Antimagic Feild and Tower Sheilds [Archive] - Wizards Community

Antimagic Feild and Tower Sheilds [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
ronyon
12-02-06, 11:59 AM Antimagic Feild is an Emanation. Emanations are a blocked by full cover.
Tower Sheilds grant full cover, nerfed through errata to one side of a square, but enough to counter one Antimagic Feild.

So am I crazy or is a Tower Sheild/Hide Sheild a simple counter to Antimagic Feild?
I know there isnt much you can do huddling behind a Tower Sheild(Cast Buffs,Bullrush the AMF caster?) but this seems like a pretty low opertunity cost counter.
CantripN
12-02-06, 12:03 PM Well, it seems correct. Odd... :plotting:
I'd use it to drink a Healing potion.
Seeker95
12-02-06, 12:27 PM For a rules lawyer, such a ruling would be correct.
Rules lawyers should, generally speaking, be shot.
journeyman777
12-02-06, 02:27 PM For a rules lawyer, such a ruling would be correct.
Rules lawyers should, generally speaking, be shot.There's nothing unfair about this. You really have that much trouble with the fighter cowering behind his shield being able to drink a potion?
Seeker95
12-02-06, 03:01 PM You really have that much trouble with the fighter cowering behind his shield being able to drink a potion?I have a problem with a mundane big-ass shield protecting you from a magical field that prevents any magic from working when you are standing in the middle of it.
ronyon
12-02-06, 07:51 PM This trick is more me examining the rules as they are written, and extrapolating the obvious from there.

Look fire burns, water drowns,falling hurts once you stop, and Cover blocks Emanations.
What you do with the basic physics(spellcraft) of the game is up to you.
Me, Im gonna use it like I have two brain cells to rub together,and burn that house ,drown that guy in full plate, introduce my opponents to short duration aviation, and use a Tower Sheild against Emanations.
journeyman777
12-02-06, 08:06 PM I have a problem with a mundane big-ass shield protecting you from a magical field that prevents any magic from working when you are standing in the middle of it.Wait, you have a problem with a mundane item being useful in a situation where anything that isn't mundane is completely useless? Anti-magic is specifically meant to cancel magic, I find it highly appropriate to use something entirely non-magical when you have no other options. Dude, a lv 6 spell is not the be-all end-all. I suppose you would also have a problem with using a smoke stick to get complete concealment in there?
TheCobra
12-02-06, 08:55 PM So a tower shield can also be used to get around repulsion and antilife shell? That's amusing. Strangest of all, this ruling also allows the shield to beat silence. That'd be a great way for clerics to buff without being heard.
jaelis
12-02-06, 09:10 PM First of all, you couldn't drink a potion behind a tower shield:

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.

Second of all, it certainly is goofy that a tower shield could block effects like antimagic or silence. (Not necessarily imbalancing. Just goofy.)

But I think that's because it is goofy that tower shields provide cover. It takes the FAQ a full page of rules to explain how it works, and even then it is wonky.* I think a vastly better house rule is to just say that when you use the total defense action with a tower shield, you get an extra +4 shield bonus to AC and you get the benefit of the evasion ability. That is a zillion times easier to play with and I think it makes more sense too.

*For instance, how do you resolve sunder attempts?
runestar
12-02-06, 10:02 PM It's a great way of circumventing disjunction - just ready an action to hide behind your tower shield...:D
Nephlite
12-02-06, 10:16 PM It's a great way of circumventing disjunction - just ready an action to hide behind your tower shield...:D

Wouldn't the shield still be hit?
runestar
12-02-06, 10:22 PM Wouldn't the shield still be hit?
Yeah, but if its not magical, who cares?;)
Is it possible to contingent this? Like some spell which conjures a tower shield in front of you contingent to someone casting disjunction...:P
Chrono Nexus
12-02-06, 10:30 PM Yeah, but if its not magical, who cares?;)
Is it possible to contingent this? Like some spell which conjures a tower shield in front of you contingent to someone casting disjunction...:P
Yes. It is called animate shield... however, you must go full defense to get the cover from the shield.
A wall of stone would serve the same purpose though.
Sildatorak
12-03-06, 01:14 AM If a closed door can keep an AMF back, I don't see why a tower shield doing it is any stranger. It is basically a door with some straps on it.
TheCobra
12-03-06, 01:27 AM If a closed door can keep an AMF back, I don't see why a tower shield doing it is any stranger. It is basically a door with some straps on it.

