The Tower Shield Rules, RAW, are Asinine [Archive] - Wizards Community

The Tower Shield Rules, RAW, are Asinine [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
lseelba
06-06-07, 12:55 PM I was just browsing through the main FAQ, when I came across the section about Tower Shields. I understand that the ill-defined wording in the PHB needed clarification, but the made up rules in the main FAQ don't work mechanically. Here is the exact wording, and following that, why the rules don't work:

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. Since you can take only one standard action
each round, you cannot also attack, cast a spell, activate a
magic item (except for some use-activated items), use a special
ability, use total defense, or start or complete a full-round
action during the same round you claim total cover from the
shield. You can, however, take a move action before or after
you claim cover from the shield.

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. To determine where the line
of effect enters your space, draw a line from the attacker’s
center to your center. Or, in the case of a magical effect, from
the effect’s point of origin and your center.

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, when you can again decide
whether you’ll use the shield for cover. Once you choose the
side of your space that the shield blocks, you cannot change it
until your next turn.

Ignoring the fact that this rule introduces 'facing' into 3.5 DnD, which the developers have tried to keep out of the game, it doesn't do it in a functional way. The biggest problem is diagonals. This example will illustrate why:

A Fighter with a Tower Shield engages in combat with an archer who is 300' away directly to the east. Both have 30' movement. The fighter has no ranged weapon, but luckily he has a tower shield! He uses his standard actions to aim the tower shield, while using his move actions to get closer to the archer until he can engage her in melee combat. The archer's bow is useless with the full cover the tower shield grants, so she will probably either run away or try to circle around as the fighter gets closer to get an open shot. Everything works as it should and makes sense!

Now imagine the identical situation, but now the archer is 300' away directly to the southeast (ie exactly on a diagonal). The fighter, according to the FAQ rules RAW, can't aim his tower shield diagonally. The best he can do is aim it south, or east, which only grants him cover (and only then if the archer doesn't move 5' north or west respectively, which would negate the cover completely). Say he moves 30' south, then aims his shield east. He now has total cover, but the archer just has to mimic his movement, go 25' south and 5' SW, which negate the cover COMPLETELY and take her shot. Sudennly, just because the archer is 300' away SOUTHEAST instead of EAST, she has the advantage. This does not work and does not make sense.

I don't think these made up tower shield rules were well thought out, or playtested very much...How would I fix it? I don't like the introduction of facing (could you imagine if you always had to determine the facing of your mount, or all the monsters?), but if it has to be done, then the tower shield should be able to be aimed in two cardinal directions at once. This would remove the diagonal silliness I illustrated above.
King Kashue
06-06-07, 01:33 PM Now imagine the identical situation, but now the archer is 300' away directly to the southeast (ie exactly on a diagonal). The fighter, according to the FAQ rules RAW, can't aim his tower shield diagonally. The best he can do is aim it south, or east, which only grants him cover (and only then if the archer doesn't move 5' north or west respectively, which would negate the cover completely). Say he moves 30' south, then aims his shield east. He now has total cover, but the archer just has to mimic his movement, go 25' south and 5' SW, which negate the cover COMPLETELY and take her shot. Sudennly, just because the archer is 300' away SOUTHEAST instead of EAST, she has the advantage. This does not work and does not make sense.

I don't think these made up tower shield rules were well thought out, or playtested very much...How would I fix it? I don't like the introduction of facing (could you imagine if you always had to determine the facing of your mount, or all the monsters?), but if it has to be done, then the tower shield should be able to be aimed in two cardinal directions at once. This would remove the diagonal silliness I illustrated above.

The issue is that the FAQ is utterly wrong is how one applies the cover rules.

You don't go center to center.

The attacker chooses one corner of their square. If a line from that corner to any corner of the target's square passes through an obstruction (in this case the shield), then they get cover.

The FAQ is attempting to address when someone gets total cover and when someone just gets cover, and is doing a crappy job of it.

Also, it doesn't "introduce facing". The shield, as an obstruction providing cover, must occupy a space on the map. If it didn't, the implication of your statement would be that they would have total cover in all directions, because "they don't have facing", which is ludicrous.
CdrcJsn
06-06-07, 01:36 PM You're right, it doesn't make sense.

