Tower Shields

Spinner

Distinguished
Sep 7, 2002
140
0
18,680
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Hi all,

How exactly do you play out the "total cover" that can be gained from a
tower shield? Does that cover block one side of your square (somewhat
logical but not very useful)? Does it give you total cover from ...
everything? (I know this one sounds a bit silly, but since the book doesn't
specify how/where the cover comes in, this is how it's been interpreted in
my friendly local campaign).

Note that in 3.0, they had a nice little rule about the shield covering 50%
of the battlefield roughly and they had some nice rules for "turning" the
shield to protect from different angles. They seem to have left all those
off now...

And what about the wielder's vision then. Am I right in thinking that
wherever the wielder enjoys total cover, they also cannot see thereinto?

Thanks,

Spinner
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Spinner wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> How exactly do you play out the "total cover" that can be gained from
a
> tower shield? Does that cover block one side of your square
(somewhat
> logical but not very useful)?

That's how I rule it. Though I also allow fudging it a bit: if a player
says that he's setting the shield down to provide total cover against a
given NPC, I'll obviously allow that even if the NPC is in a diagonal
direction. Real life isn't square-based, after all.

> Does it give you total cover from ...
> everything? (I know this one sounds a bit silly, but since the book
doesn't
> specify how/where the cover comes in, this is how it's been
interpreted in
> my friendly local campaign).

Um... wouldn't that make you 100% invulnerable to everything except
touch spells when you set it down?

> Note that in 3.0, they had a nice little rule about the shield
covering 50%
> of the battlefield roughly and they had some nice rules for "turning"
the
> shield to protect from different angles. They seem to have left all
those
> off now...

And a good thing too. 3.0 facing rules were ridiculous.

> And what about the wielder's vision then. Am I right in thinking
that
> wherever the wielder enjoys total cover, they also cannot see
thereinto?

I'd still allow them to see, both for simplicity's sake and because I
think it's more realistic.

> Thanks,
>
> Spinner

Laszlo
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Spinner" <bprentic@uwo.ca> wrote in message
news:3ci9ipF6onhd2U1@individual.net...
> Hi all,
> How exactly do you play out the "total cover" that can be gained from a
> tower shield? Does that cover block one side of your square (somewhat
> logical but not very useful)? Does it give you total cover from ...
> everything? (I know this one sounds a bit silly, but since the book
doesn't
> specify how/where the cover comes in, this is how it's been interpreted in
> my friendly local campaign).

The 3.5 FAQ has the following offerings (damnn!).

*To claim total cover from a tower shield, you must use a
standard action. The tower shield rules don't say that, but that's
what they mean.....

*Like other kinds of cover, the shield has to have a location
relative to you on the battlefield. When you use the shield for
cover, choose one edge of your space (not a corner). You have
total cover against any attack's line of effect that passes
through that side of your space. If an attack's line of effect goes
through the corner of the side of your space that the shield
blocks, you get cover from the shield (+4 AC, +2 on Reflex
saves) instead of total cover. If an attack's line of effect passes
through a side of your space that the shield does not block, you
get no cover from the shield at all....

*Once you claim cover from the shield, the shield keeps
blocking the side of your space that you chose until the
beginning of your next turn...,

*You continue to threaten the area around you while you use
the shield for cover; however, it provides your opponents with
the same benefits you get....

*Since cover of any kind prevents attacks of
opportunity (see page 151 in the Player's Handbook), the
shield keeps you from making attacks of opportunity in a pretty
wide swath....

