Mithral Animated Tower Shield, sweet defense but confusing rules-wise...

[Wolfix]

Once again I have some 3.5 rules questions for you nice folk, this time about the item in the title.

The Animated property states that the wielder of the shield still takes the normal penalties assosiated with it. But in the case of the tower shield, does the character still take a -2 penalty to attack rolls? It says the -2 is because of encumbrance, but you're not holding it anymore.

Also, when using total cover from an animated tower shield, are you still able to be targeted by spells? Again, because you aren't holding it anymore I was wondering if it would be different.

 

[Marimmar@Home]

Shure you do get the -2 penalty. After all you get the 50% arcane spell failure chance too and you can be targeted through the tower shield because its your equipment. If it wasn't your equipment you would lose your animated shield rather quickly through damaging spells since it would not be protected under the 'characters keep their equipment unless they fail a save by rolling a natural 1' rule.

~Marimmar

 

[Sir ThornCrest]

Some Rules Are Begging To Be Broken....

This one being the classic example, I read anothers post on this very subject and I quote "So if The pc is holding a delicate rose up in his hand, and stabs his thick sturdy steel blade in the ground an acid fog will ignore the flowerr whilst destroying the blade, because pc wasnt holding it".................BS!..I know it's fantasy roll playing but lets add a little realism. Just a little to make it seem reasonable.

Is he set behind it? or lugging it around? either way the shield should do whats its made for protect for at least 1 big boomer of a spell or vs arrows all day....point being you didnt take the damage the shield did....hopefully it can hold up vs another 1 or 2 spells.

ThornCrest

Shure you do get the -2 penalty. After all you get the 50% arcane spell failure chance too and you can be targeted through the tower shield because its your equipment. If it wasn't your equipment you would lose your animated shield rather quickly through damaging spells since it would not be protected under the 'characters keep their equipment unless they fail a save by rolling a natural 1' rule.

~Marimmar

 

[Rugger]

The easiest way that I've come up with to simplify Animated shield in my head is this:

All it does is free a hand up. Period. You are still wielding the shield and take all penalties. Except you have a free hand.

-Rugger

 

[kjenks]

The best way to think about an animated shield is to pretend that you grow an invisible magical arm which brandishes the shield. This explains why you still get any penalties associated with shield use, such as armor check penalty, arcane spell failure chance, and nonproficiency.

And, BTW, a Tower Shield is normally made out of wood, so you can't get one made out of Mithral without DM intervention.

 

[shilsen]

This one being the classic example, I read anothers post on this very subject and I quote "So if The pc is holding a delicate rose up in his hand, and stabs his thick sturdy steel blade in the ground an acid fog will ignore the flowerr whilst destroying the blade, because pc wasnt holding it".................BS!..I know it's fantasy roll playing but lets add a little realism. Just a little to make it seem reasonable.

I suggest you consider the fact that what seems realistic and reasonable to you is not necessarily so to the next person. We're discussing magic effects here, which have their own laws and nature, part of which (in 3e D&D) involves affecting inanimate objects differently depending on whether they are in the possession of a creature or not. If you need to justify it, just say that all creatures have an aura which draws magic to them rather than to their possessions. Or say that the invisible fairies of possession guard items wielded or possessed by a creature. Or come up with something else. None of it is inherently more unrealistic or reasonable than saying that you live on a giant rock which hangs in space and flies around a giant flaming ball of gas.

Realism, forsooth!

 

[FireLance]

Alternatively, people actively protect their equipment, e.g. fanning acid gas away from a rose, putting out the fires on a smouldering cloak, angling a shield so that it deflects the breath of a dragon instead of being struck by its full force.

 

[Hypersmurf]

And, BTW, a Tower Shield is normally made out of wood, so you can't get one made out of Mithral without DM intervention.

Isn't there a metal one in Races of Stone?

-Hyp.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

Yes. There are also the "extreme" shields; cool idea, lousy name.

But anyways, if I allowed animated shields in my game, I'd say that what animated is was a telekinetic bond that still exerted the normal force on your person, just not on your hand.

Animated shields are the Devil's work.

 

[Sir ThornCrest]

Im not questioning the magic that animates the shield???

I am questioning the in hand items saving better that a non in hand item. Maybe you can say your moving the item around avoiding the damage, or some how putting behinf your back to protect it? But again the rose in hand is more resilient than a sword on the ground by several fold.

Thorncrest

I suggest you consider the fact that what seems realistic and reasonable to you is not necessarily so to the next person. We're discussing magic effects here, which have their own laws and nature, part of which (in 3e D&D) involves affecting inanimate objects differently depending on whether they are in the possession of a creature or not. If you need to justify it, just say that all creatures have an aura which draws magic to them rather than to their possessions. Or say that the invisible fairies of possession guard items wielded or possessed by a creature. Or come up with something else. None of it is inherently more unrealistic or reasonable than saying that you live on a giant rock which hangs in space and flies around a giant flaming ball of gas.

Realism, forsooth!