[D&D 3.5] Crossbow Shield (Item - PEACH)

[arguskos]

This is an idea I've been kicking around, that a player of mine actually mentioned independently of my musings.

Crossbow Tower Shield
This normal seeming tower shield has a small slit in the top. On the reverse side, there is a small collapsible crossbow that can be unfolded to aim out of the slit on the shield.

A Crossbow Tower Shield acts as a normal tower shield in all ways when used as such. When used as a Crossbow, it grants cover.

The Crossbow deals 1d6 damage, with a critical modifier of 19-20/x2. The user does take a -2 on attacks with the crossbow, due to the constraints of the arrow slit in the shield. It can only be fired while the shield is stationary, and takes a full-round to unfold. Reloading the crossbow is a move action.

The Crossbow Tower Shield requires Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Crossbow Tower Shield) to use.


Ok, so, that's a hash of a damn stat block, but I'm hoping for some feedback. Thoughts?

[Ashtagon]

It seems balanced.

I'm sure some catgirls will die for this, but I can't see why an armourer wouldn't have just told the soldier to buy the two separately, and keep the hand crossbow on his belt or wherever when not in use.

[arguskos]

It seems balanced.

I'm sure some catgirls will die for this, but I can't see why an armourer wouldn't have just told the soldier to buy the two separately, and keep the hand crossbow on his belt or wherever when not in use.
Well, it's meant to be used as a block in tunnel fighting. The idea is that you block the passageway with a pair of men using these, and rather than have a third guy behind you with a crossbow or a spear, you have these two men holding it alone with their crossbows.

Also, thanks. :smallsmile:

[Cieyrin]

Well, it's meant to be used as a block in tunnel fighting. The idea is that you block the passageway with a pair of men using these, and rather than have a third guy behind you with a crossbow or a spear, you have these two men holding it alone with their crossbows.

Also, thanks. :smallsmile:

So the primary users would be Fighter/Rogues, as a level of each will get you proficiency with both that you need to get proficiency with this?

IDK, I think I'd primarily see level 1 Fighters with Quick Draw and Rapid Reload(Light Crossbow) moving around just the Modified Tower Shields (or a Rifleman's Bulwark, if you're familiar with is from the Iron Kingdoms Character Guide). Move action to move into position and set up, Free action draw and Standard action fire for 1d8 19-20/x2.

Them's my 2 coppers. Take as you will.

[arguskos]

Well, I wasn't actually sure about proficiencies to be honest. I tossed out the idea that you need two feats, just because it fit at the time I wrote it. If you think it doesn't, should I shift it to the EXP being in Crossbow Tower Shield? It'd reward fighters for their feats, after all. :smallconfused:

[Cieyrin]

Requiring one feat to get proficiency would certainly gimp it less, it's just that it's so horrendously slow compared to the method I outlined. It's slower than normal hand crossbows and light crossbows with the reload, as you can't load and fire in the same round, though you can still move if you want.

To me, this just seems aimed at mooks and town guards, so it should be feasible for them to use, so EWP(Crossbow Shield) and reducing the reload to a move action would do much to make this actually valuable for a people to think about. It puts it in reach of Warriors to take and actually be useful with this way, which seem to probably be the most prominent users, whether as gate guards or caravan guards.

[arguskos]

Requiring one feat to get proficiency would certainly gimp it less, it's just that it's so horrendously slow compared to the method I outlined. It's slower than normal hand crossbows and light crossbows with the reload, as you can't load and fire in the same round, though you can still move if you want.

To me, this just seems aimed at mooks and town guards, so it should be feasible for them to use, so EWP(Crossbow Shield) and reducing the reload to a move action would do much to make this actually valuable for a people to think about. It puts it in reach of Warriors to take and actually be useful with this way, which seem to probably be the most prominent users, whether as gate guards or caravan guards.
Uh... I thought I wrote move action reload... /facepalm. Sorry, that was always the intent.

I'll reduce it to a single proficiency as well, since that does seem like a better idea.

Thanks for the aid, I appreciate it. :smallredface:

[Grumman]

I agree with Ashtagon, that you'd be better off with a proper pavise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavise) and normal crossbow, instead of this thing. Attaching the crossbow to the tower shield is going to make it a lot harder to aim, without actually providing any benefit whatsoever.

