against bursts and emanations, they don't target you.
You have a "solid wall" that doesn't half of the things that a solid wall does.
Are you of the belief that the Tower Shield would help against a Lightning Bolt or Fireball? That's what I'm assuming since you presented the opposite of those examples as ridiculous. I think a clear answer to this question can prevent us from arguing in circles for another 20 posts.
|
|
A scatter attack makes several attack rolls, but it doesn't target the creatures in its cone.On what basis do you make this claim?
On the text of the ability.
Scatter Weapon Quality: A weapon with the scatter weapon quality can shoot two different types of ammunition. It can fire normal bullets that target one creature, or it can make a scattering shot, attacking all creatures within a cone. Cannons with the scatter weapon quality only fire grapeshot, unless their descriptions state otherwise. When a scatter weapon attacks all creatures within a cone, it makes a separate attack roll against each creature within the cone. Each attack roll takes a –2 penalty, and its attack damage cannot be modified by precision damage or damage-increasing feats such as Vital Strike. Effects that grant concealment, such as fog or smoke, or the blur, invisibility, or mirror image spells, do not foil a scatter attack. If any of the attack rolls threaten a critical, confirm the critical for that attack roll alone. A firearm that makes a scatter shot misfires only if all of the attack rolls made misfire. If a scatter weapon explodes on a misfire, it deals triple its damage to all creatures within the misfire radius.
Normal bullets target a creature, scatter fill a cone. You roll against all targets, but you don't target anyone.
It totally disregards concealment of any type exactly because it doesn't target people.|
|
A scatter attack makes several attack rolls, but it doesn't target the creatures in its cone.On what basis do you make this claim? Magic Missile and Arrow Eruption both affect multiple creatures and are "targeting" every single one of them. Just affecting more than one creature does not prevent it from "targeting" them. And as Arrow Eruption also involves making attack rolls I think it's very applicable to the Scatter Weapon situation.
The whole argument that the tower shield used this way grants total cover only to you, and not to the creatures on the other side of the wall, is based on that line. But then you should accept all the limits of that line.I disagree, as you're the one hung up on "solid wall" while the rest of description is quite clear that it only deals with granting the wearer Total Cover. It repeatedly states that you are the one getting a benefit. Not that you are creating Total Cover or a Solid Wall for all to use.
** spoiler omitted **
But let us jump back to your previous...
The line I cited is "attacks targeting you", not "solid wall", so why are you changing my argument? Incomprehension? Skimming and not reading?
"Attacks targeting you" is exactly that, an attack that targets you. Scattershot doesn't target you. Any area attack, even if it doesn't move around corners, isn't an attack that targets you.
The attacks I cited aren't blocked by a tower shield, but I wanted to point that out. As I said that is the effect of working only against attacks that target you.
Normal bullets target a creature, scatter fill a cone. You roll against all targets, but you don't target anyone.
It totally disregards concealment of any type exactly because it doesn't target people.
It ignores concealment because the description says so. An ability doesn't specifically have to state that it is "targeting" someone for it to do so. "Targeting" isn't a defined term. ("Targeted" is though, but for spells). There is no requirement of intent for an attack to target a creature. If you make an attack roll against someone then you are targeting them with an attack.
If you don't agree with that statement then I suggest we drop it.
The line I cited is "attacks targeting you", not "solid wall", so why are you changing my argument? Incomprehension? Skimming and not reading?
I am referring to the entirety of the sentence which includes the term "Solid Wall". This is the sentence which you have dug into and repeated a few times now. Since the rest of the description doesn't support your idea that the Total Cover goes both ways (in fact, it specifically states that you gain the effect), this one sentence is apparently what you won't let go.
The attacks I cited aren't blocked by a tower shield, but I wanted to point that out. As I said that is the effect of working only against attacks that target you.
This seems counter to the purpose of your previous post.
Just to point out the limits of the strict reading of "attacks targeting you":
- no protection against scatter weapons, breath weapons, and splash damage from splash weapons;
- no protection against bursts and emanations, they don't target you.You have a "solid wall" that doesn't half of the things that a solid wall does.
You mean to say that this wasn't an attempt at a counterargument, but that this post was actually you agreeing with the opposition's beliefs by presenting them in a way that sounds like you're disagreeing with them? Because it really sounds like you're trying to drive in a point by bringing up "Solid Wall" there. Which is odd when your opposition hasn't said anything about it. Only that your Total Cover only applies to attacks targeting you.
What was your reasoning, then?
|
|
Do you want to hear something funny?
If I close my eyes before attacking and attack the square, the tower shield used as cover doesn't do anything. I am not targeting you, I am targeting the square.
