Lord Vangarel
First Post
Can anyone provide insight or rules on Tower Shields, specifically any disadvantages when using them?
Help on Tower Shields
- Thread starter Lord Vangarel
- Start date
Hackenslash
First Post
What !!!....No Tower Sheild ????
Hi Lord V,
I am inclined to agree with "Kreynolds" on this and with the rules in the PH, but I am still baffled as to what use a tower sheild would be in any sort of "DnD" type combat, other than in a Pitched Battle to protect you from arrows and such(as they were used in the real world). I am cool with the "Portable Wall" scenario and would implement some "Action" penalty to move postion, but even then find it very hard to envision any use for the Tower Sheild in melee combat, as they can be easily circumvented, by spells and even outmanouvered by other combatants. The whole concept of "Tower Sheild" does not fit into DnD, IMHO. However, a magically "Animated" Tower Shield +3, would certainly go down well with PC's and Monsters alike. DOH !!! Did I just give the DM a Cool idea to kill us with....DOH !!! DOH !!! and DOH !!! again. hehehe!!!
Hi Lord V,
I am inclined to agree with "Kreynolds" on this and with the rules in the PH, but I am still baffled as to what use a tower sheild would be in any sort of "DnD" type combat, other than in a Pitched Battle to protect you from arrows and such(as they were used in the real world). I am cool with the "Portable Wall" scenario and would implement some "Action" penalty to move postion, but even then find it very hard to envision any use for the Tower Sheild in melee combat, as they can be easily circumvented, by spells and even outmanouvered by other combatants. The whole concept of "Tower Sheild" does not fit into DnD, IMHO. However, a magically "Animated" Tower Shield +3, would certainly go down well with PC's and Monsters alike. DOH !!! Did I just give the DM a Cool idea to kill us with....DOH !!! DOH !!! and DOH !!! again. hehehe!!!
Lord Vangarel
First Post
Thanks everyone.
The reason I wanted to check up on this is because one player has chosen a Barricade Buckler from S&S and seemed to think it provided all around cover as there are no facing rules in 3E. What's been said here, with it being a move action to change it's position seems to indicate it provides cover to only one side which is kind of against the no facing rules in 3E!
If anyone could clear this up further it'd be very much appreciated.
Hackenslash - would you say a Barricade Buckler counts as a magically animated tower shield?
The reason I wanted to check up on this is because one player has chosen a Barricade Buckler from S&S and seemed to think it provided all around cover as there are no facing rules in 3E. What's been said here, with it being a move action to change it's position seems to indicate it provides cover to only one side which is kind of against the no facing rules in 3E!
If anyone could clear this up further it'd be very much appreciated.
Hackenslash - would you say a Barricade Buckler counts as a magically animated tower shield?
kreynolds
First Post
Lord Vangarel said:
The lack of true facing rules does not change how the tower shield works in that it only provides cover from one direction. The shield spell also works similarly (though arguably much better).
Lord Vangarel said:
I don't know about him, but I sure wouldn't. The barricade buckler is simply a +1 buckler that can be turned into a tower shield. Nothing more.
Hackenslash
First Post
I agree !....I agree again !!....
