Stick a Fork in The Invisible Tower Shield Trick, It's Done.

[ShaneMRoth]

The Invisible Tower Shield Trick



You take total cover behind a tower shield.

With the benefit of Total Cover, game mechanics allow you to make a Hide Check

When you hide, your gear is also Hidden, so your tower shield is Hidden.

Since Total Cover prevents you from being seen, you and your gear are effectively invisible.

By that virtue, your tower shield is also effectively invisible.



This has been deemed to be a 100% rules-legal conclusion. It is considered to be some sort of a glitch or flaw in the 3.x ruleset.

I don't think it is.

Take a look at this text from the Hide skill entry...


If people are observing you, even casually, you can’t hide. You can run around a corner or behind cover so that you’re out of sight and then hide, but the others then know at least where you went.


Here is how I believe the ITST falls apart mechanically, and resolves the glitch.



I am observing you, and your gear. No spot check is necessary. ("Look, a guy with a tower shield.")

You take total cover behind your tower shield. (Your tower shield is your gear).

Your tower shield is still being observed. ("He's taking cover behind his tower shield.")

Since I can observe your gear, your gear can't be Hidden from me. ("What the hell does he think he's doing?")

You can play peek-a-boo with your Tower Shield all you please, but since I have already established that I can see your tower shield, you are mechanically incapable of making a Hide check. ("You know I can see you, right?")



The notion that there is no mechanical difference between observing your gear and observing you would seem to be enough to resolve the matter, but I know better...

The matter of "effectively Invisible" needs to be addressed.

There is no language in the SRD that describes taking a Hide check as being "effectively Invisible".

Making a Hide check and being Invisible are not even remotely mechanically equivalent.

The Hide skill makes you more difficult to Spot. That's it.

Making a Hide check doesn't enable light to pass through you.

Taking Cover doesn't enable light to pass through you. Not even Total Cover.

Taking Concealment doesn't enable light to pass through you. Not even Total Concealment.

The Hide skill isn't mechanically able to duplicate a spell effect, a supernatural ability, or even an extraordinary ability.

You might be completely hidden from view. No one may be able to see you. But light still bounces off of you. And light still bounces off of your tower shield.

So, even if you decided to Hide around a corner, and then stealthily move into place with your Tower Shield providing Total Cover... the tower shield is right there as plain as day. ("It's that guy with the tower shield again... ...He thinks we can't see him... ...No, I don't know why...")

The ITST is rendered 0% rules-legal by a read of relevant rules and mechanics that exist in the SRD. No house rule is necessary.

It seems more like the I-Dont-Understand-How-Invisibility-Works I-Hope-The-DM-Doesn't-Understand-How-Invisibility-Works Trick.

[Metahuman1]

Um, this looks like "I'm imposing rules as intended based on real world physics and logic into a setting that murdered the laws of thermodynamics and the square cube law right out the starting gate and just get's more insane from there." more then anything.

But, just for sake of this not being a kick to less overtly magical characters just to kick them,

what happens if the person with the tower shield, also has Hide in Plane Sight?

[annulus]

Is it really true that if I'm hidden, so is my gear? Anyone got RAW citation for that? I'd personally expect it to be based on whether the gear enters cover with you.

[ShaneMRoth]

Um, this looks like "I'm imposing rules as intended based on real world physics and logic into a setting that murdered the laws of thermodynamics and the square cube law right out the starting gate and just get's more insane from there." more then anything.

But, just for sake of this not being a kick to less overtly magical characters just to kick them,

what happens if the person with the tower shield, also has Hide in Plane Sight?

You mean the Extraordinary Ability that explicitly establishes that the character "can use the Hide skill even while being observed"? In those exact words? That character wouldn't need a tower shield. She would need natural terrain. Assuming this is the Ranger ability to which you refer.

But any creature with a Dex score, opposable thumbs, and a tower shield shouldn't be able to duplicate the extraordinary ability reserved to 17th level Rangers.

[Metahuman1]

Even though it can be gotten as early as 6th level with out even glancing outside core?

[Crake]

You mean the Extraordinary Ability that explicitly establishes that the character "can use the Hide skill even while being observed"? In those exact words? That character wouldn't need a tower shield. She would need natural terrain. Assuming this is the Ranger ability to which you refer.

But any creature with a Dex score, opposable thumbs, and a tower shield shouldn't be able to duplicate the extraordinary ability reserved to 17th level Rangers.

That's not actually necessarily true, some hide in plain sight abilities only remove the "cannot hide while being observed" rule, and still require cover (like a tower shield) to hide behind. Dark template springs to mind right off the bat as one that does that.

[ShaneMRoth]

Even though it can be gotten as early as 6th level with out even glancing outside core?

Yes. 1st level characters should not be able to duplicate the Hide In Plain Sight ability with nothing more than a chunk of lumber.

[Saintheart]

"should" = RAI.
"could" = RAW.

:smallcool:

[LeSwordfish]

I feel like if a player tries this, don't stoop to their level and try to out-RAW them. Just roll up the rulebook and give them a smack with it. They'll learn.

[ShaneMRoth]

...Just roll up the rulebook and give them a smack with it.

Roll up the Players Handbook?

You must have forearms like Popeye.

[Debihuman]

Hidden does not mean invisible. Yes, you are hidden from sight. Because you are behind your shield, which is now visible because it is in front of you and not 'on' you any more. Semantics.

Debby

[Crake]

I feel like if a player tries this, don't stoop to their level and try to out-RAW them. Just roll up the rulebook and give them a smack with it. They'll learn.

I don't think anyone actually thinks they can get away with this, it's just one of those silly little rules that people chuckle about and nobody (except the OP apparently) takes seriously.