One door does not a wall make. ;)

I guess my mental image of magic tends to use more spreads than bursts.
enygmatic_me
12-03-06, 01:28 AM Ok, just trying to play devil's advocate here.

The fact that a tower shield only provides cover to one side I would think that, if you are more then 5' inside the effected area, you are still vulnerable from the other three sides and should still suffer from the spell or effect.
runestar
12-03-06, 02:07 AM Mordenkainen's disjunction is a burst.
From the SRD...
A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, even including creatures that you can’t see. It can’t affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don’t extend around corners). The default shape for a burst effect is a sphere, but some burst spells are specifically described as cone-shaped. A burst’s area defines how far from the point of origin the spell’s effect extends.
As for a tower shield...
Shield, Tower: This massive wooden shield is nearly as tall as you are. In most situations, it provides the indicated shield bonus to your AC. However, you can instead use it as total cover, though you must give up your attacks to do so. The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding. You cannot bash with a tower shield, nor can you use your shield hand for anything else.
When employing a tower shield in combat, you take a –2 penalty on attack rolls because of the shield’s encumbrance.
Anti-magic field is an emanation, and what do you know...:)
An emanation spell functions like a burst spell, except that the effect continues to radiate from the point of origin for the duration of the spell. Most emanations are cones or spheres.
So a tower shield protects you from both disjunction and an AMF as well.
But it will not protect you from a spread effect, which is able to turn corners.
nastynate
12-03-06, 02:35 AM I can't believe I never noticed this before! Brilliant! :plotting:

For those who do not understand why it would work, think of an emanation effect as the beam from a flashlight...if you are standing around a corner, behind a door, and (as I have just suddenly come to realize) behind a tower shield you are not affected. The beam of light from the flashlight doesn't fill an area, it just emanates from a point (unlike fireball for instance, which does fill an area, and will bend around corners).

-Peace-
Nezkrul
12-03-06, 02:44 AM a towershield will only protect you from a disjunction if the side of the square it is on that you are claiming total cover from is the direction to the point of origin. AKA if you claim cover on the side nearest the wizard, then he centers the MDJ behind you, you still get disjoined.
Thomar_of_Uointer
12-03-06, 03:48 PM Mmmm... My sword-and-board fighter just got a whole lot cooler...

a towershield will only protect you from a disjunction if the side of the square it is on that you are claiming total cover from is the direction to the point of origin. AKA if you claim cover on the side nearest the wizard, then he centers the MDJ behind you, you still get disjoined.

Facing rules don't apply in 3.5. You get cover from all directions.

Look at it this way. When the fireball gets shot, the fighter turns and places his shield squarely between himself and the point of origin. When the cone of cold gets cast, the fighter turns back to shield himself from it. A round is six seconds long.
Of course, that tower shield is going to be scrap after taking that much damage, but adamantine and magic can fix that right up.
dagman
12-03-06, 06:32 PM this is a brilliant little trick which a fellow player in a game group of mine discovered yet our GM would not accept it so our cleric being the inventive tank he was figured to make a tower shield/coffin which he would get in and buff himself it was hilarious until the fight against a vampire spawn and our barbarian tied it up with rope picked up the coffin ran with it all the way outside through it in the river runs back and proclaims to his injured party mates the vampire is slain "where feilbmen"
Nezkrul
12-03-06, 07:00 PM Mmmm... My sword-and-board fighter just got a whole lot cooler...

Facing rules don't apply in 3.5. You get cover from all directions.

Look at it this way. When the fireball gets shot, the fighter turns and places his shield squarely between himself and the point of origin. When the cone of cold gets cast, the fighter turns back to shield himself from it. A round is six seconds long.
Of course, that tower shield is going to be scrap after taking that much damage, but adamantine and magic can fix that right up.

