Hello everybody,
most of my group and I are relatively new to PF2e and despite searching older threads and spending some time, we still try to understand the function and intention of the tower shield.
The tower shield has a special paragraph in the shield rules: See CRB p. 277 or https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=212, third paragraph.
My particular problem comes from the following wording "until the shield is no longer raised", - probably in combination with my understanding (maybe just my interpretation, my mental image?) of someone trying to continuously keep their shield guard up.
* My naive interpretation (1) was: As long as you spend the (single) Action to keep your shield raised ('Raise a Shield'), you effectively extend the Shield Bonus incl. special Tower Shield cover bonus into the next round. Sort of interpreting a repeated 'Raise a Shield' as sufficient to fulfil the condition to have the shield raised.
* However, there is also another interpretation (2) : That insists that (except, maybe, with Fighter 12 Feat "Paragon's Guard", but that is another story ...) there never can be a thing like 'extending' one's shield raise (even if always your first action), and your Tower Shield Cover has to fall every round and needing to be reinitiated with a second action on top of 'Raise a Shield'.
Do you understand my confusion? Has there ever been any sort of official clarification on that matter? How do you rule it?
Personal comment:
Obviously the first interpretation would improve the tower shield significantly compared to the second one.
* Someone said it would be extremely powerful then. I don't want to categorically reject this view. Effectively carrying around your own +4 circ. AC for one action each round _is_ powerful, IMHO, no question.
(BTW, I still do not understand if the Bonus is meant to be greater cover or just something strikingly similar, but again, another story... :-|)
* On the other hand, tower shields seem to be very bulky, penalizing items, that have definite weaknesses compared to e.g. Sturdy Shields' blocking robustness. And, as long there are sufficiently robust objects around in the environment, greater cover for +4 circ AC in one action could be in reach for other characters, too.
So I am somewhat lost.
(I generally hope that my usual approach of interpreting rpg rules will not prove just too categorically incompatible with PF2 rules. In any case, I thank you in advance for any hint and support!)
When you raise a shield, you gain the +2 AC until the start of your next turn. That's stated in the first paragraph of your AoN link.
With a tower shield raised, you can spend a second action to Take Cover behind it, giving you +2 more AC for a total of +4.
When your next turn starts, the shield is no longer raised, so to get the +4, you'd have to once more Raise Shield and then Take Cover.
Just taking a new Raise Shield action with the tower shield does not give you +4 to AC.
I view tower shields as somewhat situational. There may be times when that +4 is crucial, but most of the time, you'll just be getting the normal +2. It opens up a new option for a shield using character, but it's not something you should expect to use every round.
The Raise a Shield action responds your doubt:
You position your shield to protect yourself. When you have Raised a Shield, you gain its listed circumstance bonus to AC. Your shield remains raised until the start of your next turn.
So in the beginning of your turn when you receive the 3 normal actions you are no longer raising a shield and consequently the Take Cover falls with it and if you want to get your circumstance +4 AC and +4 reflex you need to use the both actions again.
Thank you, Lia Wynn and YuriP, for your input. So you'd rule that there can't and shouldn't be a thing like an end-to-end, "seamless" shield raise by immediately spending the 'Raise a Shield'-action right then at the start of the turn, i.e. when the original shield raise would run out?
Hence, you consider it the way I mentioned above as Interpretation (2)?
Note: I can't and don't want to refuse your way. Frankly, seems perfectly valid to read it like that, mechanically. I am just somewhat in doubt, still.
Maybe some explanation and addition to my original post: What adds to my confusion (besides the wording of the cited phrase in my original post) is that the concept of keeping a shield continuously up (at a cost) seems to exist in the game.
For instance if I look into mentioned 'Paragon's Guard' Stance, which saves the follow-up actions usually spent on 'Raise a Shield'. Not that I wanted to focus this thread on that feat (and how it relates to the tower shield; there are are further threads for this e.g. https://paizo.com/threads/rzs433b6?Tower-Shields-with-Paragons-Guard ...). Just as a reference point and example for the idea of "constantly raised". Another example seems to be the 'Defend' exploration activity.
