Can a Large creature weild a Tower shield?

[dcollins]

hug/garg/col should be 2x

You can argue that they "should be", but they're not.
It's not specified in the box on PH p. 105, nor any Huge MM creature wearing armor.

 

[reapersaurus]

dcollins- WHY would they have a rule that states that smaller creatures using armor get less protection if larger creatures don't get a similar effect?

 

[HeavyG]

Because otherwise a giant is full-plate would be totally unhittable ?

Note : This is only part of the answer, of course.

 

[IanB]

The point is that cover is cover.

Agreed.

In the example I gave, the Giant had 100% cover from the Man with non-reach melee weapons since the Man could not reach above the top of the wall and could not reach through the wall and for no other reason.

OK.

The Man, on the other hand, had less cover since the Giant could attack from above, hence, the wall might give the Man 50% cover. The Giant is not attacking from the front, but from above.

In this case, the man can still freely walk around the wall and attack the giant. Half cover still prevents attacks of opportunity! And once you get under half cover, there is no real point to using a tower shield, since you could get the same benefit from a large shield (minus a measly +1 on reflex saves) without the encumbrance problem of a tower shield, and without having it apply to only one side of the battlefield.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

First, I would say that something is no tower shield for you unless you can hide completely behind it. If it's less, it's a large (or even small) shield for you.

Tower shields are for use against ranged attacks anyway. Why put that 12 foot wall between you and the 6 foot human wielding a melee weapon (if you're a 18 foot giant)? It makes your hitting him harder, and he can just step around and your cover is gone. Better throw away that thing and use a two-handed weapon! And if you are facing a cadre of human archers (substitute this human for elf or gnome or whatever is 'bout 6 foot tall and humanoid...), it won't help you much if you aren't covered totally by that shield, since the arrows can fly low and high!

 

[reapersaurus]

If your opponent has to move more than 5' around the Tower Shield, he can't get iterative attacks, right?
So you are doing full iterative attacks, while the other guy gets one.

Heavy - is that the same answer if we're only talking shields?

 

[IanB]

If your opponent has to move more than 5' around the Tower Shield, he can't get iterative attacks, right? So you are doing full iterative attacks, while the other guy gets one.

Pretty much, yeah. Using a tower shield has to have some advantage, or they wouldn't exist. Also, there are ways around this as well, particularly haste. A Huge creature, which is the minimum size to be in this situation, still can't keep 2 attackers from getting full attacks unless they're really dumb, or give up their own multiple attacks. Even the very largest creatures still only get 5' for adjustment.

 

[HeavyG]

Heavy - is that the same answer if we're only talking shields?

First of all, I think we need to diffenciate between tower shields and normal (ie large, small or buckler shields).

Tower shields are not really shields but rather a small portable wall that you can hide behind and move around. They give cover and not armor bonuses to AC. So they are more like a piece of scenery in some ways.

Thus, it should be treated the same way for a giant with a giant-sized tower shield. It would enable the giant to put down a temporary wall some strategic place on the battlefield. And it would need to be very big to give as much cover as a normal tower shield gives a human.

However, I think a +2 to AC is pretty meaningless for a giant compared to using a two-handed weapon. That's why no giant in the MM uses a shield. It certainly wouldn't be unbalanced to double the armor bonus to AC of giant-sized shields.

And there's no logical reason a giant would get less use for a shield than a human does.

However, logically, a giant would have trouble maneuvering his shield appropriately to protect against very small (i.e. human-sized) targets. He'd have to squat down or something.

 

[Vaxalon]

I think the rules make enough sense the way they are, nothing glaring enough to require a change.

 

[dcollins]

dcollins- WHY would they have a rule that states that smaller creatures using armor get less protection if larger creatures don't get a similar effect?

Hmmm. Game balance (as shown through playtesting) comes to mind.