Confused about tower shields

[Gromm]

Shields (spell or tower) give you cover, and, I'd expect even the dumbest attacker to try to get past cover...

Ahh but its INVISIBLE cover!
Oh so I keep hearing.
Since the opponent can't see it, they don't know to get around it because they don't know its there. I argue they know something is there (like say most animals and a pane of glass) and they can try to get around it.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

The other bit of logic is that it is a small (I've always imagined it as buckler sized) mobile disk of invisible force rather than a large plane. As such, I'm not convinced that there's any logical reason for foes to assume that it lacks the tactical mobility of a real shield which can adjust to their position.

For that matter, I'm not certain that many foes can actually tell the difference between it (Shield spell) and other invisible force protection (like a deflection bonus from a ring of deflection or an armor bonus from Mage Armor). Now, mid to high level foes (who would have encountered the spell many times and possibly been lectured on how to avoid it by party members who cast it themselves) with decent intelligences and anyone with ranks of spellcraft probably knows the weakness of the Shield spell but I don't think it's necessarily intuitive. (Flanking, on the other hand, is intuitive for most predators that work in groups and often results in creatures serendipitously stepping around the shield spell).

Ahh but its INVISIBLE cover!
Oh so I keep hearing.
Since the opponent can't see it, they don't know to get around it because they don't know its there. I argue they know something is there (like say most animals and a pane of glass) and they can try to get around it.

 

[Gromm]

The other bit of logic is that it is a small (I've always imagined it as buckler sized) mobile disk of invisible force rather than a large plane. As such, I'm not convinced that there's any logical reason for foes to assume that it lacks the tactical mobility of a real shield which can adjust to their position.

Small? It offers 3/4 cover!
Maybe the halflings Shield spell, but for a person its gotta be pretty big. And it takes a free action to move it on your turn so its not too mobile. Making it as mobile as a real shield makes it godly powerful. +7 AC thats cover against everything and stops magic missles. Forget Full Plate I'm making a fighter with a level of sorceror so I can cast shields all day, then grab my magic shield and chain shirt and go to town.
Lets see Shirt +4, +3 say for a shield, +7 cover, +1 deflection,+1 natural, +1 Dex for... 27 AC without really anything at all. Heck I'll make a wand AND wear fullplate so I can tank out in the High 30's or low40's at level 5 or 6.
No thanks its bad enough as it is.

As far as the deflection thing, I see deflection as slightly altering your arc so you miss the target. Sort of a bending space so you miss type effect. Shields cover, like a wall is cover. So I think they'd know the difference between having thier arm pushed away so they miss and hitting an unbreakable wall with a full force swing. Try this little experiment, punch at something and have someone push your elbow so you miss it. Now punch at something and have someone put a table between you and your target. I think you'll notice a difference in the way you missed your goal.

Edit:Sorry if I seem snippy. Too many Kreynolds posts, still the points are valid.

 

[Brother Laszlo]

My DM used tower shields to good effect when our 5-man party (stupidly) attacked a unit of thirty soldiers. They used tower shields, arrows and spears, and were really annoying. They weren't very high level, but their shields and cover made them very hard to hit when they swarmed us.

The one problem was that our DM was not applying the same penalty to our enemies when they tried to attack past their own shields. We pointed this out half-way through the battle, but we couldn't find the passage referring to it, so we had to bite the bullet for the sake of brevity.

The combat turned out to be one of the most tactical battles we've ever fought, since position and formation played such key roles. We ended up pulling off a surprise victory in the end, which made it all the more sweet.

 

[Shin Okada]

For the sake of completeness the diagram works as follows:

d=Defender
7=Defender has 75% cover against attacks from this square
5=Defender has 50% cover against attacks from this square
x=Defender has no cover against attacks from this square

XXXXX XXXX5
XXDXX XXD55
X575X XX577
57775 X5577

Hi! Where have you got that diagram? I am looking for it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm not convinced that there's any logical reason for foes to assume that it lacks the tactical mobility of a real shield which can adjust to their position.

There's also not any reason to assume it doesn't suffer from the same 'lack of tactical mobility' as a real tower shield, either, and a 5' step can be done pretty safely, so why not try it?

For that matter, I'm not certain that many foes can actually tell the difference between it (Shield spell) and other invisible force protection (like a deflection bonus from a ring of deflection or an armor bonus from Mage Armor).

I should think that the effects of different types of bonuses would be evident. A Barkskin spell would stop a weapon at the character's skin, you might even cut through thier clothing, for intance. Mage Armor would turn blows an inch or less from the character - it'd feel like, well, hitting armor. Deflection bonuses would cause your blow to veer away as if an invisible force were tugging the attack out of line. And, a Shield spell would stop attacks dead a foot or two in front of the protected character, as if you'd struck a solid wall in front of them.