[Troacctid]

There is no language in the SRD that describes taking a Hide check as being "effectively Invisible".

Making a Hide check and being Invisible are not even remotely mechanically equivalent.

It's actually in the Rules Compendium, page 92. "If you’re successfully hidden with respect to another creature, that creature is flat-footed with respect to you. That creature treats you as if you were invisible."

[Debihuman]

Again, you are hidden but the shield which is clearly in front of you is not. I wouldn't even call a Spot check for that. A spellcaster can target you behind the shield because he knows you're hiding behind it. Hide doesn't stop spells.

Here is how it might work. Disguise your shield to look like a shrub or a pile of rocks or brick wall. Then your shield has concealment as well. Otherwise, everyone can see the village idiot is trying to hide himself behind his shield that they can all clearly see.


The dark template from Tome of Magic gives you the Hide In Plain Sight special ability. This only allows you to Hide while being observed. It still doesn't allow you to Hide behind yourself. Just as assassins cannot hide in their own shadows.

Debby

[GolemsVoice]

Isn't the trick about hiding behind your tower shield that it ALSO becomes invisible, being part of your gear? So no, you would NOT be able to see the tower shield, If I remember correclty.

[ShaneMRoth]

It's actually in the Rules Compendium, page 92. "If you’re successfully hidden with respect to another creature, that creature is flat-footed with respect to you. That creature treats you as if you were invisible."

I don't have a copy of the Rules Compendium

I don't dispute anything you've quoted here.

My point remains that you can't 'successfully hide' behind your own gear, based on a plain read of the Hide skill in the SRD.

This quote doesn't establish a mechanical link between Hiding and Invisibility. You don't become literally invisible.

{scrubbed}

[Keltest]

Im going to save you some time and future threads here. Yes, all of these RAW tricks are absurd. Yes, none of them would get past a real DM in a real game. No, there is nothing in the RAW for most of them that say they don't work without getting into RAI or plain old houserules to cover a gap in the RAW. You take cover behind an object, which makes you and your gear functionally invisible. A tower shield can be that object. As part of your gear it also becomes functionally invisible due to the odd wording.

[Troacctid]

I don't have a copy of the Rules Compendium

I don't dispute anything you've quoted here.

My point remains that you can't 'successfully hide' behind your own gear, based on a plain read of the Hide skill in the SRD.

This quote doesn't establish a mechanical link between Hiding and Invisibility. You don't become literally invisible.

{scrubbed}

Oh, I didn't say I think it works, just pointing out that successfully hiding does make you invisible (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#invisible) with respect to the person you're hiding from.

[ShaneMRoth]

... No, there is nothing in the RAW for most of them that say they don't work without getting into RAI or plain old houserules to cover a gap in the RAW. ...


When I read "If people are observing you, even casually, you can’t hide." I'm not getting an RAI vibe off of that.

It seems very much like an unambiguous Rule As Written. And not a terribly controversial one at that.

[ShaneMRoth]

{scrubbed}

[Keltest]

When I read "If people are observing you, even casually, you can’t hide." I'm not getting a RAI vibe off of that.

It seems very much like an unambiguous Rule As Written. And not a terribly controversial one at that.

Tower shields provide Total Cover. If youre ducking behind a tower shield and aren't being flanked in some way, you are not being even casually observed. From there you can make a hide check, and if you succeed are functionally invisible, as is your gear, until they can make their various checks to detect you. Your shield is part of your gear, and thus, by RAW, turns "invisible" with you.

As part of making a hide check from cover, any observers also know where you ducked out of sight to, so they also know exactly where you are if they could see you before hiding behind the shield.

[Debihuman]

From the Rules Compendium: "If an invisible creature picks up a visible object, that object remains visible." pg. 77. If you are hiding behind your shield it is in front of you and visible.

An observer can notice the presence of an active invisible target within 30 feet by succeeding on a Spot check (DC= invisible creature’s Hide check +20). I would give the observer a huge bonus circumstance bonus to spot the person trying to hide behind his tower shield.

So, if you are holding your tower shield in front of you, it is visible. Unless it too is somehow concealed or invisible.

Debby

[ShaneMRoth]

{scrubbed}

[Elandris Kajar]

"...seting that murdered the laws of thermodynamics and the square cube law right out the starting gate and just get's more insane from there."

How so? I'm curious about this.

Edit: well, other than magic, of course.

[Amphetryon]

{scrubbed}

It only impacts 'real games' if the DM is unwilling to say 'no, that's a dumb rules loophole' or the Players are unwilling to accept this truism. These threads of yours, thus far, have been your written arguments of 'no, that's a dumb rules loophole' dressed up to appear as if they are the RAW. They aren't. They're perfectly reasonable rulings to perfectly silly rules interactions that you, as DM, can fix more easily by telling the Players 'Haha, no' than by trying to out-RAW them. You're putting forth a lot of effort to encourage MORE RAW silliness abuse, not less, by trying to claim positions which are widely recognized as 'RAW but never sees play in 99% of actual play' by the internet's best and most vocal optimizers are not RAW.

[ShaneMRoth]

From the Rules Compendium: "If an invisible creature picks up a visible object, that object remains visible." pg. 77. If you are hiding behind your shield it is in front of you and visible.

An observer can notice the presence of an active invisible target within 30 feet by succeeding on a Spot check (DC= invisible creature’s Hide check +20). I would give the observer a huge bonus circumstance bonus to spot the person trying to hide behind his tower shield.

So, if you are holding your tower shield in front of you, it is visible. Unless it too is somehow concealed or invisible.

Debby

I haven't responded to your posts, but I do want to let you know that I appreciate your take on things and I do find your posts helpful.

[enderlord99]

How so? I'm curious about this.

Edit: well, other than magic, of course.