.. Magical Attacks:...If a magical attack has you as a specific target ..the
shield has no effect. All
rays fall into this category, as does any spell that has a Target entry in
its header and any spell that has an
Effect entry and affects creatures..Magical attacks that fill areas (bursts,
cones, cylinders, lines, emanations, and
spreads) are subject to all the rules for cover on page 151 of the Player's
Handbook....You get cover (+4 AC,
+2 on Reflex saves) if the magical attack's line of effect passes through
the corner of the blocked side....
Spread effects reach around the shield .... A gaze attack is blocked if the
shield would give you
total cover against attacks from the creature with the gaze attack. If the
shield gives you cover only, you're
still subject to the gaze attack
.. Attacks of Opportunity: As noted earlier, cover or total cover prevents
attacks of opportunity. So you
could, for example, hunker down behind a tower shield and pick up a weapon
or rummage around in a
backpack and avoid attacks of opportunity against you. If you're moving
while using the shield for
cover, things get a little more complicated. You must determine whether the
shield gives you cover (or
total cover) at the point during your movement when you'd normally provoke
an attack of opportunity...

.. Charging and Bull Rushing: ...Foes can bull rush you normally, moving
right into your space in spite of the shield.
You normally get an attack of opportunity against someone entering your
space, but not if the shield gives your foe cover or total cover.

.. Grapple and Snatch Attacks: Total cover from a tower shield blocks such
attacks (the foe just can't
get hold of you). The foe could, however grab the shield. Conduct such
attacks just like any other
grapple or snatch attack. Your foe can't damage you unless he pins you
first. You can escape the foe's
hold simply by dropping the shield (a standard action since its strapped to
your arm), so long as the foe has
not pinned you.

.. Traps: Cover or total cover from a tower shield is just as effective
against a trap as it is against any other attack.

> And what about the wielder's vision then. Am I right in thinking that
> wherever the wielder enjoys total cover, they also cannot see thereinto?

The gaze attack commentary makes it clear that in the *direction* in which
one has total cover, sight is also blocked.

-Michael
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>
> The 3.5 FAQ has the following offerings (damnn!).
> Traps: Cover or total cover from a tower shield is just as effective
> against a trap as it is against any other attack.

Uhhh-huuhh. How would the total cover rule apply if the trap were
a collapsing ceiling or rockfall trap?

>>And what about the wielder's vision then. Am I right in thinking that
>>wherever the wielder enjoys total cover, they also cannot see thereinto?
>
> The gaze attack commentary makes it clear that in the *direction* in which
> one has total cover, sight is also blocked.

Can't see the rockfall or cieling trap being sprung either to get
a reflex dodge. tsch... tssch...

Re,
Dirk
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Dirk Collins wrote:
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>
>>
>> The 3.5 FAQ has the following offerings (damnn!).
>> Traps: Cover or total cover from a tower shield is just as effective
>> against a trap as it is against any other attack.
>
>
> Uhhh-huuhh. How would the total cover rule apply if the trap were a
> collapsing ceiling or rockfall trap?
>
>>> And what about the wielder's vision then. Am I right in thinking that
>>> wherever the wielder enjoys total cover, they also cannot see thereinto?
>>
>>
>> The gaze attack commentary makes it clear that in the *direction* in
>> which
>> one has total cover, sight is also blocked.
>
>
> Can't see the rockfall or cieling trap being sprung either to get a
> reflex dodge. tsch... tssch...
>
> Re,
> Dirk

Captain, it appears Khan is still thinking in two dimensions, and not
three. We
can use that to our advantage...
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Dirk Collins" <dirk.collins@Earthlink.Net> wrote in message
news:O1Y8e.9072$sp3.6071@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> >
> > The 3.5 FAQ has the following offerings (damnn!).
> > Traps: Cover or total cover from a tower shield is just as effective
> > against a trap as it is against any other attack.
>
> Uhhh-huuhh. How would the total cover rule apply if the trap were
> a collapsing ceiling or rockfall trap?

Presuming the orientation were relevant, the shield would be just as
effective against a trap's rockfall as total cover would be against any
rockfall.

-Michael
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Spinner wrote:
> How exactly do you play out the "total cover" that can be gained from
> a tower shield?

