Saeviomagy
Adventurer
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.
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.