In the latter case? Anything with "giant" in its name.

[ShaneMRoth]

...You're putting forth a lot of effort to encourage MORE RAW silliness abuse, not less, by trying to claim positions which are widely recognized as 'RAW but never sees play in 99% of actual play' by the internet's best and most vocal optimizers are not RAW. ...

Please bear with me.

I'm inclined to dial down my intensity level a notch or three after reading your post.

I can't guarantee that my future posts will be examples of flawless etiquette but it is my sense that it would be for the best to mellow my tone.

Your points are well taken.

[Segev]

Ironically, this explicitly works by the RAW because it has a rule that makes the same thing not work for magnificent mansion's doorway by its absence from that spell: the rule that your equipment shares your hidden status. (I think, but could be mistaken, that the rules regarding total cover and your held gear also makes your tower shield untargetable, which is equally silly and equally likely to be thrown out the window at any real gaming table.) Such a rule does not exist for magnificent mansion. It nowhere says that the door is a "part" of the mansion-part of the spell and is thus protected.

Also, while I agree with you that the "invisible tower shield trick" is a silly loophole in the rules and should be ignored in the name of common sense, I dispute that magnificent mansion and rope trick should be immune to dispel magic. That said, it certainly is an easy enough thing to house rule for your games when you feel it makes those spells too weak.

I fully understand the urge to argue for your position, and do so strenuously, when you feel you're logically right. However, when doing so in the face of a lot of expert opposition, it behooves you to carefully examine, step by step, the logic opposing your view, and carefully lay out, step by step, the logic supporting your view. Find and identify flaws in the first, illustrating each point of breakdown, and then be ready to defend precisely the points in the latter which come under attack.

The issue I had in your last thread was mainly that you seemed to avoid actually responding to logic chains, and instead kept leaping to a conclusion that said "the position changes linearly with time, therefore it is accelerating, because derivatives," without being willing to show the derivative step, discuss how derivatives work, nor acknowledge when others performed a derivative that came up with an alternate answer. (Incidentally, changing linearly with time means constant velocity, no acceleration.)

So for future discussion, do as you did in the first post of this thread and lay out your logic in as fine steps as possible. Then be ready to defend them, point by point. And, when counter-arguments are presented, try to lay them out equally logically so you can identify precisely where they break down.

This process will sometimes prove you wrong. I've had my beliefs changed a few times by it - though not nearly as often as those who've argued with me would like (because I've been able to demonstrate to my satisfaction my rightness and their errors, while often they persist in refusing to engage the step-by-step logical analysis and instead insist I'm constructing straw men when I try).

[ShaneMRoth]

{scrubbed}

[Segev]

Oh, you'll get no disagreement here that it's silly nonsense, and should not be allowed to work at a table. One thing to keep in mind is that the RAW are not somehow so sacred and powerful around here that we expect people to adhere to them and dismiss all house rules as foolish blasphemy. It can seem that way at times, especially in deep TO discussions about how a build works, but we tend to be rather pragmatic about where to draw lines when it comes to PO and what flies at a table. And there are certain things that are just so silly as TO that they get rejected outside of elbowing each other and snickering over them. This is one of them. Even in our semi-TO threads, like the Iron Chef and Zinc Saucier contests, unless somebody is playing for total tongue-in-cheek, he's probably going to get docked heavily for utilizing things like this trick in his build. (Even then, he's more likely to get an honorable mention for a witty joke character, if he managed to pull it off from that perspective, than to actually get solid scores on the build proper.)

We'll argue and pull for strict interpretations of the RAW when discussing theory, but usually that's just because we need a solid place to stand on which we can all agree, or discussions become nothing but "well in my house rules..."

Often, even in "no DM" threads, we'll usually have some sort of mutually-agreeable "reasonable DM" who theoretically forbids Pun-Pun, Invisible Tower Shield Tricks, and the like. He's still awfully permissive, as a rule, as long as there's a justification in the RAW, but there is a line. That line just tends to get drawn at a point that's so far into "obvioulsy ridiculous" that a lot of silly stuff still flies, because you have to get to that level where there really is no debate that it's patently, wholly silly to permit before we stop relying on the RAW as our agreed-upon common ground from which to start.

[Keltest]

{also scrubbed}

Of course its nonsense. Only the most munchkinly munchkin would ever even try and claim otherwise. The existence of the Peasant Rail Gun or the Invisible Tower Shield Trick are commentaries on the writing quality of the rules, not actual gameplay guides. A DM might allow them to work just for the lulz, but if youre going into that kind of campaign, the actual RaW aren't all that relevant anyway.

[Suichimo]

Wouldn't the tower shield not be "your gear" since you have to put it down? Or can you hand people weapons from your personal stash, do this trick, and have everyone wielding invisible weapons because they are still "your gear"?

[StreamOfTheSky]

I don't think anyone actually thinks they can get away with this, it's just one of those silly little rules that people chuckle about and nobody (except the OP apparently) takes seriously.

I think if Hiding in D&D weren't harder than hiding in real life, no one would care if this "glitch" existed or not. In real life, people aren't constantly looking in 360 degrees and making passive spot checks of their entire surroundings. Even in combat when the adrenaline is up and you're all on edge, you wouldn't be able to maintain that kind of twitchiness for long, and that's if the tunnel vision of fighting in melee with someone doesn't ruin it sooner.

But in D&D, no matter what, you need cover to hide behind, you can't simply sneak up "behind" someone, and everyone in the vicinity gets a spot and listen check, so if there's 20+ people around, unless your modifier is so high that doing opposed rolls is pointless anyway, you're doomed.
THAT is why people resort to these kinds of tricks.

