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

[Endur]

While there is no facing for characters and monsters, cover always depends on direction and is arbitrated by the GM.

So, if you are claiming full cover, you'll have to say where the shield is relative to your character. The rules do not say that you get 360' degree full cover.

You are hiding behind a tower shield. You are not hiding inside of a tower.

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.

 

[Snipehunt]

Urrgh. Animated is what really broke the tower shield in 3.0. Fortunately,

A character with an animated shield still takes any penalties associated with shield use, such as armor check penalty, arcane spell failure chance, and nonproficiency.

So, you can animate it, but it would suck if you weren't a fighter anyway.

 

[Paragon249]

While there is no facing for characters and monsters, cover always depends on direction and is arbitrated by the GM. So, if you are claiming full cover, you'll have to say where the shield is relative to your character. The rules do not say that you get 360' degree full cover. You are hiding behind a tower shield. You are not hiding inside of a tower.

You are thinking of stationary cover. It does not say that you plant the tower shield and cower. Since there is assumed to be movement during a round, facing works as normal with a tower shield. It provides Total Cover in all directions and you determine cover normally, drawing a line from the attacker to the defender. You will always have cover from it, because it moves with you. Its does not say that you must declare a direction, like the SHield spell did in 3.0. No enemy ever strikes you from behind in D+D.

As a house rule your DM could negate the bonus vs one person in a flanking situation, but there is no way that you are getting a ranged or melee attack off on someone using a tower shield.

My personal opinion is that anyone with a brain will have a TowerShield. Since you cannot attack anyway, all you are taking is -10 to skill checks. The Max Dex Bonus/Shield AC Bonus is irrelevant for you because no one is getting an attack off on you. That doesn't affect me drinking potions, running away from the fight, activating a magic item, or any number of other non-attack actions. Unless you intend to use it for the AC, in which case you'd do well to take a level of fighter or waste a feat.

I think that the Tower Shield is broken as is and a simple line of text, explaining that it must be planted and set against attacks from a certaint direction would fix it.

 

[satori01]

The minus 2 to attacks is the lousy part.
So unless you are a fighter you are spending a feat to get:

* a +2 to +3 increase in shield ac compared to other shields
(hate the 3.5 shield rules btw)

* the abillity to have total cover at the expense of sacrificing all attacks esentialy you cant hurt them they cant hurt you.

* No TWF or Two handed weapons

* -2 to all your attacks

* Spending a MEA readying your shield.

A fighter has feats to spend to create better combat options than the tower shield, other class probably not so much, it might be intresting for a bard, but frankly the ASF is 15% so probably not an option.

 

[reapersaurus]

I agree - the tower shield is just not a viable option (to me) in 3.5E (or 3E, for that matter).

And ASF is 50% for a tower shield.

 

[Camarath]

I had a 3.0 Psion (Telepathy) who I had a lot of fun using a tower shield with.

 

[Saeviomagy]

My personal opinion is that anyone with a brain will have a TowerShield. Since you cannot attack anyway, all you are taking is -10 to skill checks. The Max Dex Bonus/Shield AC Bonus is irrelevant for you because no one is getting an attack off on you. That doesn't affect me drinking potions, running away from the fight, activating a magic item, or any number of other non-attack actions. Unless you intend to use it for the AC, in which case you'd do well to take a level of fighter or waste a feat.

So, what is this mythical class which can afford to constantly suffer a -10 on all skill checks, 50% ASF and never attacks? All I can imagine is a cleric (and most of those do end up getting down and dirty in combat) or a psion (and he's already doing this with full-plate armour..., and to me indicates a problem with the half-implemented, non 3.5e psionics rules, not the tower shield)

I think that the Tower Shield is broken as is and a simple line of text, explaining that it must be planted and set against attacks from a certaint direction would fix it.

Oh, so it's the "I'm a mage" shield like it was in 3.0 after it was errata'd. So it reintroduces facing to the game. So it's absolutely no use to anyone actually in a fight.

I think it's fine as-is. After all, anyone serious will just smash the thing or disarm you of it.

 

[Urklore]

Can someone explain to me why you could not perform a shield rush or shield bash with a tower shield?

 

[Caliban]

Can someone explain to me why would could not perform a shield rush or shield bash with a tower shield?

It's 45 lb's of dead weight strapped to your arm. You can't effectively use it as a weapon.

 

[maybeso]

It's 45 lb's of dead weight strapped to your arm. You can't effectively use it as a weapon.

And the 20th level dwarf barbarian with a strength of 36 (before rage) who can lift 1.84 Tons over his head notices the 45 lbs. why? (when he rages his str. is 44 and he can lift 2.8 tons over his head...) I don't see the 45 lbs. being a problem when your light load is 1224 lbs.