Tower Shield and Shield Bearer

[Saeviomagy]

My point of view - the tower shield, as errata'd, isn't something worth using for anyone who isn't a spellcaster. Furthermore, it destroys the whole "no facings" ideal of 3rd ed.

Put it back to how it was written - it gives a flat cover bonus from all directions while held (after all - shield bonuses apply to all directions...). A limit on the amount of cover which can be taken (up to 3/4, max, which assumes you're taking 9/10ths cover most of the time, but ducking out of it to attack). Finally ditch the last couple of advantages of cover over a shield bonus - ie immunity to AoO's, reflex bonuses (especially since this almost never applies - remember the argument that a spell targets the whole person?).

That's it. No penalties to the wielders attacks. After all - it's a shield. Do other shields give you a penalty to your attacks?

Finally, lets just drop that whole 'cover' designation. It differs from cover so much that there's not reall a reason to keep the name.

What do we end up with? A shield with a +7 ac bonus. That's it. Simple, huh?

The only real problem: Someone can get a tower shield and full plate mail at low leve, and walk about with a 25AC.

The solution: not caring. The guy has a -16 dex penalty to such elementary things as balance. This outfit is really only suitable to outright war, and even then requires someone who is skilled at standing up. I'd suggest giving balance to the fighter class, making high level fighters the only real choice for this combination of gear. Incidentally it also makes their AC fairly competitive at the levels where they can wear this for adventuring.

As to tower shields only being used in a besieging situation? Three words.

The Roman Legionary.

Tower shields plus short swords, arranged in a formation which devastated pretty much anything it came up against.

 

[Tewligan]

According to the Skip Williams chat transcript, the 3.5 tower shield will no longer give cover, and will just have a better AC bonus. About time, I say.

 

[Oracular Vision]

As to tower shields only being used in a besieging situation? Three words.

The Roman Legionary.

Tower shields plus short swords, arranged in a formation which devastated pretty much anything it came up against.

Scuta are not tower shieds, they don't weigh 45 pounds and don't have stands. I have one, you don't know what you are talking about. The curved shield does not and never did provide 100% cover unless you stopped and crouched down. Although many details are wrong in the movies, the SHAPE of the sheilds is mostly correct, watch Sparatacus sometime if you still don't know what they look like. Tower shields are pavises, the persians used them too, but no one else except medieval seige warfare...they were too heavy and too cumbersome...

Read some history before correcting others...

 

[Celebrim]

I don't really see the Roman Legionaires shield as a tower shield, since it really wasn't a full body shield - more of a knee to shoulder sort of thing instead of head to toe. Of course, size of the shield may have varied with period, but Polybius gives its height at 4 feet. This isn't as short as you think, since the height of the average man was probably just over 5 feet, but it is still clearly not a full body shield.

When I think of tower shields I first think of Greek Bronze age 'hour glass' type shields. This was a real head-to-toe shield. Users of these shields often had two! One that they would carry, and another strapped to thier back. Homer mentions someone running away and his heels beating against his shield. That is the sort of setup Homer had in mind.

I think it would be rather broken to not give tower shields some penalty. There primary function is to block missile file, which they do quite well, but they generally weren't widely used by melee combatants.

Don't think of the shield as hindering your attacks. Think of it as letting you fight defensively with much greater effectiveness.

But I agree that it shouldn't provide a cover bonus, only an equivalent bonus to AC and a bonus to reflex saves vs. area of effect spells. Immunity to AoO is simply too much, and too hard to arbitrate since it realistically would require us to keep track of facing - something that 3rd edition in theory doesn't do.

 

[Celebrim]

OV: I agree that Scuta aren't tower shields, but the arguement 'they don't weigh 45 lb' doesn't carry alot of weight. If you are knowledgable enough about weapons that you own a Scuta (and know what to call it), then you should also know that the suggested weights for the various D&D weapons are often WAY off and appear to me generally chosen more for reasons of game balance than for realism.

 

[Darklone]

To balance the tower shield, the rule for readying a shield is used in my group... and adjusting the tower shield is considered readying.