[Brookshw]

Wouldn't the tower shield not be "your gear" since you have to put it down? Or can you hand people weapons from your personal stash, do this trick, and have everyone wielding invisible weapons because they are still "your gear"?

It's not the ownership but the wielding it that's making it possible to hide behind it, I'm not seeing any language about putting it down to be a requirement of using it for cover on the srd but I did see something else fun (and headache inducing).


The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells

So....what? If I'm using it for cover I can hide. So I hide. But I can't use it for cover against someone targetting a spell, so I lose my ability to hide. But they can't target me because I'm hidden, because of the condition they negated.

Have fun!

[Suichimo]

It's not the ownership but the wielding it that's making it possible to hide behind it, I'm not seeing any language about putting it down to be a requirement of using it for cover on the srd but I did see something else fun (and headache inducing).



So....what? If I'm using it for cover I can hide. So I hide. But I can't use it for cover against someone targetting a spell, so I lose my ability to hide. But they can't target me because I'm hidden, because of the condition they negated.

Have fun!

Hm... for some reason I thought you actually had to plant the shield to get the total cover. Guess I should inform my group, since we all thought the same.

[enderlord99]

you can't simply sneak up "behind" someone,

Why does flanking allow sneak-attacks, then?

[StreamOfTheSky]

Why does flanking allow sneak-attacks, then?

Flanking is a hodge-podge simplification of facing rules and teamwork and the abstracted nature of combat. By the last part I mean...two people sword-fighting would not just stand still and trade blows, they'd be trying to move around and get to an opening of an opponent, but D&D combat....they just stand there aside from the 5 ft step re-adjustment.

When you flank with an ally it means:
1) You and the ally are working together to strike when the foe is more vulnerable because he's reacting to the other guy.
2) It's assumed he can't keep both of you "in front of" him simultaneously during the whole abstracted melee combat mobility thing I mentioned above. Improved Uncanny Dodge and having enough levels would represent that ability.
3) It really has nothing to do with making the foe flatfooted. They aren't, not just from being flanked. They can be totally aware you're attacking, but unable to properly defend against it.

Note, the opponent doesn't even need to be aware that he is flanked to be flanked. If the rogue is greater invisible and the fighter is visible, both get flanking (the rogue probably doesn't need it for sneak attack in this case, but the +2 is still nice and Uncanny Dodge does exist). The fighter even gets flanking bonus if the rogue has not yet attacked and the foe has no clue he's there. Why? Because flanking doesn't just represent facing rules or catching someone unaware. There's also a teamwork aspect to it, that can allow for it all on its own.

[Hogo Chaka]

Even if these tricks are rules legal no DM is gonna let it happen

[Crake]

Note, the opponent doesn't even need to be aware that he is flanked to be flanked. If the rogue is greater invisible and the fighter is visible, both get flanking (the rogue probably doesn't need it for sneak attack in this case, but the +2 is still nice and Uncanny Dodge does exist). The fighter even gets flanking bonus if the rogue has not yet attacked and the foe has no clue he's there. Why? Because flanking doesn't just represent facing rules or catching someone unaware. There's also a teamwork aspect to it, that can allow for it all on its own.

I swear I read somewhere that invisible opponents cant flank, because the enemy doesn't focus any attention on them. My reasoning has always been that that's why they got the +2 bonus to hit instead, like they're permanently flanking, in addition to hitting flat footed. That may have been a rules of the game article though.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I swear I read somewhere that invisible opponents cant flank, because the enemy doesn't focus any attention on them. My reasoning has always been that that's why they got the +2 bonus to hit instead, like they're permanently flanking, in addition to hitting flat footed. That may have been a rules of the game article though.

There was a Rules of the Game article on the topic. It was filled with errors and bad advice and was a prime example of why those articles, while sometimes well-written and helpful, should not be considered RAW (and are not).

[ShaneMRoth]

{scrubbed}

[Keltest]

{scrubbed}

Your position is Rules as Intended, not Rules as Written. You can get concealment by hiding behind a tower shield, and you can hide while under the type of concealment the shield grants. Being hidden also hides your gear, which includes the tower shield. There are no rules (besides common sense) that say that it doesn't work, and the enemy would be able to find you very easily by RaW (because they saw where you disappeared off to and you cant go anywhere from behind the shield), but you and the shield are both hidden until they take the appropriate actions to make you not hidden.

To put it another way, you are concealed against all logic because the rules specifically say you are concealed. Your position is that you wouldn't be concealed because your shield is visible, but specific trumps general, and the shield specifically grants the cover you can hide from.

[eggynack]

In the context of RAW, is 100% rules-legal an exclusive state?
Not necessarily. Plenty of rules issues exist that are ultimately ambiguous, and a DM could rule in a few different fashions and still be correct. For example, does elemental wild shape enable you to turn into any elemental, or just the basic ones, and what of summoning them? There are a few approaches, and different people think different things about the topic, but the truth is that there isn't really a strict rule about how the ability works. Similarly, can wild shape fix ability damage through the mechanism of changing ability scores? Again, it's very unclear. And what of polymorph, and whether the rules there on size fully overrule alter self's restrictions, or if polymorph inherits alter self's maximum? Again, ambiguous. In all of these situations, multiple interpretations are equally valid, and while one could claim that none are technically rules legal, one could equally claim that they are all rules legal, especially if the DM rules in that way.


Does my position that mechanically nullifies the ITST not qualify as 100% rules-legal?
It does not, no. If the tower shield is completely RAW, and it seems to be so, then stances that turn it off would not be perfectly rules legal. It's as simple as that. Not all issues can be resolved unambiguously, but it seems that this one can be, and that's the end of it.

[Segev]

"The RAW community" is actually a slightly misleading term. I think I know what you mean by it, but I don't want you to get the wrong impression. There is "the GITP Forum Community," as well as communities around many other online fora, and there is in a broad sense the "people who like discussing the rules and their exploits Community," though that's a bit...fuzzier.

