An all new commoner exploit! The Tower of Bubs!

[Hazzardevil]

Theres already a few commoner exploits out there, the hUGE ball of grappling commoners that drag people 15 ft per round, per commoner and the horse express, (Which works with halflings and humans as well.)

I have a new one, the tower of bubs.
Take 4 commoners, give them tower shields. Then get them to surround a monster, one on each side, make sure they are also all adjacent to the enemy.
They then gain total concealment with the tower shields. That monster cannot attack the commoners, nor can walk out the way, because they have blocked him.

Is there a reason why this doesn't work?

[Diarmuid]

Moving Diagnoally makes this not work.

[Kobold-Bard]

Teleportation?
Flight?
Can you bull rush objects, thus targeting the shield instead of the Commoner?

[The Glyphstone]

Jump, possibly.

[Hazzardevil]

Hmm, needs commoners on the corners as well.

[Eldan]

Burrowing too. Or sundering the shields.

But the general idea isn't bad, really.

[BlueInc]

Burrowing too.


Jump, possibly.

Commoners with tower shields above and below the enemy.

Hmmm... a tower shield is only 30g. Giving a bunch of Orc/Other Mook Race Warriors tower shields and have them surrounding PCs could be funny.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I see your blockade and raise you a Bull Rush. Or a Fireball. Or a Fell Drain Kelgore's Grave Mist/Hail of Stones.

[TwylyghT]

Doesn't this create one of those rule paradoxes?

The commoners have total concealment and cover from the foe, granted by the tower shields.

The tower shields are being wielded by the commoners.

For effects that involve targeting, shields are part of the wielder.

The tower shields have total concealment and cover.

[BlueInc]

I see your blockade and raise you a Bull Rush. Or a Fireball. Or a Fell Drain Kelgore's Grave Mist/Hail of Stones.

Fireball isn't going to do you too much good if you're surrounded :smallwink:

Bull Rush would probably work, and Fell Drain Hail of Stones ruins most things.

[byaku rai]

Doesn't this create one of those rule paradoxes?

The commoners have total concealment and cover from the foe, granted by the tower shields.

The tower shields are being wielded by the commoners.

For effects that involve targeting, shields are part of the wielder.

The tower shields have total concealment and cover.

That's... wow... I don't even... maybe there's an exception for tower shields used this way?

[The Glyphstone]

Commoners with tower shields above and below the enemy.

Hmmm... a tower shield is only 30g. Giving a bunch of Orc/Other Mook Race Warriors tower shields and have them surrounding PCs could be funny.

You'd need Commoners with flight then, and perfect maneuverability, along with commoners with a Burrow speed who don't need to breathe.

[The_Admiral]

Fireball isn't going to do you too much good if you're surrounded :smallwink:

Bull Rush would probably work, and Fell Drain Hail of Stones ruins most things.

Yes it is "I cast Fireball centered on myself!"

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Fireball isn't going to do you too much good if you're surrounded :smallwink: :xykon: (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0653.html) "Incidentally, here's a pro tip for you: If you're going to use area effect spells, craft yourself a magic items that makes you immune to that type of damage"


Bull Rush would probably work, and Fell Drain Hail of Stones ruins most things. Dungeoncrasher would also work phenomenally well with knockback.

[kestrel404]

That's... wow... I don't even... maybe there's an exception for tower shields used this way?

There should be, but there is not. It's one of those minor oversights that make playing by RAW without a human interpreter going 'wait, no, it doesn't work that way' into an exercise in silliness and headaches.

[Brumski]

Yes it is "I cast Fireball centered on myself!"

But don't the tower shields block line of effect?

[ShneekeyTheLost]

But don't the tower shields block line of effect?

Not when they are included in the area effect.

Consider: Will holding a shield protect you from being in the *MIDDLE* of a fireball? From the front? Sure, but what about the sides and rear? This is not a small ball of fire which expands outward from a center, this is a 10' diameter ball of flame appearing out of nowhere to turn 'Random NPC_2451' into charcoal.

[TwylyghT]

Doesn't this create one of those rule paradoxes?

The commoners have total concealment and cover from the foe, granted by the tower shields.

The tower shields are being wielded by the commoners.

For effects that involve targeting, shields are part of the wielder.

The tower shields have total concealment and cover.


That's... wow... I don't even... maybe there's an exception for tower shields used this way?