But I wouldn't worry about it too much. In all the LG games I've played, I think I've only seen a tower shield used for total cover a total of 3 or 4 times.

A person cowering under a tower shield isn't much of a threat and isn't really doing anything. If I was that archer, I would just shoot at someone else rather than waste my full attack action.
Howie23
06-06-07, 01:49 PM You're right, it doesn't make sense.

But I wouldn't worry about it too much. In all the LG games I've played, I think I've only seen a tower shield used for total cover a total of 3 or 4 times.

A person cowering under a tower shield isn't much of a threat and isn't really doing anything. If I was that archer, I would just shoot at someone else rather than waste my full attack action.

I've seen it twice. Both times, being used to move forward against a nasty.

In the time that I was judging, I ran the bad guy to sunder the shield in a corridor environment. End of cover.

David
solbergb
06-06-07, 01:59 PM The ruling is a lot of why you don't see it much. Pretty much only in doorways, narrow corridors and similar situations. It's something I think about with my tower shield weilders, but only when the circumstances are perfect.

Before the ruling, many of us assumed a more active role when the std action was being used for cover (ie, the user was interposing it to meet any threat, not just holding it static in one direction as the ruling assumes). This ruling meshes nicely with the "there is no facing in D&D" changes that came out with 3.5.

That approach meant any attack vs the weilder went at the shield first (unless like a touch spell, the shield being "Attended" meant it zipped right at the owner).

I thought that was the intent of the PHB wording, but the FAQ went with the other school of thought, which was that in D&D, cover doesn't have meaning without facing. Following that logic to its natural conclusion, you get the FAQ tower shield ruling, which means the thing only works for total cover versus medium sized opponents in confined quarters (or perhaps with a shield wall of other tower shield-equipped warriors)
lseelba
06-06-07, 02:18 PM The ruling is a lot of why you don't see it much. Pretty much only in doorways, narrow corridors and similar situations. It's something I think about with my tower shield weilders, but only when the circumstances are perfect.

Before the ruling, many of us assumed a more active role when the std action was being used for cover (ie, the user was interposing it to meet any threat, not just holding it static in one direction as the ruling assumes). This ruling meshes nicely with the "there is no facing in D&D" changes that came out with 3.5.

That approach meant any attack vs the weilder went at the shield first (unless like a touch spell, the shield being "Attended" meant it zipped right at the owner).

I thought that was the intent of the PHB wording, but the FAQ went with the other school of thought, which was that in D&D, cover doesn't have meaning without facing. Following that logic to its natural conclusion, you get the FAQ tower shield ruling, which means the thing only works for total cover versus medium sized opponents in confined quarters (or perhaps with a shield wall of other tower shield-equipped warriors)

Yes I liked the old approach better. Although it had its own problems, it actually meshed with 3.5 mechanics.
TWG_Prometheus
06-06-07, 02:33 PM I wouldn't agree that the ruling introduces any sort of 'facing' to D&D. It simply is an acknowledgment of the fact that cover has to be somewhere specific. It's a relation of the position of the cover to your character, not an indication that the character is facing in any particular direction. Your tower shield is not you.

Apply the rules for cover as normal, and I don't see any real problem with it. Getting total cover from all directions is kind of silly.
lseelba
06-06-07, 02:34 PM The issue is that the FAQ is utterly wrong is how one applies the cover rules.

You don't go center to center.

The attacker chooses one corner of their square. If a line from that corner to any corner of the target's square passes through an obstruction (in this case the shield), then they get cover.

The FAQ is attempting to address when someone gets total cover and when someone just gets cover, and is doing a crappy job of it.

Also, it doesn't "introduce facing". The shield, as an obstruction providing cover, must occupy a space on the map. If it didn't, the implication of your statement would be that they would have total cover in all directions, because "they don't have facing", which is ludicrous.

You are completely correct King. But it also has created some strange hybrid cover rules. Compare a Tower Shield aimed east to a 5' by 5' table that a smart character has plopped upright and taken cover behind (also aimed east). That table would provide complete cover for that character from anyone that was directly east of him. Anyone northeast or southeast still has line of sight to the character but the character has normal cover. That's a very small area of complete cover, and a very wide area of normal cover.