[AgentPaper]

Couldn't you just carry a tower shield, set it down in front of you, and then fire a crossbow from behind it normally? I'd make this a martial weapon, -2 to hit, move action to set up (otherwise it's just a tower shield) and the reload just depends on what type of crossbow you have in there. You also take an additional armor check penalty, -1 for a hand crossbow, -2 for a light crossbow, and -3 for a heavy or repeating crossbow.

Then, allow them to take a feat to specialize in the weapon, which changes the setup to a free action, and removes the -2 to hit penalty, as well as reducing the armor check penalty by 1.

You should also make a note that the item, if enchanted, is treated as two different items, so the shield would have one set of enchantments, and the crossbow another set. If the crossbow isn't set up, none of the enhancements from the crossbow are active. (similar to if you tried to put on a third ring or two cloaks)


Edit: The main benefit I would see to using this would be that you can move around the shield and hold it steady, which makes it useful against melee attacks. But then, if you've got someone right next to you beating on you, you shouldn't be worrying about using a crossbow anyways.

[imp_fireball]

It seems balanced.

I'm sure some catgirls will die for this, but I can't see why an armourer wouldn't have just told the soldier to buy the two separately, and keep the hand crossbow on his belt or wherever when not in use.

But in warfare, this thing is drastically beneficial, since a tower shield can grant like, total cover.

And the ability to shoot back? Major. Except there's a chance an enemy arrow can get through the slit and melee actions are simply a matter of flanking or moving adjacent (I'm getting the idea that the crossbow tower shield is unwieldy).

Finally it shouldn't be exotic since its really just a combination of weapon/shield. The user doesn't need to know how to use a tower shield, since its probably built for long battles where the user sits down with the shield angled upwards to protect from enemy arrows, and starts plugging away.

[Ashtagon]

Re-reading it...

As a sanity check, the largest crossbow that could be fitted this way should be equivalent to a hand crossbow; light crossbows and larger use a foot stirrup to facilitate reloading, which is not compatible with being mounted directly on a shield in this manner. I'm sure hand crossbow was the intent, I'm just making sure of facts.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm#shieldTower

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#cover

A normal tower shield (as in the rules, not as in reality :smallwink:) uses one hand, and either acts as total cover if fighting defensively, or as +4 AC if you attack. If you attack while using a tower shield, you take a -2 penalty on attack rolls.

A hand crossbow is normally a move action to reload (so no change for this combo device). As a separate device, it requires no special action to "unfold", and additionally doesn't have that restriction of only being usable if you do not move.

The benefit of the combo device is that, instead of getting +4 AC when you shoot, you get total cover. Whether as a combo device or as two separate items, you'd take a -2 penalty on the attack roll.

otoh, an enemy could attack the shield directly to sunder it, or perform an overrun attack if close enough.

----

Given that simply having a tower shield at all imposes an attack penalty, the fact that the weapon is mounted directly on the shield should impose an additional penalty beyond what the shield imposes simply for being used.

[Cieyrin]

Finally it shouldn't be exotic since its really just a combination of weapon/shield. The user doesn't need to know how to use a tower shield, since its probably built for long battles where the user sits down with the shield angled upwards to protect from enemy arrows, and starts plugging away.

Exotic implies special training, which this clearly does need. Not having proficiency when trying to wield a tower shield would be incredibly bad, since it has a -10 ACP, which will even more heavily impact accuracy. Proficiency is an absolute necessity here if you want to actually hit anything. EWP will also cover not raising the penalty higher than -2 and make it seem like you're spending a feat to get merely nonproficient with it, which is not a good taste to leave in your mouth.

[King of Nowhere]

I just tought that you could make a tower shield with a slit (my english is failing me, I was thinking of something you can open or close) and some "legs" (like those of foldable chairs) to stick it on the ground, and then fire from behind with any weapon you want needing no extra proficiency.
You wouldn't even need to be proicient in tower shield since you are not wielding it while shooting.
Probably it would work well for armies.

[arguskos]

Lots of neato stuffs here.
See, this is exactly why I made it 1d6: so that it's worth using at all. Further, since you aren't moving any, I decided that the -2 was from difficulty to see ad aim, not from the shield being bulky (which is why you have a -2 to attacks normally, since it's SO BIG).

Also, Cieyrin has the idea of my views on the proficiency perfect. Any idiot can hold a big wall of metal. Not just any one can use one with a bow in it. :smallwink:

[imp_fireball]

Not having proficiency when trying to wield a tower shield would be incredibly bad,

But the tower shield isn't being wielded! It isn't even being held! You can't hold a tower shield and fire a crossbow that requires two hands. This device you've dreamed up assumes that the shield is lain down.