I don't think it ever got directly addressed no. Even better the 3.5 conversion got rid of the 180 degree facing, so you can't even move around it for a firing angle. When a creature uses a tower shield for cover, as far as I can see in RAW, it and the shield have both total cover and total concealment. At best you can take the miss chance for the the concealment, but the cover tag still blocks line of effect. Your pretty much down to dealing with them by AoE.

[Brumski]

Not when they are included in the area effect.

Consider: Will holding a shield protect you from being in the *MIDDLE* of a fireball? From the front? Sure, but what about the sides and rear?

I just remember some article saying that a glass window technically protects you from a fireball, because you might have line of sight but not line of effect. I could see how it wouldn't really make sense though.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I don't think it ever got directly addressed no. Even better the 3.5 conversion got rid of the 180 degree facing, so you can't even move around it for a firing angle. When a creature uses a tower shield for cover, as far as I can see in RAW, it and the shield have both total cover and total concealment. At best you can take the miss chance for the the concealment, but the cover tag still blocks line of effect. Your pretty much down to dealing with them by AoE.

or bull rushing, which explicitly knocks them back


nitiating a Bull Rush

First, you move into the defender’s space. Doing this provokes an attack of opportunity from each opponent that threatens you, including the defender. (If you have the Improved Bull Rush feat, you don’t provoke an attack of opportunity from the defender.) Any attack of opportunity made by anyone other than the defender against you during a bull rush has a 25% chance of accidentally targeting the defender instead, and any attack of opportunity by anyone other than you against the defender likewise has a 25% chance of accidentally targeting you. (When someone makes an attack of opportunity, make the attack roll and then roll to see whether the attack went astray.)

Second, you and the defender make opposed Strength checks. You each add a +4 bonus for each size category you are larger than Medium or a -4 penalty for each size category you are smaller than Medium. You get a +2 bonus if you are charging. The defender gets a +4 bonus if he has more than two legs or is otherwise exceptionally stable.
Bull Rush Results

If you beat the defender’s Strength check result, you push him back 5 feet. If you wish to move with the defender, you can push him back an additional 5 feet for each 5 points by which your check result is greater than the defender’s check result. You can’t, however, exceed your normal movement limit. (Note: The defender provokes attacks of opportunity if he is moved. So do you, if you move with him. The two of you do not provoke attacks of opportunity from each other, however.)

If you fail to beat the defender’s Strength check result, you move 5 feet straight back to where you were before you moved into his space. If that space is occupied, you fall prone in that space. Doesn't require an attack roll, so it doesn't matter if your opponent has full cover or not. You move into his square, beat his strength check, and push him back.

Similar to how Romans used their shields in combination with their shortswords to press opponents forward and shiv them in the process.

[The Glyphstone]

Not when they are included in the area effect.

Consider: Will holding a shield protect you from being in the *MIDDLE* of a fireball? From the front? Sure, but what about the sides and rear? This is not a small ball of fire which expands outward from a center, this is a 10' diameter ball of flame appearing out of nowhere to turn 'Random NPC_2451' into charcoal.

Fireball does actually have an origin point/center, where the 'bead of flame' lands. Even if it didn't, though, Tower Shields in 3.5 give 360-degree protection.

Incidentally, there's another way this fails - targeted spells.


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.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I just remember some article saying that a glass window technically protects you from a fireball, because you might have line of sight but not line of effect. I could see how it wouldn't really make sense though.

Glass might make it detonate prematurely, but if you're in the area effect, you're affected.

[TwylyghT]

But don't the tower shields block line of effect?


Not when they are included in the area effect.

Consider: Will holding a shield protect you from being in the *MIDDLE* of a fireball? From the front? Sure, but what about the sides and rear? This is not a small ball of fire which expands outward from a center, this is a 10' diameter ball of flame appearing out of nowhere to turn 'Random NPC_2451' into charcoal.

But, they will contain the fireball if all the surrounding spaces are blocked by adjacent shields. The caster can only target his own square, because the line of effect is blocked. Then the fire is stopped by the barrier unless it does enough damage to destroy whats blocking the line of effect, but it *can't* effect the shield, because due to the targeting clause because its blocking it's own line of effect. Now if they leave just one space unblocked, then it escapes and they are all toast.

And unfortunately, 3.5 killed facing on tower shields, there is no side or rear anymore.

This was one of the first things we patched via houserule.

[TwylyghT]

or bull rushing, which explicitly knocks them back

Doesn't require an attack roll, so it doesn't matter if your opponent has full cover or not. You move into his square, beat his strength check, and push him back.