Now instead the character has a tower shield. Also, in this description 0 degrees is north, 45 degrees is NE, 90 degrees is E, 135 degrees is SE, and 180 degrees is S. The character behind the east facing tower shield has complete cover from all enemies between 45 degrees and 135 degrees. He only has normal cover from enemies exactly on the diagonal (45 or 135 degrees, aka NE and SE). He has zero cover from enemies between 0 and 45 degrees, and enemies between 135 degrees and 180 degrees. That's a larger area of complete cover, an extremely narrow area of cover, and a much larger area of no cover than the table provided. Seems silly...

If they had wanted the tower shield to be similar to an object that provides cover, they should have just done so instead of making up these strange rules that you don't find elsewhere in the game. The best solution IMHO would have been to have the tower shield protect from two or three sides. This would mean that you eliminate the silly diagonal problem from the first post, and you could still be attacked from behind. It's not like the tower shield cover rule is that great anyway...there's almost always a better option for my cleric in my home game. But I REALLY dislike the strange facing rules in the FAQ.
MatteBlack
06-06-07, 03:39 PM The rules could be more consistent with other rules but, I don't find them hard to follow. It's pretty clear what and how you will be protected by a tower shield. You can argue there are situations where tower shield is not as effective as it could be but honestly, it's not a very cinematic way to fight every battle so, I don't mind the rules not overly rewarding their use. They work well enough in dungeons and for more than just the wielder.
Eric Anondson
06-06-07, 04:28 PM But I REALLY dislike the strange facing rules in the FAQ.While they may seem like facing rules, I disgree that they are at all. They are a clumsy implementation of portable cover that violates how line of effect is actually determined in the rules.
Madfox11
06-07-07, 04:05 AM Facing rules already exist in the game: when flying, and that includes flying with the good manouverability the fly spell provides. In our home campaign the DM allowed the warlock to take Improved Flight just to get rid of that bother ;)
The_Jester
06-07-07, 10:09 AM I don't think these made up tower shield rules were well thought out, or playtested very much

FAQ rules aren't play tested and probably seldom thought out or discussed in a round table format which would weed out some of the inane changes like this or the monk/gauntlet problems.