Except that if you actually read the FAQ you'd notice that it takes a standard action to place the shield on a side of your space to claim cover from, and by process of elimination you dont have cover from the other directions, aka you get disjoined from behind.
User5127
12-03-06, 07:10 PM Shield, Tower: This massive wooden shield is nearly as tall as you are. In most situations, it provides the indicated shield bonus to your AC. However, you can instead use it as total cover, though you must give up your attacks to do so. The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding. You cannot bash with a tower shield, nor can you use your shield hand for anything else.
When employing a tower shield in combat, you take a –2 penalty on attack rolls because of the shield’s encumbrance.

actually it says you give up your attacks, so if we go word for word it takes no action to use the cover, it just means you can't attack or use a standard action to attack (since you've given up the attack ability for cover)

you can still drink a potion and activate magic items. and the shield provides "total cover", not directional cover.

so by declaring you have cover from your tower shield you can't get disjoined from behind, because you have total cover. having the shield face a direction doesn't exist in 3rd edition any more.

EDIT: my bad, read the wrong faq, what you are talking about is in the 3.0 one, not 3.5... heh

thought neither faqs nor the srd mention anything about a standard action to use the cover. unless i missed something.
boozerker
12-03-06, 08:22 PM Anti-magic field is an emanation, and what do you know...:)

So a tower shield protects you from both disjunction and an AMF as well.
But it will not protect you from a spread effect, which is able to turn corners.
Listen closely and you might hear a swarm of fervent minds racing to undo this new tower shield "exploit" :D
runestar
12-03-06, 10:10 PM Listen closely and you might hear a swarm of fervent minds racing to undo this new tower shield "exploit"
It's called a houserule. Only headache comes when they refuse to recognize it as such and try to pass off their houserules as the RAW.:P Citing crap like game balance and such when it has nothing to do with interpretation of the RAW whatsoever.