What you're running into here is the GITP Forum Community's subset of d20 gamers who are very deeply experts on the RAW (which, on the off chance you don't know the acronym's root meaning, simply stands for "the Rules As Written").

You MIGHT find another community that agrees with your interpretation; the trouble with "consensus" is that, while it can be a powerful guide, it is not necessarily proof of rightness. A consensus that the Earth is flat would not make it so, for example. However, the REASON there is a general consensus that the Earth is spheroid is because of the preponderance of evidence that this is so, and people have more tendency to work with what is than what they'd like it to be (despite what might seem evidence to the contrary; it's simple natural selection: those who don't work with reality ultimately fail and fall out of prominence).

All of that is to say this: Insofar as those in this particular community can discern, the rules as written do permit the ITST to work. The consensus comes about not because we "like" it that way, but because we all agree that that is what the words that make up the rules say and mean. To change it, to agree it means something else, we'd have to either agree different words were actually there, or that the words actively mean other than what we currently agree they do.

"Interpretation" of the RAW usually comes about because of ambiguity in the denotation or context, and there being valid potential meanings that are in conflict. This is not a case - again insofar as those who make up the consesnsus on the issue in this particular community are concerned - where this is so.

Your version of the ruling requires adding things that are not in the text, or interpreting words to mean things that are inconsistent with the way they're used in the text. IIRC - and forgive me if I'm misrepresenting you now - your explanation hinges on a real-world understanding that the tower shield is observed, and therefore cannot hide. The trouble is, the RAW do not require the shield to take the "hide" action; when the person bearing the shield takes the "hide" action, the shield is automatically hidden, as well.

So somewhere, for your version to be "the RAW," it would have to have text that is not there amounting to a statement that the shield is NOT hidden along with the rest of you. Something akin to "any equipment you're carrying which is not within that cover is not hidden" would work, but would seem needless since Total Cover usually proscribes that condition (tower shields being an explicit and unique exception).



In short: no, there's no way to read your version into the rules as written and have it be true to them. You might find people who think it is, and form a consensus elsewhere that it is so. However, you will not be able to convince those of us here that that other consensus is right any more than you could convince a consensus of modern humans that the consensus of people over there that the Earth is flat is right.

I honestly think the rules as written cannot support your version, and would stand by that consensus or no, barring somebody showing me rules that do support it.



That's convoluted. It's truing to say, "Truth is not determined by consensus," while still acknowledging that consensus CAN be a guide to truth. But that we hold to this consensus because it is, insofar as we can tell, true, not just because the consensus says so.

[ShaneMRoth]

{scrubbed}

[Aleolus]

The thing about tower shields that always bugged me is this: total cover renders you immune to AoEs. That means, by RAW, you can duck behind your tower shield, and a wizard can drop a Fireball in the square behind you, and you don't get burned. Wtf?

[eggynack]

{scrubbed}
They're pretty much the same, though RAW represents a bit more of a perspective. RAW means that you only care about what's in the books. There's no room for things outside the rules, and perhaps the underlying mechanics of the language in question if there's a semantic dispute. What should be, what was intended, what seems to be common sense, and what a particular DM rules are all irrelevant in the realm of RAW. RAI, by contrast, makes use of those things, and cares more about how you think the game's developers wanted the game to work than about what the actual rules say. Unfortunately, it's nigh impossible to determine concrete RAI in the vast majority of cases, so we default to what we know, and what we know is the rules.


{scrubbed}

It can be hard to debate out of an established perspective, because of the sheer weight of inertia, but if you have a good enough grounding in the underlying rules of the game, and if you have a sufficiently solid rules argument that proposes a more logical reading than the one in existence, you can often convince people. It's not easy, especially because the community actually does tend to be right about such things due to knowledge and experience, but it's doable. You just don't have a sufficiently convincing stance and argument in this case, or in the other cases that you've put forth. Give more rules support for your claims, if it exists, and try to avoid all this talk of what makes sense, common or otherwise. No one really cares all that much about what makes sense if you're trying to put forth a RAW case. If you're proposing a house rule, then just say that, but a house rule isn't exactly going to stick a fork in these rules legal tricks.

[Keltest]

The difference between RAI and RAW would be more meaningful to me if I had a sense of what RAW means.

I suspect it has some bearing on the term 100% rules-legal.

I am getting the sense that once the RAW community settles on a 100% rules-legal position then there is only one such position, and all other positions (regardless of their mechanical or game play merit) are RAI.

Put another way, I'm getting the strong sense that there is a difference between 'rule as written' and 'Rule As Written'.

RaW is the literal words printed in the book. Its exactly what it sounds like: The rules as they are written, without any filters we put them through. RaI is what we use after we put them through filters for things like usefulness and practicality (and logic, sometimes)

The rules as they are written say you can hide while under total cover. The rules as they are written also explicitly state that tower shields can provide total cover. There are no rules written in such a way as to either prevent you from hiding under tower shield cover or to keep your tower shield from being hidden while being used as cover (meaning there are no exceptions built in for this situation).

Like other RaW tricks, it is mostly an exercise in pointing out why a literal reading of the rules isn't necessarily a good thing, because sometimes dumb interactions happen.

[Metahuman1]

OP: Here is what you have to Grok at the end of the day.

Rules as Written are badly written to the point of absurdity and insanity.