And if "targeting isn't defined", how the ability of the tower shield works is non-defined too, as it says "attacks targeting you".
I feel a bit hard to see how you can say that it is non-defined, but has a game effect.
|
|
Do you want to hear something funny?
If I close my eyes before attacking and attack the square, the tower shield used as cover doesn't do anything. I am not targeting you, I am targeting the square.And if "targeting isn't defined", how the ability of the tower shield works is non-defined too, as it says "attacks targeting you".
I feel a bit hard to see how you can say that it is non-defined, but has a game effect.If I were the GM and you attempted to bypass someone using a tower shield for cover by "attacking the square" I'd tell you that you hit something solid, and since your eyes are closed you're not sure what you hit.....
Probably something similar to a solid wall, but not quite the same as a solid wall, but in this specific case probably close enough to a solid wall..... But, as you're currently blind, who knows.
RAI? I perfectly agree.
RAW? No, if you are attacking the square you aren't attacking the creature with the tower shield.But the whole argument about being able to attack and make AoO through the side protected by the tower shield is based on that kind of RAW reading.
If someone argues that he can attack through the "solid wall" on the basis of that RAW reading, he can't pretend to be protected by that solid wall on the basis of RAI.
|
|
If it requires a separate attack roll you're targeting a specific target.
Fireball doesn't require an attack roll....so the shield doesn't help.
Magic missile requires an attack roll...so the shield provides total cover and you can't use magic missile.
Shooting an arrow requires an attack roll..the shield prevents it.
Throwing an alchemist bomb requires an attack roll...the shield prevents it.
Throwing an alchemist bomb on the ground in the same square...you're not targeting the player so it works fine, but it will only deal splash or whatever the bombs secondary effects are.
Scatter shot requires an attack roll for each specific target... You can't specifically target the guy with the shield, as he has total cover from being targeted. Scatter shot fails.
a) Magic missile doesn't require an attack roll.
b) RAW, you target the tower shield with Magic Missile and hit the guy using it: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.
Unless we use RAI, a tower shield doesn't protect at all against spells.
As was said several times to me, it is a solid wall only against a very specific set of attacks.
For the scattershot the keyword is targeting, not making an attack roll. The scattershot doesn't target a creature, it targets an area. If you guys use RAW to make an AoO, you can't pretend to use RAI to defend.
Do you want to hear something funny?
If I close my eyes before attacking and attack the square, the tower shield used as cover doesn't do anything. I am not targeting you, I am targeting the square.And if "targeting isn't defined", how the ability of the tower shield works is non-defined too, as it says "attacks targeting you".
I feel a bit hard to see how you can say that it is non-defined, but has a game effect.
Because that's how language works. An "attack roll" is a defined game term. We know what it refers to because the term is defined in the pathfinder rules. Specifically the combat chapter. But an "attack targeting you" doesn't refer to any specific game term. Which means I can't look that up in the glossary, so we must interpret the words in the context they appear. While words always have meaning and game effects, a defined term always has the same meaning.
Per the definition of an Attack Roll, you must beat the target's AC. An Attack Roll happens when you are targeting a target with an attack. The example of closing your eyes to avoid a tower shield is just poor use of semantics.
Attack Roll:
"An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target’s Armor Class, you hit and deal damage."
RAI? I perfectly agree.
RAW? No, if you are attacking the square you aren't attacking the creature with the tower shield.
Well, I hope my previous post helped you understand where you went wrong. The "RAW" you're bringing up here is just an interpretation based on a faulty understanding of how language works. It would be like if I claimed that the Invisibility spell doesn't end if I attack a square instead of the creature occupying it.
Completely ridiculous rules lawyering. That ain't RAW. Never has been.
But the whole argument about being able to attack and make AoO through the side protected by the tower shield is based on that kind of RAW reading.
If someone argues that he can attack through the "solid wall" on the basis of that RAW reading, he can't pretend to be protected by that solid wall on the basis of RAI.
Didn't you just get mad at me for calling you out on the "Solid Wall" fixation?
I'd like to counter your statement right now but I know how these discussions continue on if I don't press you for Yes/No answers. Do you agree that your "closing eyes" argument has been disproven or is there something unclear?
|
|
Disproved as not RAW? No, at all. You are twisting what targeting means.
Attacks roll are not called by the ability of the tower shield. Targeting is what is called out. And while not a "game term", how targeting works in-game is clear.
That edge is treated as a solid wall for attacks targeting you only.
You are trying to change that to "That edge blocks attacks against you", but it isn't what the ability says.
