NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="merc" data-source="post: 302156" data-attributes="member: 3495">Hmm, it doesn't say anything about this in the description of the tower shield, nor in the section on cover. In fact in the Cover section (pg 132 PHB) it gives an example where cover given by the same wall would be different for different sized creatures.Well, actually there is.  You can't possibly be facing a person in DnD combat, with a tower shield between you, and "strike around it".  That would be the equivelent of striking the person on the side of their face-square (for lack of a better term).  Opponents can only be struck through the plane between between them, with the exception of creatures with strange reaches.  The tower shield blocks the plane of attack.  You can step around the shield, but the wielder could always move it to keep it between you.I think the confusion here comes from the size of the shield that KarinsDad was talking about.  The shield was 12ft tall, and the giant was 18ft tall.  Plenty of room for the giant to reach over it.  That shield would still give the giant more cover than it would give the opponent.  If a 6ft tall medium creature had a 4ft tall tower shield (the same porportion), they could strike over it as well.That Cover section I refered to (pg 132 PHB): "Cover gives examples of various situations that usually produce certain degrees of cover.  These examples might not hold true in exceptional circumstances.  For example, a 3-foot wall might provide a human one-half cover in melee against kobolds, who have a hard time striking a human's upper body, but the same wall might grant a human no cover in melee against a giant."I think that shows the subjectiveness that cover has, especially with creatures of different size categories.</blockquote>

Verification