(Or maybe it's only my imagination that somehow seems to conflict with the idea that (in same instances, not in others?) one was forced to put a shield "down" although effectively it is up / (re-?)raised all the time, at least as I visualize the scene? Idk... )
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Until the start of your next turn" is a game term that references Effect Duration.
The Raise Shield effect ends at the start of your next turn. Distinctly before you can spend an action on Raise Shield again.
"Until the start of your next turn" is a game term that references Effect Duration.
The Raise Shield effect ends at the start of your next turn. Distinctly before you can spend an action on Raise Shield again.
Thx for shedding more light on this, as well.
I'll try to paraphrase the inference:
So "until the shield is no longer raised" must ...
not be understood in the sense of "until the 'Raise a Shield' action is not longer conducted (consecutively)"
but in the sense of "until the duration of the (respective) 'Raise a Shield'-Effect runs out (even when immediately followed by another 'Raise a Shield'-Effect)"?
You know, I try really hard to read and understand the system, get coherences. Yet running into this issue, I must admit some frustration. Since I actually _want_ to understand, to conceive and seemingly failed to do ...
Maybe my brain tends to think fights and combats too lively, too "story-telling-ly" while I actually had to think more "mechanistic" / "board-gaming-ly"(?). But I don't want to turn this into complain. Still have fun.
Paragon's Stance is an special case for Tower/Fortress Shield Take Cover due the expression "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". So my understand is that your Raise a Shield never ends so the Take Cover also never ends.
But many GMs may interpret this as "too good to be true" and can consider that you still need to use the Take Cover again. But my direct understand of natural english is that you will keep the Take Cover while you stays in the stance.
Even in the most generous possible reading (which i can'tsee taking, personally), why would you not apply the normal end criteria of the Take Cover action?
"This lasts until you move from your current space, use an attack action, become unconscious, or end this effect as a free action."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I don't want to turn this into complain.
Its what we do on the rules forum. Don't take it personally. We will happily analyze the rules language to the breaking point just to see where it breaks.
The point being that after we have given every possible interpretation and the logic defense for all of them, then you and your table can make an informed decision and choose which interpretation makes sense, and that you can all agree that you would have the most fun with.
Even in the most generous possible reading (which i can'tsee taking, personally), why would you not apply the normal end criteria of the Take Cover action?
"This lasts until you move from your current space, use an attack action, become unconscious, or end this effect as a free action."
Because Tower Shield overrides it with "This lasts until the shield is no longer raised" and it is a specific rule.
I'm trying to see from a practical standpoint why you would even care that you need to raise your shield on the next turn compared to "continuously" having it up. Unless you're focused on the expenditure of actions (which is a valid concern).
With things like Reactive Shield, you can avoid spending one of your 3 main actions (by spending you reaction) to make sure you have your shield up in response to an attack.
I guess the question ultimately becomes, if you grab Paragon's guard will you get your +4 to AC provided you spend an action to take cover, and does it last until you choose to end it.
Lacking Paragon's Guard you definitely lose your shield bonus each turn, but again I think this isn't so important if you make your first action to raise your shield. And in order to gain the full bonus from tower shield you would need to spend another action to take cover each turn.
I can't decide if you have Paragon's Guard though, if it's balanced to keep the extra AC bonus from take cover or not though. To be honest, I think it's a bit too good.
Edit: Rereading the wording on tower shield, it never says "the bonus from take cover lasts as long as your shield is raised". Or at least I don't see it in the base item's description. So YuriP has inaccurately stated that, unless it's not in the item description.
That being the case, you would need presumably need to spend an action to take cover after attacking each turn (or other things that break take cover) and that is balanced IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm trying to see from a practical standpoint why you would even care that you need to raise your shield on the next turn compared to "continuously" having it up. Unless you're focused on the expenditure of actions (which is a valid concern).
With things like Reactive Shield, you can avoid spending one of your 3 main actions (by spending you reaction) to make sure you have your shield up in response to an attack.
I guess the question ultimately becomes, if you grab Paragon's guard will you get your +4 to AC provided you spend an action to take cover, and does it last until you choose to end it.