Did you know there is literally no way to recover from drowning once it starts by RAW? That Monks, a class all about being the best unarmed combatants out there are not in fact proficient with unarmed strikes, I.E. there own body, I.E. the thing the class is built around, and thus have to spend a feat on Proficiency with Unarmed strikes to not take a -4 penalty to the attack rolls they make with them that stacks with things like Flurry of Blows Penalty? That you can use a string of horses and an Item that gives +15 or so bonus to ride checks to teleport instantly any distance as long as there's a line of adjacent mounts between where you are and were you want to go? I could go on for pages and pages of stuff like this.


And they are rules legal, as of the way the rules have been written.

Silly, insane, stupid, not intended more often then not, but rules legal.

The game, really, runs on it's own internal logic. You just have to kind of accept that. (Note: If you don't want players to do stuff like that, that's what house rules are for. Just, tread very carefully, or you'll end up making classes and entire archatypes totally unplayable and gaming with you an utter misery for anyone who likes those archetypes. See things like Stormwind and Guy at the Gym Fallacies for common examples.).



And to the person asking about my first post:


Seriously, just skim through the size's and physical appearance of half the things in the monster manual. Everything about the square cubed law says there a billion reasons they should not work as depicted.

And look at just the rules for how Mundane fire acts as compared to the laws of thermodynamics. And that's just giving magic a pass which is even more incipient and insane on the matter. And again, that's all core and with out even digging.

[ShaneMRoth]

{scrubbed}

[thethird]

{scrubbed}

So once the argument doesn't work you make a false equivalence with reductio ad absurdum leading to ignoratio elenchi while at the same time ad hominem?

Color me impresed.

Look at my empty argumentum verbosium and despair.

[Killer Angel]

From the Rules Compendium: "If an invisible creature picks up a visible object, that object remains visible." pg. 77. If you are hiding behind your shield it is in front of you and visible.

But in this case, you are already holding it, when you become "invisible".

[ShaneMRoth]

{scrubbed}

[thethird]

Even if your argument were to hold weight the manner in which you convey it is taking it all from it.

I don't need to prove that music is in a piano. I don't need a flashlight to do so. And even if I were to prove that music is in a piano that would at no point translate to games being in rules. And that wouldn't ever translate to the point of contention here that rules despite being silly as written are rules. You can certainly chose to change them. And sometimes it good to do so. For example Paranoia has this to say:

"GM Rule #1. You are IN CHARGE. You are ALWAYS RIGHT.

We give you these rules as guidance. Use them when you do not know what you’d like to have happen in the game. When you do know, ignore them. We have tried to make the rules as helpful and powerful as we can, but if you don’t like a rule, the rule is wrong. Good rules help a lot but bad rules were made to be broken, tortured, lobotomised and summarily executed. Dice are handy for giving players the illusion they control their destiny. This is valuable but roll your dice out of the players’ sight, behind a screen. If a die roll gives you a result you don’t like, the die is wrong. Change the result to the number you want. You can dock the die credits or beat it up, though in our experience this has little effect."

The DMG 3.5 page 6 has the following sentence on the subject

"Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook."

So rules are silly, yes, we know that. We deal with that. We adapt the rules. Hiding behind a shield doesn't make you and the shield invisible not because the rules don't say so but because we as DMs say so (most of the time).

Note that I'm not invoking the Oberoni fallaci, I'm not trying to argue that there is no problem in the rules being broken because they can be rule 0'ed.

[Eox]

It is rules-legal, yes, but I don't believe you'll be able to find me a DM that will ever let you use it. This is a game designed by human beings to be played by people rather than machines, so you're gonna run into some weird nonsense every now and again. Making thread after thread "disproving" common jokes is doing nothing to fix a game that doesn't need fixing (Or at least, not in these ways. Linear Fighter/Quadratic Wizard? That needs fixing, not technical invisibility.)

[ThisIsZen]

I'm thinking there might be SOMETHING here, actually, but I'm mostly just spitballing so feel free to take my thoughts and shred them if they're not useful.

Mostly the idea as it were is this: every object within the category of "your gear" has its own hit points, saves, etc., but in a vast majority of cases those values are not referenced. They still EXIST but it is RAW that, unless a specific case calls out otherwise, the player's saves are used and damage, etc., cannot be dealt directly to the objects within your gear.

It follows, then, that objects also have skills; these would just be a list of null fields, granted, because objects don't have stats, but the fields would still exist. Just, there is no specific case which calls out that an object needs to make a skill check in place of its wielder because that would be ridiculous, right? Any time a skill check is relevant (such as, for instance, tumbling), the owner makes the roll on behalf of the objects they are carrying as much as themselves.

(For evidence that things with null stats still have skills, any creature with a null stat still possesses the skills associated with that stat, they just don't add any ability modifiers thereto.)

So! This is the part where it might fall apart, because I don't know that there's any RAW that would permit the distinction needed here, buuuut... In the case of the iTST, the tower shield might actually run afoul of the "cannot be observed" rule because of the above. Because the owner is making the hide check on behalf of all their carried equipment, the tower shield would have to be unobserved. However, the tower shield is also explicitly granting cover to the player, which means it must block line of effect, which means line of effect must end at the tower shield. Line of effect also implies that line of SIGHT ends at the tower shield, meaning that the tower shield is visible, meaning it can be observed.

Therefore, your hide check shouldn't be able to also hide the tower shield, because it must explicitly be visible in order to provide total cover. In fact, becoming hidden and "effectively invisible" would, I think, actually remove the condition that permits cover in the first place (ie that line of effect ends with the tower shield). Maybe it would equalize out and provide you total concealment instead?

I might still be reaching in parts here, but I'm trying to be as literal as possible with this.

EDIT: The issue of course lies in proving that the owner can't make a hide check on behalf of the shield in this case in the absence of any specific text that states that as an exception to the general rule. I think at best this is a soft refutation just because the tower shield is TECHNICALLY ineligible to hide, at least by my understanding, but that last piece is missing. Still, I think this is at least somewhat close.