In fact this sort of device was used in the middle ages. I can't remember what it's called, so I can't wiki it (someone else will probably find the article).

Anyway, it offers a more tactical approach to D&D which I like. I think logic should be considered. The guy only needs training in a crossbow... and maybe how to properly set up a tower shield (it'll have a stand to keep it upright and stable while it's getting pelted with arrows, which might not be much different from a commoner setting up a kiosk.

Suggestion: Alternatively, it could be wielded as a tower shield while moving, but that requires tower shield proficiency. Otherwise it'd just be carried and the archer would be completely exposed. Using it as total cover doesn't imply wielding the tower shield, thus no proficiency and no associated penalties.

It should not be an exotic weapon unique from the tower shield in its own right, thus the fighter can use it, and thus the fighter has a very small advantage over other classes.

Besides, something that requires exotic weapon proficiency I'd imagine requires more training than learning to aim while a slab of metal is bearing down on your arms.

Finally, my main argument for this is that it should allow for any type of crossbow to be fitted, albeit with a longer reload time (a heavy crossbow, assuming the fluff even calls for a foot stirrup (what if the user were simply uber strong?), requires the user to lay down the shield and detach the crossbow from the shield; this is where the 'legs' come in, which protect the user with total cover while he's reloading). The bought weapon should not come with a crossbow and the user should have to buy their own to fit onto it (which might require something like a full action - assembly/disassembly).

With that in mind - gnome moving tower shield tanks with heavy repeating cross bows. :smallbiggrin:
------

EDIT: There's plenty of logical reasons for making the cross bow tower shield a lot more expensive than ordinary. Firstly, the attachment would have to be calibrated, or allow for rotation through the slit (otherwise the wielder becomes rather predictable, tilting the shield to whomsoever they are trying to shoot).

Calibration is a damn near science, and turret rotation requires some metal work wonkery, which is hard to come by in a middle age verse, even if the calibrated-to-allow-a-fair-swing longsword is only 8 gp.

[Cieyrin]

But the tower shield isn't being wielded! It isn't even being held! You can't hold a tower shield and fire a crossbow that requires two hands. This device you've dreamed up assumes that the shield is lain down.

You're running around with the thing attached to you, right? Thus, you're wielding it. Running around w/ a 50 pound piece of wood slating isn't something someone without training does without suffering heavy penalties, which EWP covers for us. Also, you can use any crossbow with one hand, you generally take penalties to do so, though, which is why I assume Arguskos used a hand crossbow stand-in, since those don't have penalties for one-handed use. The only problem I see is that reloading takes two hands.


Anyway, it offers a more tactical approach to D&D which I like. I think logic should be considered. The guy only needs training in a crossbow... and maybe how to properly set up a tower shield (it'll have a stand to keep it upright and stable while it's getting pelted with arrows, which might not be much different from a commoner setting up a kiosk.

Suggestion: Alternatively, it could be wielded as a tower shield while moving, but that requires tower shield proficiency. Otherwise it'd just be carried and the archer would be completely exposed. Using it as total cover doesn't imply wielding the tower shield, thus no proficiency and no associated penalties.

Which, again requires special training, which falls in the purview of EWP. Seriously, having a 50 pound item strapped to your arm isn't a picnic and you'd be a fool to do so without knowing how to heft the thing so it isn't throwing you everywhere when you try to move at all.


It should not be an exotic weapon unique from the tower shield in its own right, thus the fighter can use it, and thus the fighter has a very small advantage over other classes.

Besides, something that requires exotic weapon proficiency I'd imagine requires more training than learning to aim while a slab of metal is bearing down on your arms.

Fighters would still need EWP, as they're not auto-proficient in hand crossbows, which requires EWP. This is why I suggested EWP just to cover the whole thing, which is reasonable. Warrior 1s can take proficiency with it, turtle down wherever and shoot. It keeps their asses from being punctured by missile fire and they can return fire at will. What's not to like here for mooks?


Finally, my main argument for this is that it should allow for any type of crossbow to be fitted, albeit with a longer reload time (a heavy crossbow, assuming the fluff even calls for a foot stirrup (what if the user were simply uber strong?), requires the user to lay down the shield and detach the crossbow from the shield; this is where the 'legs' come in, which protect the user with total cover while he's reloading). The bought weapon should not come with a crossbow and the user should have to buy their own to fit onto it (which might require something like a full action - assembly/disassembly).