Lacking Paragon's Guard you definitely lose your shield bonus each turn, but again I think this isn't so important if you make your first action to raise your shield. And in order to gain the full bonus from tower shield you would need to spend another action to take cover each turn.
I can't decide if you have Paragon's Guard though, if it's balanced to keep the extra AC bonus from take cover or not though. To be honest, I think it's a bit too good.
Edit: Rereading the wording on tower shield, it never says "the bonus from take cover lasts as long as your shield is raised". Or at least I don't see it in the base item's description. So YuriP has inaccurately stated that, unless it's not in the item description.
That being the case, you would need presumably need to spend an action to take cover after attacking each turn (or other things that break take cover) and that is balanced IMO.
You've made the same mistake I did, of looking at the item description first instead of back towards the beginning of the shield rules. It's in a different place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This come from the strange way of how PF2 split some rules in different places. The rule part that govern how Tower Shields works is in the general shield rules:
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. If you would normally provide lesser cover against an attack, having your tower shield raised provides standard cover against it (and other creatures can Take Cover as normal using the cover from your shield).
While the part the sets its duration is in the Raise a Shield action:
You position your shield to protect yourself. When you have Raised a Shield, you gain its listed circumstance bonus to AC. Your shield remains raised until the start of your next turn.
While Paragon's Guard changes this part:
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.
And the Stance trait ensure it's duration:
A stance is a general combat strategy that you enter by using an action with the stance trait, and that you remain in for some time. A stance lasts until you get knocked out, until its requirements (if any) are violated, until the encounter ends, or until you enter a new stance, whichever comes first. After you use an action with the stance trait, you can’t use another one for 1 round. You can enter or be in a stance only in encounter mode.
OK, this smells like an exploit yet is a valid RAW interpretation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes isn't clear if the Take Cover action of Tower Shield replace or add Take Cover rules. Because the rules don't use terms like "instead of" or "in addition".
Problem is, it's not the kind of thing that should be left to the GM. It's need a clarification.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you consider it to be an unintended exploit and want to argue that RAW it doesn't work, I think the best rules weakness target is in Paragon's Guard.
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.
So the Raise Shield action still has its duration of the start of your next turn and then it ends. Just as normal. Then you get to re-raise your shield immediately without spending an action. But it still ends because that is how the Raise a Shield action works.
There is also a good case for RAI that whoever wrote Paragon's Guard wasn't the same developer who wrote the general rules for tower shields and the joining together of those two sets of rules with the word 'constantly' was unintentional - that when Paragon's Guard was written, it was with the erroneous expectation that tower shields and the Take Cover action weren't a factor in the balance consideration.
Just like with raising the shield, I interpret the action needed to take cover as the continuous effort you need to actually stay behind cover, preventing you to do other things. It's not something that needs 2 seconds to do.
You've made the same mistake I did, of looking at the item description first instead of back towards the beginning of the shield rules. It's in a different place.
Fair enough, I was worried it might be something like that. I do think it's the wrong place to put the specific rule for tower shields, but the rule does exist.
In any event, I do think taking a single action at the start of combat to take cover and never needing to spend another (when you have Paragon's Guard) is a bit too good. While it's RAW, I don't think it's the intention. Especially in light of the Tower Shield Mastery feat.
In any event, I do think taking a single action at the start of combat to take cover and never needing to spend another (when you have Paragon's Guard) is a bit too good. While it's RAW, I don't think it's the intention. Especially in light of the Tower Shield Mastery feat.
This will depend a lot of how Tower Shield Take Cover will work.
If the GM understand that the Tower Shield mechanics replace the normal Take Cover mechanics. Yes you can stay in a mobile Take Cover during entire encounter. But if your GM understand that the Tower Shield mechanics are added to normal Take Cover mechanics, any move or attack action will break your additional circumstance bonus, including attack reactions like AoO, forcing the char to use an action to Take Cover again.