This came up while planning my new campaign. We started with the FAQ
rules (quoted by MSB) then adjusted a few oddities to taste. The end
result:

Taking cover behind the shield is a standard action; maintaining the
cover in subsequent rounds is a move action so long as you don't
reorient the shield or move more than 5 feet. When you take cover,
choose one side of your square to represent the shield; that edge
provides cover against melee attacks normally. You also receive cover
against ranged attacks in a quarter-circle originating from the center
of your square. Resolve a grab against the shield as a disarm attempt,
not a grapple attempt.

The quarter-circle rule vs ranged attacks was to address major weirdness
caused by the grid model of combat. The ability to take cover and still
attack was to address certain suspension-of-disbelief issues. There may
have been a couple other adjustments, but if so I don't remember them,
and I don't have time to look them up right now.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote:
> This came up while planning my new campaign. We started with the FAQ
> rules (quoted by MSB) then adjusted a few oddities to taste. The end
> result:
>
> Taking cover behind the shield is a standard action; maintaining the
> cover in subsequent rounds is a move action so long as you don't
> reorient the shield or move more than 5 feet. When you take cover,
> choose one side of your square to represent the shield; that edge
> provides cover against melee attacks normally. You also receive cover
> against ranged attacks in a quarter-circle originating from the center
> of your square. Resolve a grab against the shield as a disarm attempt,
> not a grapple attempt.

Slight correction: Most grabs will attempt to push the shield out of the
way, but in the rare case that somebody wants to grab you shield and
all, the inconvenient bulk of the shield gives you a +4 on your grapple
check.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
 

Spinner

Distinguished
Sep 7, 2002
140
0
18,680
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

> The 3.5 FAQ has the following offerings (damnn!).
>
What a helpful and inoffensive reply!

> *To claim total cover from a tower shield, you must use a
> standard action. The tower shield rules don't say that, but that's
> what they mean.....
>
Darn it -- I was using a free action with no attacks allowed (this is what I
feel is implied in the PH).

Does this mean you have to take a std action every round to keep the cover?
Or how could you keep it or shift it otherwise?

> *Like other kinds of cover, the shield has to have a location
> relative to you on the battlefield. When you use the shield for
> cover, choose one edge of your space (not a corner).

That's one place where it seems weird -- it then becomes advantageous to
attack a shield wall on an angle (you can slip to one side to get around the
shield). With the 3.0 rules, you could cover the angle.

> You have
> total cover against any attack's line of effect that passes
> through that side of your space. If an attack's line of effect goes
> through the corner of the side of your space that the shield
> blocks, you get cover from the shield (+4 AC, +2 on Reflex
> saves) instead of total cover. If an attack's line of effect passes
> through a side of your space that the shield does not block, you
> get no cover from the shield at all....
>
Makes sense

> *Once you claim cover from the shield, the shield keeps
> blocking the side of your space that you chose until the
> beginning of your next turn...,
>
Cool.

> *You continue to threaten the area around you while you use
> the shield for cover; however, it provides your opponents with
> the same benefits you get....
>
Logical.

> *Since cover of any kind prevents attacks of
> opportunity (see page 151 in the Player's Handbook), the
> shield keeps you from making attacks of opportunity in a pretty
> wide swath....
>
Good.

> . Magical Attacks:...If a magical attack has you as a specific target
> ..the
> shield has no effect. All
> rays fall into this category, as does any spell that has a Target entry in
> its header and any spell that has an
> Effect entry and affects creatures..Magical attacks that fill areas
> (bursts,
> cones, cylinders, lines, emanations, and
> spreads) are subject to all the rules for cover on page 151 of the
> Player's
> Handbook....You get cover (+4 AC,
> +2 on Reflex saves) if the magical attack's line of effect passes through
> the corner of the blocked side....
> Spread effects reach around the shield ....

Fine rules.

> A gaze attack is blocked if the
> shield would give you
> total cover against attacks from the creature with the gaze attack. If the
> shield gives you cover only, you're
> still subject to the gaze attack

Yes, this does answer the question about sight.