And if you're playing LG you cannot change or fix it, you have to stick to the rules regardless.
In a homegame just stick with the PHB ruling.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
lseelba 06-06-07, 12:55 PM	I was just browsing through the main FAQ, when I came across the section about Tower Shields. I understand that the ill-defined wording in the PHB needed clarification, but the made up rules in the main FAQ don't work mechanically. Here is the exact wording, and following that, why the rules don't work: 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. Since you can take only one standard action each round, you cannot also attack, cast a spell, activate a magic item (except for some use-activated items), use a special ability, use total defense, or start or complete a full-round action during the same round you claim total cover from the shield. You can, however, take a move action before or after you claim cover from the shield. 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. To determine where the line of effect enters your space, draw a line from the attacker’s center to your center. Or, in the case of a magical effect, from the effect’s point of origin and your center. 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, when you can again decide whether you’ll use the shield for cover. Once you choose the side of your space that the shield blocks, you cannot change it until your next turn. Ignoring the fact that this rule introduces 'facing' into 3.5 DnD, which the developers have tried to keep out of the game, it doesn't do it in a functional way. The biggest problem is diagonals. This example will illustrate why: A Fighter with a Tower Shield engages in combat with an archer who is 300' away directly to the east. Both have 30' movement. The fighter has no ranged weapon, but luckily he has a tower shield! He uses his standard actions to aim the tower shield, while using his move actions to get closer to the archer until he can engage her in melee combat. The archer's bow is useless with the full cover the tower shield grants, so she will probably either run away or try to circle around as the fighter gets closer to get an open shot. Everything works as it should and makes sense! Now imagine the identical situation, but now the archer is 300' away directly to the southeast (ie exactly on a diagonal). The fighter, according to the FAQ rules RAW, can't aim his tower shield diagonally. The best he can do is aim it south, or east, which only grants him cover (and only then if the archer doesn't move 5' north or west respectively, which would negate the cover completely). Say he moves 30' south, then aims his shield east. He now has total cover, but the archer just has to mimic his movement, go 25' south and 5' SW, which negate the cover COMPLETELY and take her shot. Sudennly, just because the archer is 300' away SOUTHEAST instead of EAST, she has the advantage. This does not work and does not make sense. I don't think these made up tower shield rules were well thought out, or playtested very much...How would I fix it? I don't like the introduction of facing (could you imagine if you always had to determine the facing of your mount, or all the monsters?), but if it has to be done, then the tower shield should be able to be aimed in two cardinal directions at once. This would remove the diagonal silliness I illustrated above.
King Kashue 06-06-07, 01:33 PM	Now imagine the identical situation, but now the archer is 300' away directly to the southeast (ie exactly on a diagonal). The fighter, according to the FAQ rules RAW, can't aim his tower shield diagonally. The best he can do is aim it south, or east, which only grants him cover (and only then if the archer doesn't move 5' north or west respectively, which would negate the cover completely). Say he moves 30' south, then aims his shield east. He now has total cover, but the archer just has to mimic his movement, go 25' south and 5' SW, which negate the cover COMPLETELY and take her shot. Sudennly, just because the archer is 300' away SOUTHEAST instead of EAST, she has the advantage. This does not work and does not make sense. I don't think these made up tower shield rules were well thought out, or playtested very much...How would I fix it? I don't like the introduction of facing (could you imagine if you always had to determine the facing of your mount, or all the monsters?), but if it has to be done, then the tower shield should be able to be aimed in two cardinal directions at once. This would remove the diagonal silliness I illustrated above. The issue is that the FAQ is utterly wrong is how one applies the cover rules. You don't go center to center. The attacker chooses one corner of their square. If a line from that corner to any corner of the target's square passes through an obstruction (in this case the shield), then they get cover. The FAQ is attempting to address when someone gets total cover and when someone just gets cover, and is doing a crappy job of it. Also, it doesn't "introduce facing". The shield, as an obstruction providing cover, must occupy a space on the map. If it didn't, the implication of your statement would be that they would have total cover in all directions, because "they don't have facing", which is ludicrous.
CdrcJsn 06-06-07, 01:36 PM	You're right, it doesn't make sense. But I wouldn't worry about it too much. In all the LG games I've played, I think I've only seen a tower shield used for total cover a total of 3 or 4 times. A person cowering under a tower shield isn't much of a threat and isn't really doing anything. If I was that archer, I would just shoot at someone else rather than waste my full attack action.
Howie23 06-06-07, 01:49 PM	You're right, it doesn't make sense. But I wouldn't worry about it too much. In all the LG games I've played, I think I've only seen a tower shield used for total cover a total of 3 or 4 times. A person cowering under a tower shield isn't much of a threat and isn't really doing anything. If I was that archer, I would just shoot at someone else rather than waste my full attack action. I've seen it twice. Both times, being used to move forward against a nasty. In the time that I was judging, I ran the bad guy to sunder the shield in a corridor environment. End of cover. David
