Tower Shield and Total Cover

[shilsen]

The tower shield description (PHB, pg. 125) says that the user can utilize it to gain total cover, while giving up all of his attacks. How exactly does this work?

Let's say a dwarf using a tower shield is fighting a single enemy. The dwarf gives up his attacks and uses the shield for total cover. I presume that means the enemy cannot attack him at all, since you can't attack a target with total cover (PHB 152). Correct?

What about if the dwarf is fighting multiple enemies, some (or all) of whom are flanking him? Can he use the tower shield to gain total cover against all of them, even those on opposite sides?

Also, what sort of an action is using a tower shield for total cover? I would think it is a full-round or at least standard action, since you are giving up your attacks to do so.

Thanks, in advance.

 

[Ranger REG]

The tower shield description (PHB, pg. 125) says that the user can utilize it to gain total cover, while giving up all of his attacks. How exactly does this work?

Let's say a dwarf using a tower shield is fighting a single enemy. The dwarf gives up his attacks and uses the shield for total cover. I presume that means the enemy cannot attack him at all, since you can't attack a target with total cover (PHB 152). Correct?

Correct.

What about if the dwarf is fighting multiple enemies, some (or all) of whom are flanking him? Can he use the tower shield to gain total cover against all of them, even those on opposite sides?

If you make no attack, yes.

Also, what sort of an action is using a tower shield for total cover? I would think it is a full-round or at least standard action, since you are giving up your attacks to do so.

AFAIK, using a tower shield for total cover doesn't take an action. Consider it free, on the condition that you do not attack, not even Attack of Opportunity. Not only do you benefit from total cover, your opponent also gain total cover from you (which is a moot point anyway).

 

[frankthedm]

AFAIK, using a tower shield for total cover doesn't take an action. Consider it free, on the condition that you do not attack, not even Attack of Opportunity. Not only do you benefit from total cover, your opponent also gain total cover from you (which is a moot point anyway).

That was the 3.25 version from skip williams. The 3.5 version lets you "give up your attacks" for a nebulous full cover that is good for all directions. Since you would have to HAVE attacks to give them up, you need to take a type of action that allows attacks[full attack[not much reason], normal attack [get your move]. it might be legal to do this on a charge [to squeeze extra movement]

"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."

 

[Darklone]

I think it's rather silly. Cleric with Towershield? Full cover and spellcasting... blargh.

Full cover as a ME action or something like that would have been better...

 

[shilsen]

I think it's rather silly. Cleric with Towershield? Full cover and spellcasting... blargh.

Full cover as a ME action or something like that would have been better...

frankthedm's post above yours makes a good point. Since one has to give up all attacks to gain total cover, and must have attacks to give up, one can reasonably rule that it takes at least a standard action to do so. With no further details in the RAW, it seems a good ruling. YMMV.