[Jormengand]

So once the argument doesn't work you make a false equivalence with reductio ad absurdum leading to ignoratio elenchi while at the same time ad hominem?

Color me impresed.

Look at my empty argumentum verbosium and despair.

*Sigh.*

Okay, false equivalence is creating an analogy that doesn't work because the two things aren't equivalent, reductio ad absurdium refers either to the correct and harmless mathematical practice of proving something is true because there would be a contradiction if it wasn't, or to the fallacy of making something seem stupider than it is by taking it to its illogical extreme, ignoratio elenchi is an argument that whether valid or not, fails to address the question, and ad hominem is arguing by insulting the opposition.

I'm not sure any of these were actually done, so I guess you really are indeed "Giving an argument loaded with jargon and appeal to obscure results, so that the audience is simply obliged to accept it, lest they have to admit their ignorance and lack of understanding."

[ShaneMRoth]

{scrubbed}

[thethird]

false equivalence is creating an analogy that doesn't work because the two things aren't equivalent

Rules = Piano


reductio ad absurdium refers either to the correct and harmless mathematical practice of proving something is true because there would be a contradiction if it wasn't, or to the fallacy of making something seem stupider than it is by taking it to its illogical extreme

Perfect piano produces perfect music


ignoratio elenchi is an argument that whether valid or not, fails to address the question

What's the point about the piano?


and ad hominem is arguing by insulting the opposition.

You look for music inside a piano.

[dextercorvia]

You are missing the point that if you are taking cover behind the shield, you are not being observed and therefore may make a hide check.

As to consensus on RAW changing, It happens, but only when someone points out something new that was missed. I saw this happen with drown healing -- that was believed to work for quite some time, until someone noticed that you don't stop drowning. I also saw it happen with Dead Men Walk. (The notion that dying doesn't prevent you from taking actions) when someone pointed out that being dead meant your HP were set to -10, and that meant your nonlethal damage (at least 0) was greater than your hp, and therefore you were unconscious. It is possible that someone missed something in all of this time, but the thing that was missed was not "can't hide while being observed".

[Jay R]

If a player ever attempts this while you are the DM, don't try to quote rules back at him. That gives up the essential ground by which this is clearly false.

"Yes, hiding behind a tree or a rock hides all your equipment as well. But hiding behind your equipment doesn't. Stop being silly; let's play the game."

[nyjastul69]

You are missing the point that if you are taking cover behind the shield, you are not being observed and therefore may make a hide check.

As to consensus on RAW changing, It happens, but only when someone points out something new that was missed. I saw this happen with drown healing -- that was believed to work for quite some time, until someone noticed that you don't stop drowning. I also saw it happen with Dead Men Walk. (The notion that dying doesn't prevent you from taking actions) when someone pointed out that being dead meant your HP were set to -10, and that meant your nonlethal damage (at least 0) was greater than your hp, and therefore you were unconscious. It is possible that someone missed something in all of this time, but the thing that was missed was not "can't hide while being observed".

My only issue is with your first claim. Is there a rule that separates 'you' from attended equipment? My understanding is that attended equipment is a part of 'you'.

[Jormengand]

Rules = Piano
Except that's not the point.


Perfect piano produces perfect music
Which is just as a fallacious claim as saying a perfect system produces perfect games and for the same reason.


What's the point about the piano?
To highlight the above


You look for music inside a piano.

Nice strawman, bro! Let me quote what he actually said:


Looking for the game inside the rules is like looking for music inside the piano.

You will never find it.

Now, there's this literary device called a "Simile". Look into it.

[Keltest]

{scrubbed}

What we are objecting to is the claim that the book doesn't say what we think it says.

Part of what total cover does is make it so that you are not being observed. That is why your "flaw" in the trick is not a flaw. It is already covered by the rules quirk that lets it work in the first place.

[dextercorvia]

My only issue is with your first claim. Is there a rule that separates 'you' from attended equipment? My understanding is that attended equipment is a part of 'you'.

That is a quirk of the tower shield rule that allows you to take cover behind your own equipment. It was a stupid rule -- and it could very easily have led to nonsense like taking cover inside your full plate. That is the part of this RAW interaction that the designers didn't think through. They should have called the ability something different, or just said, "If you give up all attacks for the round, you can hide behind a tower shield. If you do so, melee and ranged attacks can't target you until the beginning of your next turn." By calling on Total Cover, they opened this can of worms.

[Segev]

The trouble with the piano analogy is that the second part of it, wherein some hypothetical pianist is "playing the rules in a beautiful way," and that is how "you can't hide behind your shield because your shield is observed," is being characterized...is wrong.

That's not playing the piano.

That's tying new objects in place on the strings of the piano to make wholly different sounds than the piano is capable of making unmodified.

i.e., it is not the RAW because it is inventing new rules that are not included in those that are already writen. It's a house rule.

You're right: you cannot hide while observed. The issue is that you are not observed, because you're behind total cover. You're right: your shield is observed. The issue is that your shield is not taking the Hide action; you are. You're right: it's absurd to think that, because you're hiding behind your shield, your shield would be hidden as well (behind, essentially, itself). The issue is that the RAW don't care about absurdity; they say your equipment is hidden if you are hidden.


In your piano analogy, you're not playing an unmodified piano anymore. You're playing one that you've tinkered with in ways deeper than merely adjusting its tuning. You've actively modified it. You may even have told others how to do it, releasing a lovely "how-to" youtube video so they can modify their pianos to play the song in that harmonious way. But they still have to modify it; it is not the default piano.

[Anlashok]

I like the whole "You disagree with me so obviously you're really stupid" thing going on here.