solbergb 06-06-07, 01:59 PM	The ruling is a lot of why you don't see it much. Pretty much only in doorways, narrow corridors and similar situations. It's something I think about with my tower shield weilders, but only when the circumstances are perfect. Before the ruling, many of us assumed a more active role when the std action was being used for cover (ie, the user was interposing it to meet any threat, not just holding it static in one direction as the ruling assumes). This ruling meshes nicely with the "there is no facing in D&D" changes that came out with 3.5. That approach meant any attack vs the weilder went at the shield first (unless like a touch spell, the shield being "Attended" meant it zipped right at the owner). I thought that was the intent of the PHB wording, but the FAQ went with the other school of thought, which was that in D&D, cover doesn't have meaning without facing. Following that logic to its natural conclusion, you get the FAQ tower shield ruling, which means the thing only works for total cover versus medium sized opponents in confined quarters (or perhaps with a shield wall of other tower shield-equipped warriors)
lseelba 06-06-07, 02:18 PM	The ruling is a lot of why you don't see it much. Pretty much only in doorways, narrow corridors and similar situations. It's something I think about with my tower shield weilders, but only when the circumstances are perfect. Before the ruling, many of us assumed a more active role when the std action was being used for cover (ie, the user was interposing it to meet any threat, not just holding it static in one direction as the ruling assumes). This ruling meshes nicely with the "there is no facing in D&D" changes that came out with 3.5. That approach meant any attack vs the weilder went at the shield first (unless like a touch spell, the shield being "Attended" meant it zipped right at the owner). I thought that was the intent of the PHB wording, but the FAQ went with the other school of thought, which was that in D&D, cover doesn't have meaning without facing. Following that logic to its natural conclusion, you get the FAQ tower shield ruling, which means the thing only works for total cover versus medium sized opponents in confined quarters (or perhaps with a shield wall of other tower shield-equipped warriors) Yes I liked the old approach better. Although it had its own problems, it actually meshed with 3.5 mechanics.
TWG_Prometheus 06-06-07, 02:33 PM	I wouldn't agree that the ruling introduces any sort of 'facing' to D&D. It simply is an acknowledgment of the fact that cover has to be somewhere specific. It's a relation of the position of the cover to your character, not an indication that the character is facing in any particular direction. Your tower shield is not you. Apply the rules for cover as normal, and I don't see any real problem with it. Getting total cover from all directions is kind of silly.
lseelba 06-06-07, 02:34 PM	The issue is that the FAQ is utterly wrong is how one applies the cover rules. You don't go center to center. The attacker chooses one corner of their square. If a line from that corner to any corner of the target's square passes through an obstruction (in this case the shield), then they get cover. The FAQ is attempting to address when someone gets total cover and when someone just gets cover, and is doing a crappy job of it. Also, it doesn't "introduce facing". The shield, as an obstruction providing cover, must occupy a space on the map. If it didn't, the implication of your statement would be that they would have total cover in all directions, because "they don't have facing", which is ludicrous. You are completely correct King. But it also has created some strange hybrid cover rules. Compare a Tower Shield aimed east to a 5' by 5' table that a smart character has plopped upright and taken cover behind (also aimed east). That table would provide complete cover for that character from anyone that was directly east of him. Anyone northeast or southeast still has line of sight to the character but the character has normal cover. That's a very small area of complete cover, and a very wide area of normal cover. Now instead the character has a tower shield. Also, in this description 0 degrees is north, 45 degrees is NE, 90 degrees is E, 135 degrees is SE, and 180 degrees is S. The character behind the east facing tower shield has complete cover from all enemies between 45 degrees and 135 degrees. He only has normal cover from enemies exactly on the diagonal (45 or 135 degrees, aka NE and SE). He has zero cover from enemies between 0 and 45 degrees, and enemies between 135 degrees and 180 degrees. That's a larger area of complete cover, an extremely narrow area of cover, and a much larger area of no cover than the table provided. Seems silly... If they had wanted the tower shield to be similar to an object that provides cover, they should have just done so instead of making up these strange rules that you don't find elsewhere in the game. The best solution IMHO would have been to have the tower shield protect from two or three sides. This would mean that you eliminate the silly diagonal problem from the first post, and you could still be attacked from behind. It's not like the tower shield cover rule is that great anyway...there's almost always a better option for my cleric in my home game. But I REALLY dislike the strange facing rules in the FAQ.
MatteBlack 06-06-07, 03:39 PM	The rules could be more consistent with other rules but, I don't find them hard to follow. It's pretty clear what and how you will be protected by a tower shield. You can argue there are situations where tower shield is not as effective as it could be but honestly, it's not a very cinematic way to fight every battle so, I don't mind the rules not overly rewarding their use. They work well enough in dungeons and for more than just the wielder.
Eric Anondson 06-06-07, 04:28 PM	But I REALLY dislike the strange facing rules in the FAQ.While they may seem like facing rules, I disgree that they are at all. They are a clumsy implementation of portable cover that violates how line of effect is actually determined in the rules.
Madfox11 06-07-07, 04:05 AM	Facing rules already exist in the game: when flying, and that includes flying with the good manouverability the fly spell provides. In our home campaign the DM allowed the warlock to take Improved Flight just to get rid of that bother ;)
The_Jester 06-07-07, 10:09 AM	I don't think these made up tower shield rules were well thought out, or playtested very much FAQ rules aren't play tested and probably seldom thought out or discussed in a round table format which would weed out some of the inane changes like this or the monk/gauntlet problems. And if you're playing LG you cannot change or fix it, you have to stick to the rules regardless. In a homegame just stick with the PHB ruling.