Hiya Lord V,
Well I must admit that Kreynolds seems to know his stuff concerning "Tower Sheilds" and what he says does make sense from a logical point of view. The fact that there are no "Facing Rules" in DnD 3.0 does not change the fact that the item in question can "only face, and thus provide it's benefit in one direction at a time" unless some sort of "action" is spent to move it. EG. If a group of Archers were being attacked from behind and their Tower Sheilds were facing the other way, then How could they expect to get a Cover Bonus to AC from the Tower Sheild when it's facing the wrong way, just because there are no facing rules in DnD. So I think the rules have to be bent a little(or just use the old "I interpret the rules differently" clause) in this case, if only for a more clearer perspective. It just would not make sense for a Tower Sheild user to benefit from the all round cover protection just because there are no facing rules in DnD. I have not heard of the "Barricade Buckler" but does it have the "Animate" enchantment on it ? or does it have to be firmly anchored to someones arm etc...and then sort of "grows" to provide full cover from one direction ? I do know that an Animated Sheild (any sheild) would not have to be attached to anything to provide it's bonus to AC. Oh well hope that helps you make your decision...bye for now and see ya on Thursday
Hiya Lord V,
Well I must admit that Kreynolds seems to know his stuff concerning "Tower Sheilds" and what he says does make sense from a logical point of view. The fact that there are no "Facing Rules" in DnD 3.0 does not change the fact that the item in question can "only face, and thus provide it's benefit in one direction at a time" unless some sort of "action" is spent to move it. EG. If a group of Archers were being attacked from behind and their Tower Sheilds were facing the other way, then How could they expect to get a Cover Bonus to AC from the Tower Sheild when it's facing the wrong way, just because there are no facing rules in DnD. So I think the rules have to be bent a little(or just use the old "I interpret the rules differently" clause) in this case, if only for a more clearer perspective. It just would not make sense for a Tower Sheild user to benefit from the all round cover protection just because there are no facing rules in DnD. I have not heard of the "Barricade Buckler" but does it have the "Animate" enchantment on it ? or does it have to be firmly anchored to someones arm etc...and then sort of "grows" to provide full cover from one direction ? I do know that an Animated Sheild (any sheild) would not have to be attached to anything to provide it's bonus to AC. Oh well hope that helps you make your decision...bye for now and see ya on Thursday
kreynolds
First Post
Re: I agree !....I agree again !!....
Nope. The only spell in its prereqs is enlarge.
Basically, and yes, it must be anchored, just like a normal buckler. The description doesn't preclude this. However, I imagine it may get funky, at least mental image wise, to have a tower shield anchored to your arm.
It wouldn't surprise me if some DMs ruled that you had to "unequip" the buckler from your arm before turning it into a tower shield, though I don't really think its necessary.
Hackenslash said:
Nope. The only spell in its prereqs is enlarge.
Hackenslash said:
Basically, and yes, it must be anchored, just like a normal buckler. The description doesn't preclude this. However, I imagine it may get funky, at least mental image wise, to have a tower shield anchored to your arm.
It wouldn't surprise me if some DMs ruled that you had to "unequip" the buckler from your arm before turning it into a tower shield, though I don't really think its necessary.
Given the release of 3.5 in a month, perhaps there are better rules there. Does any one know the specifics of tower shields there? All I can recall is a required separate proficiency.
As to the validity in combat of the tower shield, take a look at the Roman Legions. I would definately call the shield you typically envision them with as a tower shield.
As to the validity in combat of the tower shield, take a look at the Roman Legions. I would definately call the shield you typically envision them with as a tower shield.
Hackenslash
First Post
Hmmm....Roman Tower Sheilds ???
Ok, I would go with that, but I would also point out that the Romans "Tower" Shield could have also been classed as a "Large" Steel or Wooden Shield too, as their heads and feet were exposed to fight unless in a "phalanx" formation. "Tower Shield" would be more like those portable "Barracades" with wooden support braces that middle age archers used to hide behind during a "seige" and would indeed provide "total" cover, and that I think,IMHO would be a more accurate way of describing a "Tower Shield". But I suppose it depends on the flavor of the campaign and the description the DM intends to use. Just my 2 cents....cheers all.
Ok, I would go with that, but I would also point out that the Romans "Tower" Shield could have also been classed as a "Large" Steel or Wooden Shield too, as their heads and feet were exposed to fight unless in a "phalanx" formation. "Tower Shield" would be more like those portable "Barracades" with wooden support braces that middle age archers used to hide behind during a "seige" and would indeed provide "total" cover, and that I think,IMHO would be a more accurate way of describing a "Tower Shield". But I suppose it depends on the flavor of the campaign and the description the DM intends to use. Just my 2 cents....cheers all.