> . Attacks of Opportunity: As noted earlier, cover or total cover prevents
> attacks of opportunity. So you
> could, for example, hunker down behind a tower shield and pick up a weapon
> or rummage around in a
> backpack and avoid attacks of opportunity against you. If you're moving
> while using the shield for
> cover, things get a little more complicated. You must determine whether
> the
> shield gives you cover (or
> total cover) at the point during your movement when you'd normally provoke
> an attack of opportunity...
>
Tricky but doable (used to be fun in 3.0).

> . Charging and Bull Rushing: ...Foes can bull rush you normally, moving
> right into your space in spite of the shield.
> You normally get an attack of opportunity against someone entering your
> space, but not if the shield gives your foe cover or total cover.
>
Anything special about charging?

> . Grapple and Snatch Attacks: Total cover from a tower shield blocks such
> attacks (the foe just can't
> get hold of you). The foe could, however grab the shield. Conduct such
> attacks just like any other
> grapple or snatch attack. Your foe can't damage you unless he pins you
> first.

Does that mean pin the shield?

> You can escape the foe's
> hold simply by dropping the shield (a standard action since its strapped
> to
> your arm), so long as the foe has
> not pinned you.
>
That'd be neat.

> . Traps: Cover or total cover from a tower shield is just as effective
> against a trap as it is against any other attack.
>
Of course.

>> And what about the wielder's vision then. Am I right in thinking that
>> wherever the wielder enjoys total cover, they also cannot see thereinto?
>
> The gaze attack commentary makes it clear that in the *direction* in which
> one has total cover, sight is also blocked.
>
Right.

Does anyone have any ideas about how to make corner orientations work? In
3.0 they had varying degrees of cover and they messed with these to make it
possible to turn the shield to the corner of your square.

I guess you could just create a 1" line on a 45` angle and draw the lines
for the shooters. Any problem with this (other than that Skip says you have
to pick a side)?