[nyjastul69]

The trouble with the piano analogy is that the second part of it, wherein some hypothetical pianist is "playing the rules in a beautiful way," and that is how "you can't hide behind your shield because your shield is observed," is being characterized...is wrong.

That's not playing the piano.

That's tying new objects in place on the strings of the piano to make wholly different sounds than the piano is capable of making unmodified.

i.e., it is not the RAW because it is inventing new rules that are not included in those that are already writen. It's a house rule.

You're right: you cannot hide while observed. The issue is that you are not observed, because you're behind total cover. You're right: your shield is observed. The issue is that your shield is not taking the Hide action; you are. You're right: it's absurd to think that, because you're hiding behind your shield, your shield would be hidden as well (behind, essentially, itself). The issue is that the RAW don't care about absurdity; they say your equipment is hidden if you are hidden.


In your piano analogy, you're not playing an unmodified piano anymore. You're playing one that you've tinkered with in ways deeper than merely adjusting its tuning. You've actively modified it. You may even have told others how to do it, releasing a lovely "how-to" youtube video so they can modify their pianos to play the song in that harmonious way. But they still have to modify it; it is not the default piano.

There is no difference between the shield and you if it's wielded. There is no shield, there is only you, and you are observed.

[Segev]

There is no difference between the shield and you if it's wielded. There is no shield, there is only you, and you are observed.

Untrue. You have total cover. You are unobserved.

[nyjastul69]

Untrue. You have total cover. You are unobserved.

I respectfully disagree. The shield is not separate from 'you'.

[Segev]

I respectfully disagree. The shield is not separate from 'you'.

Then, by that logic, the shield also has total cover, since you have total cover. Are you arguing that the shield cannot be targeted?

[nyjastul69]

Then, by that logic, the shield also has total cover, since you have total cover. Are you arguing that the shield cannot be targeted?

The sheild can be targeted. You however cannot. So, yeah, I guess I'm got here. It's clearly a disfunction. RAW arguments are tiresome for me. I generally don't engage in them. Thank you for playing.

[thethird]

Which is just as a fallacious claim as saying a perfect system produces perfect games and for the same reason.

So no pianist (skill) is ever involved?


Nice strawman, bro! Let me quote what he actually said:

Considering he also said that he would lend a flashlight to search for the music in the piano I feel it's a reasonable strawman.


Now, there's this literary device called a "Simile". Look into it.

It is a rather bad simile. Perfect similes produce perfect arguments.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Okay. Guys.

The "Invisible Tower Shield Trick" relies on doublethink in the first place. It requires holding two distinct intepretations of the rules as valid at the same time:

"Your gear" is NOT a part of "you", and therefore when someone is observing "your tower shield", they are not observing "you" for the purposes of making Hide checks.
"Your gear" IS a part of "you" and therefore disappears when you Hide
It's a paradox because it has two contradictory premises. No need to bring real-world common sense in to "disprove" it, it's a simple matter of unsound logic.

If you want to look at other rules sources to resolve it, it looks like Interpretation 2 is valid to me, but Interpreation 1 is not.

[Curmudgeon]

The Invisible Tower Shield Trick

You take total cover behind a tower shield.

With the benefit of Total Cover, game mechanics allow you to make a Hide Check


The rules as they are written say you can hide while under total cover.
I keep seeing people make this claim, but that's not what the rules say.

You need cover or concealment in order to attempt a Hide check. Total cover or total concealment usually (but not always; see Special, below) obviates the need for a Hide check, since nothing can see you anyway.
If you've got total cover, you're already out of sight and thus don't get to make a Hide check. You're only allowed to Hide when someone has a chance to see you with an opposed Spot check.

[Keltest]

Okay. Guys.

The "Invisible Tower Shield Trick" relies on doublethink in the first place. It requires holding two distinct intepretations of the rules as valid at the same time:

"Your gear" is NOT a part of "you", and therefore when someone is observing "your tower shield", they are not observing "you" for the purposes of making Hide checks.
"Your gear" IS a part of "you" and therefore disappears when you Hide
It's a paradox because it has two contradictory premises. No need to bring real-world common sense in to "disprove" it, it's a simple matter of unsound logic.

If you want to look at other rules sources to resolve it, it looks like Interpretation 2 is valid to me, but Interpreation 1 is not.

The problem is that it doesn't rely on interpretation 1 at all. You and your hear are not being observed because you have Total Cover, which means that against all logic, you are not being observed (at least not for the purposes of hiding).

Ducking behind the shield explicitly creates a scenario that the rules say you can hide in. Doing so hides all of you, including the tower shield.

Yes, it doesn't make sense, that's why its a rules trick, not a good game strategy.


I keep seeing people make this claim, but that's not what the rules say.

If you've got total cover, you're already out of sight and thus don't get to make a Hide check. You're only allowed to Hide when someone has a chance to see you with an opposed Spot check.

Youre misunderstanding. You automatically succeed at hiding when under cover because there is no chance of being spotted (ie failure). Making a check is not the same thing as using the skill. At worst, it means that you are automatically hidden when you duck behind a shield rather than having to initiate the hiding.

[Metahuman1]

{scrubbed}

Ok. I'll tell you what.

Pick a class that has spell casting. Get to a point were you can cast as many spells as a member of that class with a prioitized casting stat and elite array stats would be able to at 20th level. In the real world.

I'll wait. When you have done it, come talk to me about it. Because you've found a game outside the rules of what we call reality, which is the place were we and the game live.

You will never find it, because casting is impossible, but it is THE corner stone of the game, it falls apart at the seems with out it being common. It doesn't work, unless it's being completely unrealistic.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Locked for review.

[Haruki-kun]

The Winged Mod: This thread has now turned into a redundant discussion that will not lead into anything good at this point.

Thread closed permanently.