Similar to how Romans used their shields in combination with their shortswords to press opponents forward and shiv them in the process.

But it is still an attack, and you can't target them with the bull rush.


Fireball does actually have an origin point/center, where the 'bead of flame' lands. Even if it didn't, though, Tower Shields in 3.5 give 360-degree protection.

Incidentally, there's another way this fails - targeted spells.

Ah true you can target the shields directly with spells, via special clause, though you may still have to beat the concealment! lol.

[faceroll]

You guys should really see what the rules have to say about this issue:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#area

Fireball is a spread, so all things in the area are affected. For bursts and emanations, total cover will protect you. A ghoul taking total cover behind a tower shield will not be turned by the cleric, but he will be roasted by a fireball.

A glass barrier, like a window, will prevent a fireball from spreading beyond it IF the window doesn't break from the fire damage. A thick enough pane and a low enough level wizard may not actually be able to break through glass.

[Fouredged Sword]

Not a bad way to lock someone down with low level characters. I will have to use this with the town guards for a game sometime. Level one warriors with towershields and something to deal non-lethal damage.

Even if you bullrush one, you just used your turn and the rest of the pattern just moves to keep you locked.

One thing though, this + tuckers kobolds + alchemist fire.

[BlueInc]

Not a bad way to lock someone down with low level characters. I will have to use this with the town guards for a game sometime. Level one warriors with towershields and something to deal non-lethal damage.

Even if you bullrush one, you just used your turn and the rest of the pattern just moves to keep you locked.

One thing though, this + tuckers kobolds + alchemist fire.

Or: Actual kobolds trap someone in a tunnel. Then the Ankheg (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ankheg.htm)hits them from underneath...

[ShneekeyTheLost]

But it is still an attack, and you can't target them with the bull rush. Wrong. You don't target a bull rush, you move into their hex, and initiate the bull rush. There is no attack roll required. Try reading the information I helpfully quoted.

[Cespenar]

Have a level 5 wizard prepare Invisibility Sphere and wander around with 10-12 of these guys. Suddenly, invisible blockade!

[Fouredged Sword]

Now I can't get the immage out of my head.

Guards, the new reality show. Wild high speed horse chases! Guards teaming up and beating down resisting suspects. Wagons with strobeing blue danceing lights cast and ghostsound sirens.

Guards in chain shirts and towershields to pin and beat down adventurers with class levels whn they get roudy.

[The Glyphstone]

Ah true you can target the shields directly with spells, via special clause, though you may still have to beat the concealment! lol.

What concealment? Total cover does not give any sort of concealment.

[TwylyghT]

Not directly, but if your cover blocks line of sight, you also have concealment because you cant be seen. Anything you cant see, has concealment by default.

A wall of force for example, could provide cover, but not concealment becasue its transparent.

Now say a paper wall in a Japanese building, would not really provide cover, but still grants concealment.

A stone wall, provides cover AND concealment because its solid and also blocks line of sight.


Wrong. You don't target a bull rush, you move into their hex, and initiate the bull rush. There is no attack roll required. Try reading the information I helpfully quoted.

It's true that you do not make an attack roll, but a bull rush *is* still an attack, and it *still* needs to be targeted. And such you still need to legally meet the requirements of targeting. You bull rush a target, not a hex.

Not all attacks are special attacks, but all special attacks are attacks. Undead can use tower shields to become immune to turn undead!

[ShneekeyTheLost]

It's true that you do not make an attack roll, but a bull rush *is* still an attack, and it *still* needs to be targeted. And such you still need to legally meet the requirements of targeting. You bull rush a target, not a hex.

Not all attacks are special attacks, but all special attacks are attacks.

Again, wrong. You don't need to target it. All you need to do is move in the hex, and it is provoked. Done. Since you don't need to target, you can bull rush just fine.

Consider this: people are trying to box you in with shields. So you put your shoulder against one and start shoving until something gives.

[Fouredged Sword]

That is when they set the immoveable rods and run. For more fun they make the shields out of rivintine for see through fun.

Then they silence the area and cast a disguse spell to dress you as a mime.

[TwylyghT]

thats common sense and thus does not apply to game mechanics.

You don't automatically effect everything in a space when you bull rush, you still need a target to be the declared "defender". You can't move into "defenders space" without a defender. Would you take the stance that a bull rush automatically bypasses invisibility and ethereal miss chance too because it skips targeting?

[faceroll]

thats common sense and thus does not apply to game mechanics.