Spinner
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Spinner wrote:
>>The 3.5 FAQ has the following offerings (damnn!).
>>
>
> What a helpful and inoffensive reply!
>
>
>>*To claim total cover from a tower shield, you must use a
>>standard action. The tower shield rules don't say that, but that's
>>what they mean.....
>>
>
> Darn it -- I was using a free action with no attacks allowed (this is what I
> feel is implied in the PH).
>
> Does this mean you have to take a std action every round to keep the cover?
> Or how could you keep it or shift it otherwise?
>
>
>>*Like other kinds of cover, the shield has to have a location
>>relative to you on the battlefield. When you use the shield for
>>cover, choose one edge of your space (not a corner).
>
>
> That's one place where it seems weird -- it then becomes advantageous to
> attack a shield wall on an angle (you can slip to one side to get around the
> shield). With the 3.0 rules, you could cover the angle.
>
>
>>You have
>>total cover against any attack's line of effect that passes
>>through that side of your space. If an attack's line of effect goes
>>through the corner of the side of your space that the shield
>>blocks, you get cover from the shield (+4 AC, +2 on Reflex
>>saves) instead of total cover. If an attack's line of effect passes
>>through a side of your space that the shield does not block, you
>>get no cover from the shield at all....
>>
>
> Makes sense
>
>
>>*Once you claim cover from the shield, the shield keeps
>>blocking the side of your space that you chose until the
>>beginning of your next turn...,
>>
>
> Cool.
>
>
>>*You continue to threaten the area around you while you use
>>the shield for cover; however, it provides your opponents with
>>the same benefits you get....
>>
>
> Logical.
>
>
>>*Since cover of any kind prevents attacks of
>>opportunity (see page 151 in the Player's Handbook), the
>>shield keeps you from making attacks of opportunity in a pretty
>>wide swath....
>>
>
> Good.
>
>
>>. Magical Attacks:...If a magical attack has you as a specific target
>>..the
>>shield has no effect. All
>>rays fall into this category, as does any spell that has a Target entry in
>>its header and any spell that has an
>>Effect entry and affects creatures..Magical attacks that fill areas
>>(bursts,
>>cones, cylinders, lines, emanations, and
>>spreads) are subject to all the rules for cover on page 151 of the
>>Player's
>>Handbook....You get cover (+4 AC,
>>+2 on Reflex saves) if the magical attack's line of effect passes through
>>the corner of the blocked side....
>>Spread effects reach around the shield ....
>
>
> Fine rules.
>
>
>>A gaze attack is blocked if the
>>shield would give you
>>total cover against attacks from the creature with the gaze attack. If the
>>shield gives you cover only, you're
>>still subject to the gaze attack
>
>
> Yes, this does answer the question about sight.
>
>
>>. Attacks of Opportunity: As noted earlier, cover or total cover prevents
>>attacks of opportunity. So you
>>could, for example, hunker down behind a tower shield and pick up a weapon
>>or rummage around in a
>>backpack and avoid attacks of opportunity against you. If you're moving
>>while using the shield for
>>cover, things get a little more complicated. You must determine whether
>>the
>>shield gives you cover (or
>>total cover) at the point during your movement when you'd normally provoke
>>an attack of opportunity...
>>
>
> Tricky but doable (used to be fun in 3.0).
>
>
>>. Charging and Bull Rushing: ...Foes can bull rush you normally, moving
>>right into your space in spite of the shield.
>>You normally get an attack of opportunity against someone entering your
>>space, but not if the shield gives your foe cover or total cover.
>>
>
> Anything special about charging?
>
>
>>. Grapple and Snatch Attacks: Total cover from a tower shield blocks such
>>attacks (the foe just can't
>>get hold of you). The foe could, however grab the shield. Conduct such
>>attacks just like any other
>>grapple or snatch attack. Your foe can't damage you unless he pins you
>>first.
>
>
> Does that mean pin the shield?
>
>
>>You can escape the foe's
>>hold simply by dropping the shield (a standard action since its strapped
>>to
>>your arm), so long as the foe has
>>not pinned you.
>>
>
> That'd be neat.
>
>
>>. Traps: Cover or total cover from a tower shield is just as effective
>>against a trap as it is against any other attack.
>>
>
> Of course.
>
>
>>>And what about the wielder's vision then. Am I right in thinking that
>>>wherever the wielder enjoys total cover, they also cannot see thereinto?
>>
>>The gaze attack commentary makes it clear that in the *direction* in which
>>one has total cover, sight is also blocked.
>>
>
> Right.
>
> Does anyone have any ideas about how to make corner orientations work? In
> 3.0 they had varying degrees of cover and they messed with these to make it
> possible to turn the shield to the corner of your square.
>
> I guess you could just create a 1" line on a 45` angle and draw the lines
> for the shooters. Any problem with this (other than that Skip says you have
> to pick a side)?
>
> Spinner
>
>

There is no more Skip--there is only, uh, Andy Collins.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Spinner" <bprentic@uwo.ca> wrote in message
news:3cko0hF6m245kU1@individual.net...
> > The 3.5 FAQ has the following offerings (damnn!).
> > *To claim total cover from a tower shield, you must use a
> > standard action. The tower shield rules don't say that, but that's
> > what they mean.....
> >
> Darn it -- I was using a free action with no attacks allowed (this is what
I
> feel is implied in the PH). Does this mean you have to take a std action
every round to keep the cover?

Of course it does. What, you think it makes sense to get the benefit of
cowering behind your shield over a long time for only giving up *one* round
of attacks?

> > *Like other kinds of cover, the shield has to have a location
> > relative to you on the battlefield. When you use the shield for
> > cover, choose one edge of your space (not a corner).
>
> That's one place where it seems weird -- it then becomes advantageous to
> attack a shield wall on an angle

Of course it does (which still provides normal cover +4). A shield
*wall* consists of multiple people forming a convex shape so as to avoid
this problem.