You are disregarding "targeting" and "targeting you only". And belittling me for using the actual test "solid wall".You are using RAI as you interpret it, but if we speak of RAI, why should consider what is the possible RAI of having his kind of "solid wall" on the edge of your square.
As the argument you are making is that RAW it exists only for attacks targeting you, you can't make an argument that RAW its effect other things, included area attack and attacks that target the square.
You can't argue that it is A when it is convenient for you and then argue that it is non-A when it is more convenient and that both apply at the same time.
Disproved as not RAW? No, at all. You are twisting what targeting means.
Attacks roll are not called by the ability of the tower shield. Targeting is what is called out. And while not a "game term", how targeting works in-game is clear.
So you do agree that "targeting" is not defined by the rules of the game. Good.
Which means that we are indeed forced to consider that word in the context it appears in. Great. That is the point I was making, and the arguments that you refused to meet. Now in this case you have convinced yourself that "targeting" can only mean a single thing, and indeed, to yourself "how targeting works in-game is clear".
But our interpretation didn't lead to the logical inconsistency that you are accusing us of. It is your interpretation of "targeting" and total concealment that leads to it. Which should be a clear sign that your interpretation is wrong.
If I close my eyes before attacking and attack the square, the tower shield used as cover doesn't do anything. I am not targeting you, I am targeting the square.
Again. This is a completely ridiculous reasoning. And it shows a clear lack of understanding regarding how concealment works.
The first step when dealing with concealment is to see if your attack is successful. If the attack hits. If the attack roll against your target's AC succeeded. Only then do you roll the 50% miss chance from total concealment. This is all explained in the rules for concealment.
Since you can't beat a target's AC without a target, there must be a target for that attack you just made. A target whose AC value we are interested in because that target is being targeted by an attack.
Concealment gives the subject of a successful attack a 20% chance that the attacker missed because of the concealment. Make the attack normally—if the attacker hits, the defender must make a miss chance d% roll to avoid being struck. Multiple concealment conditions do not stack.
Total Concealment
If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).
You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.
***
Then do you now agree that I am being logically consistent when I say that someone closing their eyes would not circumvent the Tower Shield?
|
|
But our interpretation didn't lead to the logical inconsistency that you are accusing us of. It is your interpretation of "targeting" and total concealment that leads to it. Which should be a clear sign that your interpretation is wrong.
Targeting is better described in the magic rules, but it isn't the first time that a game mechanic is defined in a section that isn't so appropriate.
Your definition of targeting clashes with the magic rules, and that is hardly credible, as having the same term define different things in different parts of the rules is extremely counterproductive for the comprehension of the game.SKR explained it when he was a developer: And if for some reason two things that seem almost the same (like "channel energy" vs. "channel" vs. "channel positive energy") shouldn't act exactly the same, count on us to tell you how it is different.
You instead are saying that "targeting" and "target" in the magic rules are different from "targeting" and "target" in the equipment rules.
|
|
If I close my eyes before attacking and attack the square, the tower shield used as cover doesn't do anything. I am not targeting you, I am targeting the square.Again. This is a completely ridiculous reasoning. And it shows a clear lack of understanding regarding how concealment works.
The first step when dealing with concealment is to see if your attack is successful. If the attack hits. If the attack roll against your target's AC succeeded. Only then do you roll the 50% miss chance from total concealment. This is all explained in the rules for concealment.
Since you can't beat a target's AC without a target, there must be a target for that attack you just made. A target whose AC value we are interested in because that target is being targeted by an attack.
You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies.
CRB, page 197.
You even cited it.Maybe you should read again how it works.
If you close your eyes your opponent has total concealment.
It is the same argument used to avoid the effect of Mirror Images at the cost of suffering the blindness drawbacks.
You are consistent with yourself, but totally missing the rules.
Targeting is better described in the magic rules, but it isn't the first time that a game mechanic is defined in a section that isn't so appropriate.
Your definition of targeting clashes with the magic rules, and that is hardly credible, as having the same term define different things in different parts of the rules is extremely counterproductive for the comprehension of the game.SKR explained it when he was a developer: And if for some reason two things that seem almost the same (like "channel energy" vs. "channel" vs. "channel positive energy") shouldn't act exactly the same, count on us to tell you how it is different.
You instead are saying that "targeting" and "target" in the magic rules are different from "targeting" and "target" in the equipment rules.
I say this without an ounce of sarcasm. But are you not aware that words can have different meanings depending on context? You're making such bold claims that are so easily disproven that I feel something is clearly amiss. It's also very dishonest how you claim that targeting is defined but didn't actually provide a definition for it.