That's fair, I suppose as a GM I would impose the the same restriction about not moving or making attacks. So I suppose a character that does almost nothing can maintain the defensive bonus, but presumably people aren't going to do that and practically will be spending the actions each turn to regain that benefit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Saving throw spells aren't exactly nothing. They also aren't attack actions.
But that is more of a bug in Take Cover than in tower shield rules or how they interact with Paragon's Guard.
Yes there are a strange interaction between save spells and Take Cover. Basically you are able to cast spells while covered without problem once they aren't attack nor move actions basically allowing casters that get some cover to spam some spells without need to use more actions.
Follow-up question:
Does the champion's lvl 20 feat- Shield Paragon interact differently with the wording? You just always have your shield raised forever so could you net yourself a permenant +4 AC from a tower shield this way? (As long as you are wielding it of course).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm kind of bummed that Tower Shields basically aren't relevant until 12th level when you get this feat, since you can enter stance for a perpetual +2 AC, and then basically Take Cover takes over the actions of Raise Shield to create a stacking AC bonus. It's even worse when you can't make Tower Shields into Sturdy Shields.
I mean, I guess the ability to break the AC math is a powerful benefit in its own right, but it doesn't do a whole lot, given it takes over 2 actions to set-up, and doesn't really change the gameplay much other than from a numbers perspective.
Might depend on how many useful attacks you have in a round. Stab-raise-hide could be a routine.
Stab Raise Hide cannot be a routine.
The tower shield makes a special new use for the Take Cover action. It is not cover. You cannot Hide behind your own shield.
Stab, raise, take cover is a way you can spend 3 actions, if you like. I've seen more people interested in going monk and doing raise, take cover, flurry on rounds when they don't want to go anywhere.
You also see the occasional slide pistol sniper going shoot, raise, take cover+reload. Or thaumaturge dipping for ammunition thaumaturgy and a weapon implement to not need the capacity trait and use something like a dueling pistol, instead.
I meant Take Cover, yes. I don't know if you can still Take Cover and attack after, though -- that's why I put 'stab' first. Now, seeing that Take Cover can be used with some presumably gunslinger reloads makes me imagine a few things ...
Thanks a lot to all of you for a lot of insightful input! Apparently there indeed is even more rules ambiguity concerning tower shields than I thought. Quite a pity, IMHO, since I find the picture of a tanky char with a tower shild (e.g. a sturdy dwarf defending the entrance to a mine with axe and shield) pretty atmospheric.
Nonetheless, I feel better informed, now, so these responses do help to allow more confident decisions for our table.
Thanks a lot to all of you for a lot of insightful input! Apparently there indeed is even more rules ambiguity concerning tower shields than I thought. Quite a pity, IMHO, since I find the picture of a tanky char with a tower shild (e.g. a sturdy dwarf defending the entrance to a mine with axe and shield) pretty atmospheric.
Nonetheless, I feel better informed, now, so these responses do help to allow more confident decisions for our table.
I don't like that it takes 12 levels, a specific class, and doesn't permit Sturdy Shields to be used. It's an awful lot of investment just for a situational +2 more AC, given that it burns movement and carrying capacity.
Bucklers and Tower Shields are basically garbage in this game and don't provide much benefit for their added drawbacks.
I disagree.
Bucklers and pretty useful to get a +1 to AC in a build that you need both hands.
Tower/Fortress Shields are prety useful during the 3 first levels where they get same hardness/HP of a steel shield but also can be used to easily get a cover +4 bonus.
The Sturdy Shields problem is a more general problem that affects all shield and that probably will get mitigated after we get the remastered shield runes.
Interesting discussion. I think RAI it's 1 action to get a +2 AC bonus for 1 round. That's all anyone can get. Tower shield is intended to get you another +2 for another action, again just 1 round, but to do it you should face the limitations of Take Cover. If a Fighter does a stab, raise, take cover, and wants to use their AoO, they have to move out of cover to do it, consequently dropping from +4 to +2 AC bonus.
I liked the discussion around the wording interpretations of the rules to question whether RAW twists around the above intentions in certain scenarios, but at the end of the day, I think the above is solid and fair and probably the original intention. That's how we're running it.