Champion's Greater Security + Tower Shield

[awalloftext]

This is reference to the Champion's new remastered Focus spell, Shields of the Spirit, its upgrades, and how it relates to the increase to AC when taking cover behind a Tower Shield.

Relevant feats/rules: Security, Greater Secruity, specifics of increasing AC with tower shields (third paragraph).

So, basically, am I reading this right? Greater Security provides a +4 AC to my target so long as I fully bunker down in a tower shield each turn?

My thinking here is that the shield rules say that the Take Cover action with a tower shield specifically increases its AC bonus to +4, rather than giving you a separate additional AC bonus from cover. Therefore, per the wording of Greater Security, that increase in AC bonus should also apply to Security's target, yes?

This bonus would presumably last until a Champion moves or attacks (for example, with a Reactive Strike), at which point the bonus would return to +2. Or until the Champion's next turn, at which point they would have to Raise Shield and Take Cover once again. Seems fairly strong so long as I have the RAW correct here.

[Errenor]

Firstly, just no. Simply no. GMs are allowed to do that :)
Secondly, no. Neither Greater Security nor Shields of the Spirit give full 'condition' 'protected by your shield' in all its details. They also don't give 'the same bonus to AC your shield grants to you', just 'the same bonus to AC your shield grants' which is still only +2.
Protected target also can't Take Cover themselves, because they haven't risen tower shield, they just got an AC bonus from one. Shield Block works because it's written it works.
P.S. This still works, but has no interaction with the feats and the spell:
"If you would 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)."

[Easl]

awalloftext wrote:

Seems fairly strong so long as I have the RAW correct here.

I dunno how strong it is. From the monster's perspective "their frontline martial gives up 2 actions per round in order to make it harder for you to hit one specific other person" has an obvious response, doesn't it?

[awalloftext]

Errenor wrote:

Firstly, just no. Simply no. GMs are allowed to do that :)

Naturally! "This seems too strong" or "this seems too good to be true" is always an acceptable answer (from the GM).

Errenor wrote:

Secondly, no. Neither Greater Security nor Shields of the Spirit give full 'condition' 'protected by your shield' in all its details. They also don't give 'the same bonus to AC your shield grants to you', just 'the same bonus to AC your shield grants' which is still only +2.

See, this I'm not so sure about, hence my original post.

What Greater Security DOES give is: "the same bonus to AC your shield grants"

Which, can be +4 - as specified both in the third paragraph of the rules for Shields, and in the AC bonus listed in parentheses on the actual Tower Shield item.

Suffice to say, if you were my GM, I'd say "fair enough" - but I'm curious if this would be a universal reaction.

[Easl]

awalloftext wrote:

Suffice to say, if you were my GM, I'd say "fair enough" - but I'm curious if this would be a universal reaction.

Well you're talking about a fairly unusual combo which relies on some rules only published last month. That few people will actually try (IMO) because it gives up lay on hands, requires 2 feats, and in play requires 2a in the first round to get the spell up then 1-2a every round dedicated to unmoving defense to keep it going, and which doesn't let you attack if you want to keep it going.

So it's probably a bit premature to expect the player base to have tried it out extensively and come up with some universal understanding of TGTBT, meh, TBTBT, whether the +4 should apply to anyone affected by the spell or just someone taking cover, etc.

I would probably allow it, but then again I don't see it as being that strong. If I wanted to build a PC who is going to dedicate 2 actions per round to protect another PC, I'll take a wood kineticist and their 40-hp-of-damage-per-round-absorbing protector tree. They can at least move around and attack while they do it, they can shift who is protected from round to round, and it protects equally well against effects that target fort and will saves, not just providing a bonus to reflex and AC.

[awalloftext]

Easl wrote:

Well you're talking about a fairly unusual combo which relies on some rules only published last month. That few people will actually try (IMO) because it gives up lay on hands, requires 2 feats, and in play requires 2a in the first round to get the spell up then 1-2a every round dedicated to unmoving defense to keep it going, and which doesn't let you attack if you want to keep it going.

So it's probably a bit premature to expect the player base to have tried it out extensively and come up with some universal understanding of TGTBT, meh, TBTBT, whether the +4 should apply to anyone affected by the spell or just someone taking cover, etc.

I mean... that's kinda why I linked the rules directly, so folks could read over them. I don't expect there to LITERALLY be a universal consensus from direct playtesting experience; I'm speaking figuratively. As in, just curious if the board thinks this read of the rules is correct/possible.

Of course, that's not to suggest it's some hyper-optimal, game breaking combo. I do think the combo's viable got legs for a Champion focusing on Shields of the Spirit - but as you mention, it requires heavy investment from both feats and action economy. It could be an option, although likely not one to use every round in every combat.

Again, just trying to get a general temperature of "is this possible" and "do these rules work how I'm reading them."

[Gortle]

awalloftext wrote:

What Greater Security DOES give is: "the same bonus to AC your shield grants"

Which, can be +4 - as specified both in the third paragraph of the rules for Shields, and in the AC bonus listed in parentheses on the actual Tower Shield item.

Suffice to say, if you were my GM, I'd say "fair enough" - but I'm curious if this would be a universal reaction.

Well my reaction is what?