And it wasn't exactly new...been out since 3.5...:)
ronyon
12-04-06, 04:15 PM The truth is that the rules for tower sheilds are inexplicable buggered up.
The were broken in 3.0. and still broken, in much the same ways in 3.5.
I use the rules posted here:http://http://www.enworld.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2767197&postcount=8, since I cant access the FaQs with my bootleg computer.
The nerfs hurt.Alot.But even so , it seems the Tower Sheild still has its uses.
Since the Full Cover option is the main draw, I prefer to use the Hide Sheild from Sandstorm. Its lighter,cheaper, and less punishing to skills, dex bonus to AC and attacks, while still giving you the Full Cover option.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ronyon 12-02-06, 11:59 AM	Antimagic Feild is an Emanation. Emanations are a blocked by full cover. Tower Sheilds grant full cover, nerfed through errata to one side of a square, but enough to counter one Antimagic Feild. So am I crazy or is a Tower Sheild/Hide Sheild a simple counter to Antimagic Feild? I know there isnt much you can do huddling behind a Tower Sheild(Cast Buffs,Bullrush the AMF caster?) but this seems like a pretty low opertunity cost counter.
CantripN 12-02-06, 12:03 PM	Well, it seems correct. Odd... :plotting: I'd use it to drink a Healing potion.
Seeker95 12-02-06, 12:27 PM	For a rules lawyer, such a ruling would be correct. Rules lawyers should, generally speaking, be shot.
journeyman777 12-02-06, 02:27 PM	For a rules lawyer, such a ruling would be correct. Rules lawyers should, generally speaking, be shot.There's nothing unfair about this. You really have that much trouble with the fighter cowering behind his shield being able to drink a potion?
Seeker95 12-02-06, 03:01 PM	You really have that much trouble with the fighter cowering behind his shield being able to drink a potion?I have a problem with a mundane big-ass shield protecting you from a magical field that prevents any magic from working when you are standing in the middle of it.
ronyon 12-02-06, 07:51 PM	This trick is more me examining the rules as they are written, and extrapolating the obvious from there. Look fire burns, water drowns,falling hurts once you stop, and Cover blocks Emanations. What you do with the basic physics(spellcraft) of the game is up to you. Me, Im gonna use it like I have two brain cells to rub together,and burn that house ,drown that guy in full plate, introduce my opponents to short duration aviation, and use a Tower Sheild against Emanations.
journeyman777 12-02-06, 08:06 PM	I have a problem with a mundane big-ass shield protecting you from a magical field that prevents any magic from working when you are standing in the middle of it.Wait, you have a problem with a mundane item being useful in a situation where anything that isn't mundane is completely useless? Anti-magic is specifically meant to cancel magic, I find it highly appropriate to use something entirely non-magical when you have no other options. Dude, a lv 6 spell is not the be-all end-all. I suppose you would also have a problem with using a smoke stick to get complete concealment in there?
TheCobra 12-02-06, 08:55 PM	So a tower shield can also be used to get around repulsion and antilife shell? That's amusing. Strangest of all, this ruling also allows the shield to beat silence. That'd be a great way for clerics to buff without being heard.
jaelis 12-02-06, 09:10 PM	First of all, you couldn't drink a potion behind a tower shield: 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. Second of all, it certainly is goofy that a tower shield could block effects like antimagic or silence. (Not necessarily imbalancing. Just goofy.) But I think that's because it is goofy that tower shields provide cover. It takes the FAQ a full page of rules to explain how it works, and even then it is wonky.* I think a vastly better house rule is to just say that when you use the total defense action with a tower shield, you get an extra +4 shield bonus to AC and you get the benefit of the evasion ability. That is a zillion times easier to play with and I think it makes more sense too. *For instance, how do you resolve sunder attempts?
runestar 12-02-06, 10:02 PM	It's a great way of circumventing disjunction - just ready an action to hide behind your tower shield...:D
Nephlite 12-02-06, 10:16 PM	It's a great way of circumventing disjunction - just ready an action to hide behind your tower shield...:D Wouldn't the shield still be hit?
runestar 12-02-06, 10:22 PM	Wouldn't the shield still be hit? Yeah, but if its not magical, who cares?;) Is it possible to contingent this? Like some spell which conjures a tower shield in front of you contingent to someone casting disjunction...:P
Chrono Nexus 12-02-06, 10:30 PM	Yeah, but if its not magical, who cares?;) Is it possible to contingent this? Like some spell which conjures a tower shield in front of you contingent to someone casting disjunction...:P Yes. It is called animate shield... however, you must go full defense to get the cover from the shield. A wall of stone would serve the same purpose though.
Sildatorak 12-03-06, 01:14 AM	If a closed door can keep an AMF back, I don't see why a tower shield doing it is any stranger. It is basically a door with some straps on it.
TheCobra 12-03-06, 01:27 AM	If a closed door can keep an AMF back, I don't see why a tower shield doing it is any stranger. It is basically a door with some straps on it. One door does not a wall make. ;) I guess my mental image of magic tends to use more spreads than bursts.
enygmatic_me 12-03-06, 01:28 AM	Ok, just trying to play devil's advocate here. The fact that a tower shield only provides cover to one side I would think that, if you are more then 5' inside the effected area, you are still vulnerable from the other three sides and should still suffer from the spell or effect.