> > . Charging and Bull Rushing: ...Foes can bull rush you normally, moving
> > right into your space in spite of the shield.
> > You normally get an attack of opportunity against someone entering your
> > space, but not if the shield gives your foe cover or total cover.
> >
> Anything special about charging?

Nothing worth retaining; the charge rules about
closest-square-from-which-they-can-attack determine whether someone faces
total cover or just cover. Ie; the standard rules apply in an obvious
fashion.

> > . Grapple and Snatch Attacks: Total cover from a tower shield blocks
such attacks (the foe just can't
> > get hold of you). The foe could, however grab the shield. Conduct such
attacks just like any other
> > grapple or snatch attack. Your foe can't damage you unless he pins you
first.
>
> Does that mean pin the shield?

Given that you're attached to it...

> Does anyone have any ideas about how to make corner orientations work?

Just like any other wall. The rules for cover are very simple- trace a
path to the target's corners, if any of these paths pass through a barrier
it has cover; if they all hit a barrier, it has total cover. Wa-hoo. If the
shield is on a square's side and someone is on a 45 degree angle, or if the
shield is on a 45 degree angle and someone is "north" of you, the results
are the same - cover, but not total.

-Michael
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Spinner wrote:
>> Darn it -- I was using a free action with no attacks allowed (this is
>> what I feel is implied in the PH). Does this mean you have to take
>> a std action every round to keep the cover?

I had originally assumed a standard action, even before reading the FAQ.

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> Of course it does. What, you think it makes sense to get the benefit
> of cowering behind your shield over a long time for only giving up
> *one* round of attacks?

Our group felt that it was too unrealistic to give up /all/ attacks
while planting a shield, so we decided that initiating or re-orienting
the cover is a standard action, but maintaining it in place is a move
action. That way, you can plant the shield on one round and attack (but
not full attack) on the "open" side in subsequent rounds.

>>> *Like other kinds of cover, the shield has to have a location
>>> relative to you on the battlefield. When you use the shield for
>>> cover, choose one edge of your space (not a corner).

>> That's one place where it seems weird -- it then becomes advantageous
>> to attack a shield wall on an angle

> Of course it does (which still provides normal cover +4). A shield
> *wall* consists of multiple people forming a convex shape so as to
> avoid this problem.

As written, the rule makes it impossible to form a shield wall on a
diagonal. You can only make a solid wall along grid lines, because it
only lets you orient the shield along grid lines.

Also, the rule makes the total cover option nearly useless against
ranged attacks. It only provides total cover in a 5-foot line, so an
archer can get around it merely by taking a 5-foot step. Therefore,
you'll only get a +4 cover bonus -- but you'd get +4 AC by using the
shield normally. You end up giving up all of your attacks and getting
nothing in return.

As written, planting the shield gives you no benefit at all -- only
drawbacks -- unless you're in a bottleneck or a shield wall. And if
you're in a bottleneck, you block all outgoing attacks, but not incoming
targeted spells, so you're actually more vulnerable than the enemy is.

Therefore, we decided that the shield should give total cover from
ranged attacks in a quarter-circle; otherwise, it's almost totally
useless for PCs.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
 

Spinner

Distinguished
Sep 7, 2002
140
0
18,680
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

>>> Darn it -- I was using a free action with no attacks allowed (this is
>>> what I feel is implied in the PH). Does this mean you have to take
>>> a std action every round to keep the cover?
>
> I had originally assumed a standard action, even before reading the FAQ.
>
I had assumed free action -- since it matched the 3.0 mechanic (unless we
had that wrong). IIRC, 3.0 let you re-orient the shield as a free action
once per round on your turn. It gave cover (to varying degrees depending on
angle of opponent's attack) all the time.

>> Of course it does. What, you think it makes sense to get the benefit
>> of cowering behind your shield over a long time for only giving up
>> *one* round of attacks?