Cause Security (Shield of Spirits) gives them a +1 status bonus to AC. But the shield bonus from Greater Security gives a +X circumstance bonus to AC.
That is a rules nightmare just there. I suspect that most GMs will give you the +X status bonus to AC rather than giving your companion a status and a circumstance bonus to AC. Still at least they can add their own shield to it.

A Fortress Shield can give you a plus 3 circumstance bonus to AC.

Greater Security can definitely grant that. But for Take Cover? It is arguable that that is not the Shield granting AC the same way that raise a shield says.
Expect that your GM will say no.

[awalloftext]

Gortle wrote:

Cause Security (Shield of Spirits) gives them a +1 status bonus to AC. But the shield bonus from Greater Security gives a +X circumstance bonus to AC.

That is a rules nightmare just there. I suspect that most GMs will give you the +X status bonus to AC rather than giving your companion a status and a circumstance bonus to AC. Still at least they can add their own shield to it.

Oh god, I didn't even notice THAT discrepancy.

I would presume the RAI is that Greater Security doesn't increase the +1 status bonus, it just replaces it with a +X circumstance bonus. I tend to lean that way over just increasing the status bonus to +X, as Greater Security grants "the same bonus to AC your shield grants" (which would be circumstance). Although, debatable for sure.

But yeah, I imagine no table in their right mind would allow the +1 status AND a +X circumstance from one spell. Even if it were done in a balanced way, just feels... messy. And as far as I know, there currently exists no effect in the game that adds both a status and circumstance bonus to the same attribute at the same time. So no precedent either.

[Nelzy]

Gortle wrote:

awalloftext wrote:

Greater Security can definitely grant that. But for Take Cover? It is arguable that that is not the Shield granting AC the same way that raise a shield says.
Expect that your GM will say no.

Towershield say "Getting the higher bonus for a tower shield requires using the Take Cover action while the shield is raised."

it dont say "You can use Take Cover as if in cover, grating greater cover" or something like that

so you dont gain the +4 circumstance from take cover, you increase your shields bonus when using the take cover action.

so RAW i think he is right, but a gm can always say no as with all rules.

[Gortle]

Nelzy wrote:

it dont say "You can use Take Cover as if in cover, grating greater cover" or something like that

The difficulty is the rules are worded differently in different places, and we have natural language rules.

Take Cover wrote:

If you would have standard cover, you instead gain greater cover, which provides a +4 circumstance bonus to AC

and

Fortress Shield wrote:

Getting the higher bonus for a fortress shield requires using the Take Cover action while the shield is raised.

This particular rule is written both ways.

It is the same bonus. Greater Cover or the Shields Bonus.

[Easl]

Gortle wrote:

It is the same bonus. Greater Cover or the Shields Bonus.

Yeah RAI seems pretty clear that you are hiding behind the tower shield to get the cover bonus.

But I do think the +1 Status bonus provided by Shield of the Spirits is supposed to combo with shield AC bonuses. If it doesn't then the spell is mostly pointless to cast on sword and board martials, and those seem to be exactly the sort of front-line partners the Champion should be targeting. And it makes Greater Security weird, in that the feat now requires the Champion to spend a focus point and cast a devotion spell to apply a magical defensive bonus which then never counts, because the feat simultaneously applies a larger different defensive bonus.

[awalloftext]

The whole "is the +4 from the shield or from cover" thing is made even more murky by the fact that, on the actual statistics for the Tower Shield, the +4 is listed as a potential option for the shield's AC bonus in parentheses. It just has the little note for how to actually activate it.

There's also this sentence I'm the rules for shields, which immediately follows the section on raising shields:

Quote:

When you have a tower shield raised, you can use the Take Cover action (page 418) to increase the circumstance bonus to AC to +4

... which to me, is frustrating because its not specified if you're increasing the shield's innate AC Bonus or the cover's bonus. I tend to think it's the shield given the surrounding context, but the Cover interpretation seems like a common one.

I wish they had changed the wording in the remaster to make it more clear. Something along the lines of just "while you have your tower shield raised, you can use the Take Cover action to gain the benefits of Greater Cover" - that, along with removing the (+4) under the item's "AC Bonus" would've sufficed for clarification.

[Baarogue]

I read that wording you consider problematic as them intending it to be both. The shield is providing the increased AC bonus via cover, which also provides a reflex bonus vs. area effects, but that bonus can be lost if you break cover. But the bonus IS coming from the shield, not some nebulous "cover force"

I would allow Greater Security to benefit from the increased AC bonus, and I would even allow it to stack with the shield of the spirit status bonus via Security for the reasons Easl posted. You have invested multiple feats into this combo, and multiple actions and a focus point on a turn you want to use it. The limit on focus points prevents it from being used too many times in a combat, and there is a resource limit on how many times you can shield block for your allies in the form of shield durability. I don't consider so much investment for a single ally to gain +5 AC to be OP

[Easl]

Baarogue wrote:

The limit on focus points prevents it from being used too many times in a combat, and there is a resource limit on how many times you can shield block for your allies in the form of shield durability. I don't consider so much investment for a single ally to gain +5 AC to be OP

Small point of order, by the time you have the 2-feat, 1-spell Level 8 combo going, the 2a focus spell cast will let it last for 1 minute without concentration and without needing the Champion to maintain a raised shield. The focus point is not the use limit. It's how many actions you, a melee martial, want to keep using each round to give a purely defensive benefit to 1 unchangeable ally.