You don't automatically effect everything in a space when you bull rush, you still need a target to be the declared "defender". You can't move into "defenders space" without a defender. Would you take the stance that a bull rush automatically bypasses invisibility and ethereal miss chance too because it skips targeting?

No, there's no target like how you're thinking of a target. You just move in and make a strength check. It's very plain in the rules.

[The Glyphstone]

Not directly, but if your cover blocks line of sight, you also have concealment because you cant be seen. Anything you cant see, has concealment by default.

A wall of force for example, could provide cover, but not concealment becasue its transparent.

Now say a paper wall in a Japanese building, would not really provide cover, but still grants concealment.

A stone wall, provides cover AND concealment because its solid and also blocks line of sight.



However, as the quote explicitly allows them to see and target the shield (and by extension, you), there is no concealment involved here.

[TwylyghT]

No, there's no target like how you're thinking of a target. You just move in and make a strength check. It's very plain in the rules.

But you still have to declare a target for a bull rush. You need to choose a defender THEN move into its square. You don't move into the square THEN choose a defender.

anyhow, back to the SRD


You can make a bull rush as a standard action (an attack) or as part of a charge. When you make a bull rush, you attempt to push an opponent straight back instead of damaging him. You can only bull rush an opponent who is one size category larger than you, the same size, or smaller.

Bull rush *is* an attack. It effects an opponent, not the occupant of a space.


Total Cover
If you don’t have line of effect to your target he is considered to have total cover from you. You can’t make an attack against a target that has total cover.

That should really be the end of it. As RAW factors into it at least.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

But you still have to declare a target for a bull rush. You need to choose a defender THEN move into its square. You don't move into the square THEN choose a defender.

anyhow, back to the SRD



Bull rush *is* an attack. You can't attack anyone in total cover.



That should really be the end of it. As RAW factors into it at least.

You are trying to parse semantics when you have no semantics to parse. It has no attack roll, you don't need to target, you just need to move into their square.

Now, if it required an attack roll, then I would agree with you that a shield would stop it, at least until you destroyed the shield. However, as it does not require an attack roll, it doesn't stop a bull rush in the slightest.

Furthermore, if you really insist in needing to target something, simply target the shield itself. You move into the shield's hex, thus the shield's wielder's hex, and proceed from there. Done.

[TwylyghT]

There is is no RAW basis to claim that you have to make an attack roll to need to declare a target. Hundreds of things require a target without the need for an attack roll.

[Dusk Eclipse]

On the fireball stuff: Didn't cover gives a bonus to reflex saves? I recall something like that... (and it makes some sort of sense)

[TwylyghT]

Note all this aside, personally I'm fine with targeting the shield directly with what ever. Though RAW again only exception is for targeted spells. In all other cases, the shield is treated as in total cover just like the owner an cant be targeted.

We have house ruled it down to being a 180 degree arc again, and you can target it directly (though we usually avoid sundering good gear if its an option), trip, bull rush, whatever.

Tower shields and cover interaction as a whole is a RAW mess and poorly thought out. Total cover = practical invincibility is bad enough before making it portable. Though I guess the phalanx was bad ass for a reason. lol.

[TwylyghT]

On the fireball stuff: Didn't cover gives a bonus to reflex saves? I recall something like that... (and it makes some sort of sense)


Only if it can completely contain it in the case of a spread. Burst areas yes, +2 or more bonus to reflex save, and really good cover can grant you improved evasion on top of the bonus. Should also work on an emanation as long as you stay in cover for the duration of the spell.

Total cover as an added bonus gives you immunity to burst and emanations.

[SowZ]

There should be, but there is not. It's one of those minor oversights that make playing by RAW without a human interpreter going 'wait, no, it doesn't work that way' into an exercise in silliness and headaches.

I would allow it to work, though with less effectiveness than the OP suggests. After all, most people would be fairly helpless if a bunch of people surrounded them and caged them in with large steel sheets. The monster would just do a grapple check then a strength check to rip the shield from the commoners hands if it is a strong monster and I was DMing. Unless the monster rolls poorly, he should usually win that one. And if it is a small/weak monster with no magic or flight to help it out it is likely a weak enough monster that the player has spent more than enough time and resources to use his commoners to defeat the monster in such a silly way.

[TwylyghT]

It's all certainly just waiting for a rule #0 backhand.

It's a good tactic actually, just not just as good as the RAW would try to make it lol.