Yes -- or at least maybe. For example, you can get the benefit of cowering
behind an overturned table without giving up any attacks essentially (maybe
use up a move action to crouch or something). It also means crazy things
like you can't hide behind a tower shield and heal yourself or take a potion
(this is one of the major things my PC used their tower shield for --
temporary respite from hails of attacks. This don't seem right.

> Our group felt that it was too unrealistic to give up /all/ attacks
> while planting a shield, so we decided that initiating or re-orienting
> the cover is a standard action, but maintaining it in place is a move
> action. That way, you can plant the shield on one round and attack (but
> not full attack) on the "open" side in subsequent rounds.
>
That's a pretty good idea.

>>>> *Like other kinds of cover, the shield has to have a location
>>>> relative to you on the battlefield. When you use the shield for
>>>> cover, choose one edge of your space (not a corner).
>
>>> That's one place where it seems weird -- it then becomes advantageous
>>> to attack a shield wall on an angle
>
>> Of course it does (which still provides normal cover +4). A shield
>> *wall* consists of multiple people forming a convex shape so as to
>> avoid this problem.
>
> As written, the rule makes it impossible to form a shield wall on a
> diagonal. You can only make a solid wall along grid lines, because it
> only lets you orient the shield along grid lines.
>
This is what I meant of course. The necessity of TS buddies shouldn't
change because the enemy is charging you on the 45 rather than on the
straight.

> Also, the rule makes the total cover option nearly useless against
> ranged attacks. It only provides total cover in a 5-foot line, so an
> archer can get around it merely by taking a 5-foot step. Therefore,
> you'll only get a +4 cover bonus -- but you'd get +4 AC by using the
> shield normally. You end up giving up all of your attacks and getting
> nothing in return.
>
Interesting -- I was hoping someone would've done the geometry on this.
This is more useless than I'd thought (although I'd *suspected* which is why
I felt picking one side of a square would turn out to be inadequate...)

> As written, planting the shield gives you no benefit at all -- only
> drawbacks -- unless you're in a bottleneck or a shield wall. And if
> you're in a bottleneck, you block all outgoing attacks, but not incoming
> targeted spells, so you're actually more vulnerable than the enemy is.
>
> Therefore, we decided that the shield should give total cover from
> ranged attacks in a quarter-circle; otherwise, it's almost totally
> useless for PCs.
> --
I guess this means that stationery cover would suffer from the same
problem -- ie., it'd provide total cover only in a 5' line. Is this good or
bad?

[BTW, that should be "stationary" -- stationery should provide concealment
only...!]

Spinner
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:12:30 GMT, Dirk Collins
<dirk.collins@Earthlink.Net> wrote:

>Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>>
>> The 3.5 FAQ has the following offerings (damnn!).
>> Traps: Cover or total cover from a tower shield is just as effective
>> against a trap as it is against any other attack.
>
>Uhhh-huuhh. How would the total cover rule apply if the trap were
>a collapsing ceiling or rockfall trap?

Get a lot of characters who use their tower shields as an umbrella?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Johnston wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:12:30 GMT, Dirk Collins
> <dirk.collins@Earthlink.Net> wrote:
>
>
>>Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>>
>>>The 3.5 FAQ has the following offerings (damnn!).
>>>Traps: Cover or total cover from a tower shield is just as effective
>>>against a trap as it is against any other attack.
>>
>>Uhhh-huuhh. How would the total cover rule apply if the trap were
>>a collapsing ceiling or rockfall trap?
>
>
> Get a lot of characters who use their tower shields as an umbrella?

No, but I can't see a tower shield as being effective protection
from traps of this sort. You know... ceiling collapses (with
hundreds of lbs. of dirt and/or rock), Rockfall traps with small
boulders, and so on...

I wonder if there are some siege rules that apply for this?
(Checking Stronghold Builders Guide...)

Most excellent. SBG does. I'm all set now... heh... heh... heh.

Re,
Dirk