D&D 3E/3.5 Tower Shields [3.5]

[Lord Ben]

Why is +4AC and -2 to attack a great improvement? It's the same as using a normal shield and expertise combined. It's a nice benefit, but not that great. Are there any feats coming that maybe negate or reduce that penalty?

 

[the Jester]

Well, you don't need Expertise to use it... also, I believe you'll be able to crouch behind it for 100% cover, right?

 

[Speaks]

I do think the tower shield does provide some additional "cover" bonus from ranged attacks.

Question for those 3.5 book owners. Can tower shield be use for shield bashing? under the 3.0 they were not allowed to do such a combat tactic.

Speaks

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Well, you don't need Expertise to use it... also, I believe you'll be able to crouch behind it for 100% cover, right?

Correct. And 100% cover can negate an archer's Improved Precise Shot feat (and arguably certain magical lines of effect -- though I think the way this is explained in 3.5 you may not be able to use a tower shield as cover from spells).

 

[Technik4]

Tower Shield Expert [General, Fighter]
You are strong enough to wield a tower shield like an expert.
Prerequisites: Tower Shield Proficiency, Str 25+, BAB +6
Benefit: You do not suffer a -2 penalty to your attacks while wielding a Tower Shield.

Seems easy enough to fix...

Technik

 

[Darklone]

It stacks with full Expertise.

OTOH: I don't like towershields at all. They are too good.

 

[Madfox]

Towershields grant a +4 to AC and when you take the fully defensive actions, they grant total cover accept against spells (it does not block line of sight). It weights 45 lbs. and it gives an armour check penalty of -10. It also limits dex bonus to AC to +2. You also cannot shield bash with it or do anything else with the shield hand. Finally, only pure fighters have proficiency with this shield, all other classes need to spend a feat on it. The feat has the requirement of having normal shield proficiency.

In short, you will not see any wizard or rogue walking around with this shield. It has become a more valuable option for fighters and clerics. Clerics really have to spend that feat, because a -10 to attack and all skill checks hurt. Unlike light shields though, the cleric will need to put away his weapon to cast any spell. Barbarians might opt for it as well, but those characters more often then not prefer 2 handed weapons, especially with the boost of powerattack. Rangers run the risk of getting into medium load due to this shield and they will focus on two-weapon style or archery (which requires two hands as well).

I am sorry, but I don't think the tower shield is really that powerful.

 

[Darklone]

Agreed, Madfox. I didn't know all these changes, but they sound good!

 

[FireLance]

Three words: "Animated tower shield".

Is this possible in 3.5e? Would a person using an animated tower shield suffer the -2 penalty to attacks? Could you direct it to give you 100% against an archer while meleeing someone else? If successfully sundered, would an Animated tower shield be broken?

 

[godfear]

Towershields grant a +4 to AC and when you take the fully defensive actions, they grant total cover accept against spells (it does not block line of sight).

Is the descriptive text from the actual 3.5 PHB different from that in the SRD? The SRD says you can get total cover simply by not attacking. Makes no mention of full-defense or sacrificing any actions.

This troubles me conceptually, because there is no facing, and as written in the SRD, even if surrounded by enemies a tower shield wielder could avoid all attacks due to total cover (except magical attacks or attempts to sunder the tower shield). If you only have to give up attacking, one could also double move or even run, avoiding all AoO for the movement.

If there is some text I'm missing, please set me straight. Thanks.