Get 1 rank of shields to box the target in, the the rank behind them with spears. Those are some dangerous commoners as long as the bad guys show up one at a time. :smallbiggrin:

Lol i think if the second rank was inplace, that solves the bull rush argument all together unless the trapped foe has domino rush or dungeoncrasher *snicker*

[SowZ]

It's all certainly just waiting for a rule #0 backhand.

It's a good tactic actually, just not just as good as the RAW would try to make it lol.

Get 1 rank of shields to box the target in, the the rank behind them with spears. Those are some dangerous commoners as long as the bad guys show up one at a time. :smallbiggrin:

Lol i think if the second rank was inplace, that solves the bull rush argument all together unless the trapped foe has domino rush or dungeoncrasher *snicker*

Grappling and strength check to rake the shield still works, though. If the commoners with spears just gank him, well, 4 commoners with tower shields and 4 warriors with spears being able to kill one monster is certainly not broken unless said monster is very powerful, in which case they should have at least one tactic to subvert this plan anyway. I just don't see it as OP. Interesting, sure. Particularly powerful? Nah.

[faceroll]

But you still have to declare a target for a bull rush. You need to choose a defender THEN move into its square. You don't move into the square THEN choose a defender.

anyhow, back to the SRD



Bull rush *is* an attack. It effects an opponent, not the occupant of a space.



That should really be the end of it. As RAW factors into it at least.

An attack and targeting a defender are different things. A fireball is an attack; that's why it breaks invisibility.

[Fouredged Sword]

Cover goes both ways when it is complete. Once you box them in people can't attack through the shields. The monster inside can delay an action until you drop the cover to allow a friend to attack and kill you.

[Coidzor]

Guards in chain shirts and towershields to pin and beat down adventurers with class levels whn they get roudy.

Except for the bit where they lose their cover if they attack.

So they'd have to have creatures with reach capable of attacking over/through them.


Glass might make it detonate prematurely, but if you're in the area effect, you're affected.
Only if it breaks the window. Otherwise it's the same as the fireball not going through a wall or door it can't destroy.


However, as the quote explicitly allows them to see and target the shield (and by extension, you), there is no concealment involved here.

For spells, certainly, but that's more of a clarification that the shield still counts as one's equipment, so touch spells and the like still effect a creature through the shield.


Grappling and strength check to rake the shield still works, though. If the commoners with spears just gank him, well, 4 commoners with tower shields and 4 warriors with spears being able to kill one monster is certainly not broken unless said monster is very powerful, in which case they should have at least one tactic to subvert this plan anyway. I just don't see it as OP. Interesting, sure. Particularly powerful? Nah.

Good tactic =/= OP, generally speaking, SowZ.


Cover goes both ways when it is complete. Once you box them in people can't attack through the shields. The monster inside can delay an action until you drop the cover to allow a friend to attack and kill you.

That is something I've wondered about myself. In any case, as with most things in life, getting big + reach weapon solves the problem even if the square with the tower-shield user in it is completely blocked.

[Seffbasilisk]

What stops the monster from just entering the commoner's square? It provokes an AoO, but most monsters can eat that. Once in the square, you can exit the square and get away.


Or sundering the tower shield?


And you can target a tower-shield wielder by targeting the shield.

[Midnight_v]

Invisible tower shields for the win?

This is a very humourus thread, btw.

Being undecided at the start... I'm leaning toward the party that says bullrush is an attack based purely on the arguments presented.

[Coidzor]

And you can target a tower-shield wielder by targeting the shield.

With a spell, yes. If you're a spellcaster though, how likely is it that one's going to end up in such a situation?

[The Glyphstone]

What stops the monster from just entering the commoner's square? It provokes an AoO, but most monsters can eat that. Once in the square, you can exit the square and get away.


Moving Through A Square:

Opponent
You can’t move through a square occupied by an opponent, unless the opponent is helpless.

[The Winter King]

What about overrun, you know the combat option to move through a creature's square. enter creatures square provoke AoO, they cant attack and retain cover so they avoid you and you move past them, or you could attack the square they are in with a 50% miss chance but take a full attack, its not like they can do anything else

[The Glyphstone]

What about overrun, you know the combat option to move through a creature's square. enter creatures square provoke AoO, they cant attack and retain cover so they avoid you and you move past them, or you could attack the square they are in with a 50% miss chance but take a full attack, its not like they can do anything else

That'd work if they had total concealment. With total cover, you simply can't attack them, miss chance or otherwise.

[The Winter King]

You cannot target a creature with total cover with an attack.