runestar 12-03-06, 02:07 AM	Mordenkainen's disjunction is a burst. From the SRD... A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, even including creatures that you can’t see. It can’t affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don’t extend around corners). The default shape for a burst effect is a sphere, but some burst spells are specifically described as cone-shaped. A burst’s area defines how far from the point of origin the spell’s effect extends. As for a tower shield... Shield, Tower: This massive wooden shield is nearly as tall as you are. In most situations, it provides the indicated shield bonus to your AC. However, you can instead use it as total cover, though you must give up your attacks to do so. The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding. You cannot bash with a tower shield, nor can you use your shield hand for anything else. When employing a tower shield in combat, you take a –2 penalty on attack rolls because of the shield’s encumbrance. Anti-magic field is an emanation, and what do you know...:) An emanation spell functions like a burst spell, except that the effect continues to radiate from the point of origin for the duration of the spell. Most emanations are cones or spheres. So a tower shield protects you from both disjunction and an AMF as well. But it will not protect you from a spread effect, which is able to turn corners.
nastynate 12-03-06, 02:35 AM	I can't believe I never noticed this before! Brilliant! :plotting: For those who do not understand why it would work, think of an emanation effect as the beam from a flashlight...if you are standing around a corner, behind a door, and (as I have just suddenly come to realize) behind a tower shield you are not affected. The beam of light from the flashlight doesn't fill an area, it just emanates from a point (unlike fireball for instance, which does fill an area, and will bend around corners). -Peace-
Nezkrul 12-03-06, 02:44 AM	a towershield will only protect you from a disjunction if the side of the square it is on that you are claiming total cover from is the direction to the point of origin. AKA if you claim cover on the side nearest the wizard, then he centers the MDJ behind you, you still get disjoined.
Thomar_of_Uointer 12-03-06, 03:48 PM	Mmmm... My sword-and-board fighter just got a whole lot cooler... a towershield will only protect you from a disjunction if the side of the square it is on that you are claiming total cover from is the direction to the point of origin. AKA if you claim cover on the side nearest the wizard, then he centers the MDJ behind you, you still get disjoined. Facing rules don't apply in 3.5. You get cover from all directions. Look at it this way. When the fireball gets shot, the fighter turns and places his shield squarely between himself and the point of origin. When the cone of cold gets cast, the fighter turns back to shield himself from it. A round is six seconds long. Of course, that tower shield is going to be scrap after taking that much damage, but adamantine and magic can fix that right up.
dagman 12-03-06, 06:32 PM	this is a brilliant little trick which a fellow player in a game group of mine discovered yet our GM would not accept it so our cleric being the inventive tank he was figured to make a tower shield/coffin which he would get in and buff himself it was hilarious until the fight against a vampire spawn and our barbarian tied it up with rope picked up the coffin ran with it all the way outside through it in the river runs back and proclaims to his injured party mates the vampire is slain "where feilbmen"
Nezkrul 12-03-06, 07:00 PM	Mmmm... My sword-and-board fighter just got a whole lot cooler... Facing rules don't apply in 3.5. You get cover from all directions. Look at it this way. When the fireball gets shot, the fighter turns and places his shield squarely between himself and the point of origin. When the cone of cold gets cast, the fighter turns back to shield himself from it. A round is six seconds long. Of course, that tower shield is going to be scrap after taking that much damage, but adamantine and magic can fix that right up. Except that if you actually read the FAQ you'd notice that it takes a standard action to place the shield on a side of your space to claim cover from, and by process of elimination you dont have cover from the other directions, aka you get disjoined from behind.
User5127 12-03-06, 07:10 PM	Shield, Tower: This massive wooden shield is nearly as tall as you are. In most situations, it provides the indicated shield bonus to your AC. However, you can instead use it as total cover, though you must give up your attacks to do so. The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding. You cannot bash with a tower shield, nor can you use your shield hand for anything else. When employing a tower shield in combat, you take a –2 penalty on attack rolls because of the shield’s encumbrance. actually it says you give up your attacks, so if we go word for word it takes no action to use the cover, it just means you can't attack or use a standard action to attack (since you've given up the attack ability for cover) you can still drink a potion and activate magic items. and the shield provides "total cover", not directional cover. so by declaring you have cover from your tower shield you can't get disjoined from behind, because you have total cover. having the shield face a direction doesn't exist in 3rd edition any more. EDIT: my bad, read the wrong faq, what you are talking about is in the 3.0 one, not 3.5... heh thought neither faqs nor the srd mention anything about a standard action to use the cover. unless i missed something.
boozerker 12-03-06, 08:22 PM	Anti-magic field is an emanation, and what do you know...:) So a tower shield protects you from both disjunction and an AMF as well. But it will not protect you from a spread effect, which is able to turn corners. Listen closely and you might hear a swarm of fervent minds racing to undo this new tower shield "exploit" :D
runestar 12-03-06, 10:10 PM	Listen closely and you might hear a swarm of fervent minds racing to undo this new tower shield "exploit" It's called a houserule. Only headache comes when they refuse to recognize it as such and try to pass off their houserules as the RAW.:P Citing crap like game balance and such when it has nothing to do with interpretation of the RAW whatsoever. And it wasn't exactly new...been out since 3.5...:)
ronyon 12-04-06, 04:15 PM	The truth is that the rules for tower sheilds are inexplicable buggered up. The were broken in 3.0. and still broken, in much the same ways in 3.5. I use the rules posted here:http://http://www.enworld.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2767197&postcount=8, since I cant access the FaQs with my bootleg computer. The nerfs hurt.Alot.But even so , it seems the Tower Sheild still has its uses. Since the Full Cover option is the main draw, I prefer to use the Hide Sheild from Sandstorm. Its lighter,cheaper, and less punishing to skills, dex bonus to AC and attacks, while still giving you the Full Cover option.