According to the rules for magic, the spells with a Target or Targets descriptor have a target. A "targeted spell", as it were. Are you implying that spells with the Effect descriptor doesn't have a target, then?
Because if you look at the descriptions for Scorching Ray, Arrow Eruption, or the large majority of such Effect spells you'll see that they still use the word "target".
But they're not referring to the Target descriptor there. It has a different meaning in the context of the spell. Like how "bonus" in Solo Tactics doesn't refer to numeric values and how "attacks" in Invisibility doesn't require an attack roll to qualify.
Maybe you should read again how it works.
If you close your eyes your opponent has total concealment.
It is the same argument used to avoid the effect of Mirror Images at the cost of suffering the blindness drawbacks.You are consistent with yourself, but totally missing the rules.
It is not the same as Mirror Image because the spell itself notes that exception.
"An attacker must be able to see the figments to be fooled. If you are invisible or the attacker is blind, the spell has no effect (although the normal miss chances still apply)."
But the real issue is that you refuse the consider the implications of what you're saying.
Yes or No
If someone makes an attack roll against my AC, am I the target of an attack?
In Geometry, "Corners" are called a Vertex, or Vertices, and a Vertex requires two Edges to connect.
The objects are drawn as dots called vertices; a line (or curve) connects any two vertices representing objects that are related or adjacent; such a line is called an edge.
Cover
To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).
When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from any corner of your square to the target’s square goes through a wall (including a low wall). When making a melee attack against a target that isn’t adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.
Mobile Bulwark Style (Combat, Style)
Prerequisite(s): Str 13, Shield Focus, Tower Shield Proficiency, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit(s): While using a tower shield, add the shield’s bonus to AC (including its enhancement bonus) to your CMD against bull rush and overrun combat maneuvers. While using this style, you can use a tower shield to grant total cover along one edge of your space as a move action.
It is a requirement in geometry that a single Edge creates two Vertices when combined with other Edges, therefore, both corners of the chosen edge of the square count for Mobile Bulwark Style and the cover rules. Your opponent does not benefit from cover.
@OP, A, B, & C = Yes.
For realistic visualization of Mobile Bulwark's fluff text, you are not planting the shield in the ground, you're rotating it so vigorously and proficiently that you gain Cover.
This all seems to be getting too circular. I don't think anyone is going to convince anyone at this point. The text from CRB is notorious for not being based on pedantics. In the original 3.5 rules there is an FAQ that the cover granted by the shield goes both ways. But Pathfinder significantly rewrote the rules for tower shield, so obviously they were intended to work differently in Pathfinder than in 3.5.
This massive wooden shield is nearly as tall as you are. In most situations, it provides the indicated shield bonus to your AC. However, you can instead use it as total cover, though you must give up your attacks to do so. 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.
When employing a tower shield in combat, you take a -2 penalty on attack rolls because of the shield’s encumbrance.
This massive wooden shield is nearly as tall as its user. 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 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.
When employing a tower shield in combat, you take a –2 penalty on attack rolls because of the shield’s encumbrance.
I'm going to say that in Pathfinder only the shield user receives the benefits of cover. People who think otherwise are probably applying obsolete 3.5 knowledge to their concept of the text.
|
|
I have stopped arguing that it does provide protection both ways, as RAW it says that it protects only from attacks targeting you.
The argument has moved to what is "targeting you only".
Wonderstell is applying "whatever I find convenient" to the definition of "targeting you only".
"Targeting you" requires selecting you as a target and doesn't apply to area attacks, even if the area attack requires a confirmation roll against your AC.
Ryze Kuja post instead raise a different question:
While using this style, you can use a tower shield to grant you total cover along one edge of your space (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Core Rulebook 153) as a move action.
Mobile bulwark doesn't work as a normal tower shield. It gives total cover to you. Total cover works against spells, breath weapons, etc., all the stuff that isn't blocked by the normal use of a tower shield.
On the other hand, it calls the description in Core Rulebook, p. 153, that is that of the tower shield.So, that "grant you total cover" is a rule written badly, and it grants the effect of a tower shield, or the reference to page 153 is wrong and it grants total cover?
Since the text can be interpreted either way and those old sources aren't built for pedantics anyway, it'd be better to argue which one would be more fair.
It seems like the feat was mostly just meant to change the standard action for using the shield to a move action. The bonus to CMD is a nice, but pretty minor addition. Getting both the change to move action and the CMD bonus is a decent get for a feat. I feel like if the feat also worked against spells that target you, then that would be a big enough change to call out specifically.
We should have a rule of thumb that exception-based rules should be more explicit, the more they change something from standard.