An attack in 3.5RAW is defined as follows:
Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent. The outcome of an attack is determined by an attack roll. PHB

Overrun does not intend to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent in this case. It is a method of retreat or escape. And its outcome, which is an automatic success unless opposed, is determined by opposed ability checks.

overrun is listed as a special attack in the PHB along with charge which is an attack and aid another which is clearly not. special attack is not defined anywhere. The MM defines special qualities and the wotc glossary (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary) does not either.

[SowZ]

You cannot target a creature with total cover with an attack.

An attack in 3.5RAW is defined as follows:
Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent. The outcome of an attack is determined by an attack roll. PHB

Overrun does not intend to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent in this case. It is a method of retreat or escape. And its outcome, which is an automatic success unless opposed, is determined by opposed ability checks.

overrun is listed as a special attack in the PHB along with charge which is an attack and aid another which is clearly not. special attack is not defined anywhere. The MM defines special qualities and the wotc glossary (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary) does not either.

There is no logistcal reason why someone with a tower shield cannot be grappled and have someone attempt to steal the tower shield from them.

[TwylyghT]

There is no logistcal reason why someone with a tower shield cannot be grappled and have someone attempt to steal the tower shield from them.

Except that grapple is an attack.

Grabbing an item also does not work because it defaults to disarm to function. Disarm is also an attack.


overrun is listed as a special attack in the PHB along with charge which is an attack and aid another which is clearly not. special attack is not defined anywhere. The MM defines special qualities and the wotc glossary (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary) does not either.

Thats kind of like saying that special sauce is not actually sauce because the dictionary definition of sauce does not make specific mention it. lol.

Anyhow even given that, there is still support for overrun being an attack. It requires a target, and it refers to itself as an attack in its text entry.


Strength check to determine the success or failure of the overrun attack

It is in the entry for using overrun while mounted but the exception is clarifying that you use the mounts strength instead of your own to resolve the overrun attack. Thus if your no mounted, you use your own strength for the overrun attack.

Aid another in combat is a melee attack roll on a target.

[Coidzor]

Why is it named for Bubs though?

[Hazzardevil]

Why is it named for Bubs though?

Bubs is a famous commoner build that I think has a level in marshal, so you would often need a marshal to organize your commoners. I may change the name, but I wanted to be able to say I invented a commoner exploit.

[Steward]

Guards, the new reality show. Wild high speed horse chases! Guards teaming up and beating down resisting suspects. Wagons with strobeing blue danceing lights cast and ghostsound sirens.

Guards in chain shirts and towershields to pin and beat down adventurers with class levels whn they get roudy.

Only if you call it "Steven Seagal - Town Guard".

[Roderick_BR]

Doesn't this create one of those rule paradoxes?

The commoners have total concealment and cover from the foe, granted by the tower shields.

The tower shields are being wielded by the commoners.

For effects that involve targeting, shields are part of the wielder.

The tower shields have total concealment and cover.

Except it doesn't. The rules say that effects can be targeted to the shield. Specific rule > general rule.

[suhkkaet]

re: attacking the boxed-in target.. Alchemist's fire or similar might work wonders! :D

[TwylyghT]

Except it doesn't. The rules say that effects can be targeted to the shield. Specific rule > general rule.

Specifically it states that targeted spells can target through the shield. Otherwise its a fairly secure defense, in mechanics sense. Logically it makes no sense at all.

Even more amusingly, cover allows you to make hide checks as if you were unobserved. Tower shield + hide check = ninja vanish

[Zaq]

Specifically it states that targeted spells can target through the shield. Otherwise its a fairly secure defense, in mechanics sense. Logically it makes no sense at all.

Even more amusingly, cover allows you to make hide checks as if you were unobserved. Tower shield + hide check = ninja vanish

And, of course, since the tower shield is an attended item, it's hidden along with you. This is typically referred to as the "tower shield of invisibility," but you knew that already.

[TwylyghT]

I was saddened to find out that the trick did not work in real life. People will in fact notice the door sized piece of wood sitting in the corner of the shower room.

[Flickerdart]

I was saddened to find out that the trick did not work in real life. People will in fact notice the door sized piece of wood sitting in the corner of the shower room.
Not if you paint it the colour and pattern of the shower room wall! :smallbiggrin:

[Fiery Diamond]

Am I the only one who thought of Homestar Runner Bubs when I saw this thread title?

Btw, I agree with the person saying that "special attacks" are "attacks" for all rules purposes. And I would certainly have someone attempting a Bull Rush or an Overrun break invisibility cast on them.