Tower Shield

[DMFTodd]

The FAQ update really nerfs it down but it makes some sense. I'm confused on this one though: "You can escape the foe’s hold simply by dropping the shield (a standard action since it’s strapped to your arm),"

Dropping an item is usually a free action. Dropping a tower shield is always a standard action? Or only when someone is grappling your shield?

 

[ken-ichi]

Readying or loosing a shield is a move action.
You usually have to unstrap the shield which is why it is not a free action to loose and drop it.
You can combine either of these actions as part of a normal move if you have at least a +1 BAB just like drawing a weapon while moving.

I don't have any idea where the standard action came from. I wish they would out and out tell you if they are making a new rule, clarifying a fuzzy rule, or replacing an existing rule, or just giving thier own house rules in the FAQs. None of them seem to be completely consistant.

 

[Krelios]

There is a heap of clarification about the Tower Shield in the FAQ (Oct 27th, 2005):

And that's why the FAQ is so loathed by many people. The FAQ changes the rules in the book by adding facing to 3.5, which was purposely removed. Only the Errata can change the rules, not a FAQ, hence all of that verbiage is meaningless.

 

[TheGogmagog]

And that's why the FAQ is so loathed by many people. The FAQ changes the rules in the book by adding facing to 3.5, which was purposely removed. Only the Errata can change the rules, not a FAQ, hence all of that verbiage is meaningless.

It would be fine if only they clarified what was 'optional' rules.
They clarified that he added the standard action, but then neglected to point out that the facing rules were also added. The effect on targeting and attacks of opportunity does seem to be RAW.

There are a lot of DM's who can't cope with the idea that all the characters don't just stand there while the others take thier turn. The optional rules the FAQ introduce are good for that.

Personally, I'm somewhere in between, if you make full cover a standard action as suggested in the FAQ, I have no problem with full cover from all attacks.

 

[werk]

I wish they would out and out tell you if they are making a new rule, clarifying a fuzzy rule, or replacing an existing rule, or just giving thier own house rules in the FAQs. None of them seem to be completely consistant.

FACT!

 

[DanMcS]

And that's why the FAQ is so loathed by many people. The FAQ changes the rules in the book by adding facing to 3.5, which was purposely removed. Only the Errata can change the rules, not a FAQ, hence all of that verbiage is meaningless.

It didn't add facing. It clarified that it works like all cover, which works based on lines or shapes of covering objects on the battle grid. Chill out.

And the FAQ can alter or add any rules its authors want; officialness is much less relevant to the game than usefulness, and the rulings in the FAQ are useful.

 

[Legildur]

After seeing 2 other very long threads degenerate over the FAQ is/is not official rules (and what that may mean exactly), I would hate to see this interesting thread hijacked.

I suggest we leave the question of the authoritiveness of the FAQ out of the discussion and concentrate on what we can and cannot do with a Tower Shield. I'm thinking about a gnome or dwarf fighter in heavy armor and with tower shield who is hard to hit.

And I'm with DanMcS about the shield being mobile cover and why it needs defacto 'facing' to operate.

 

[The Edge]

I agree totaly with that FAQ entry. As I was reading down the thread and seeing bits like...
"* Since D&D has no facing, he has total concealment to 2 monsters flanking him?"
I was thinking, thats no good, perhaps it could work like other cover, and need to designate a side as part of the action. And then I read the FAQ.

I can't buy the idea that a fighter would be constantly spining like a mad man trying to block blows with his tower, its compleatly against the concept of a tower shield, and after all these shields are damned heavy. Just wouldn't work.

I've never really seen tower shields actually used in a game, but this has increased my interest in them.

 

[Corinth]

With rulings like this, I cannot see any reason to maintain the "no facing" policy; it's all or nothing- no half-measures. This ruling is just that.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Um... Not really. There is nothing in those rules with regards to which way the character is facing... Only that his shield is in a particular spot. He could use it to give himself cover from attackers above his head and be looking at the ground, for all those rules say.

Even though there is no facing for individual charcaters, that does not mean that there is no direction... If you get attacked, that attack is generally coming from somewhere. if you want to protect yourself frm such an attack with a tower shield, you put it in between yourself and that attack. It, again, has not one whit to do with which way your are facing.

Later
silver