With that in mind - gnome moving tower shield tanks with heavy repeating cross bows. :smallbiggrin:

This is just the initial version that requires the least amount of fuss. Getting proficiency with the Crossbow Shield means you can get whatever you want attached to it afterwards. It's like getting proficiency in repeating crossbows, one feat covers them both. It'll just cost you more and you have to have proficiency with whatever you're attaching to make it work.

On a side note, the only problem with repeating crossbows with this is you need two hands to work the handle to make it auto-reload. No one-handed repeating crossbow shenanigans, unfortunately.


EDIT: There's plenty of logical reasons for making the cross bow tower shield a lot more expensive than ordinary. Firstly, the attachment would have to be calibrated, or allow for rotation through the slit (otherwise the wielder becomes rather predictable, tilting the shield to whomsoever they are trying to shoot).

Calibration is a damn near science, and turret rotation requires some metal work wonkery, which is hard to come by in a middle age verse, even if the calibrated-to-allow-a-fair-swing longsword is only 8 gp.

Here I agree, as you need a turret of sorts so you're not just shooting forward. I assume that's included, though. Also, working the turret so you're aiming where you want is part of the EWP, as well.

Them's my 2 coppers. Take as you will.

[arguskos]

Hmm. I'm unsure if I need to clarify my mental vision of the Crossbow Shield or just let ya'll fight it out. :smallconfused::smallwink:

In any case, I guess folks tend to like it, which means it's good. :smallsmile:

[Ashtagon]

If this is meant to be a pavise-like structure which you plant in the ground (as opposed to wielding), the weight will either go through the ceiling, or else it will be knocked aside like confetti by the first solid hit with any decent-sized melee attack.

[imp_fireball]

I think the point of the crossbow shield is that the shield is suspended by lifting the crossbow (thus attached to the shield). Moving around is like wielding a tower shield, so it gives +4 shield AC. Also reloading is no problem unless you are too weak to reload with two hands and need to use your feat (or the crossbow is so big you need to detach it from the shield and reload it that way).

This would also be an okay design for ballistae... the metal panels don't weigh down a large siege weapon that moves on wheels and is already quite slow.

Perhaps there'd be a penalty for two handed weapons, or that you can't fire and move in the same action. Because in order to rotate the shield without joggling the turret, you'd have to lock the turret in place which means you always need to fire forward with a two handed weapon. Even so, you could move and have total cover... or something. Like a siege tower.

[-Baldur-]

If your going to go into detail, why not offer the ability for the shield to auto reload a fired bolt, via a bolt pack. Too technical?

Then mount the shield on wheels so that the user may run with the shield in front of him. (Charging shield wall with a hail of crossbow bolts anyone?).

I like the idea. Just agree that a standard hand crossbow seems more ideal. What if you mounted two crossbows on the shield? Sorry, changing your mechanic.

[AgentPaper]

I don't see why it would need to be a hand-crossbow. Tower shields are rather large, so they would fit just fine, though they would make it significantly heavier. If you're worried about re-loading it, well the shield doesn't really make that much harder, you just put your foot on the back of the shield and pull, instead of putting the front of the bow on the ground. If the crossbow has a crank, you can just crank it like normal. The shield would actually make that easier, since it's already holding the crossbow in place, so you can just start cranking instead of trying to hold the crossbow steady with your feet and then cranking it.

[Bibliomancer]

I have an idea that would give this design advantages over the normal tower shield/crossbow combination. Since it's attached to a huge shield that provides it with backing and removes any worries about making it too bulky, give the hand-crossbow attached a clip of ten bolts that can be replaced as a full round action (no hand crossbow can normally be repeating, much lamented by rogues). Also, say that the slit is so small that the character can benefit from total cover in one direction while firing.

[imp_fireball]

If your going to go into detail, why not offer the ability for the shield to auto reload a fired bolt, via a bolt pack. Too technical?

Then mount the shield on wheels so that the user may run with the shield in front of him. (Charging shield wall with a hail of crossbow bolts anyone?).

I like the idea. Just agree that a standard hand crossbow seems more ideal. What if you mounted two crossbows on the shield? Sorry, changing your mechanic.

But then the wheels would have to work over only certain terrain types. Note that traveling on foot can get people places where wheels can't go, since wheels are wooden or metal in the middle ages, so even perfect terrain for foot might be difficult for wheels.

Better yet, why not give railings for the wheels to travel on through a narrow pass and make it a fortress defense mechanism? The operator slams intruders into a wall and shoots at them as they run away.

[Cieyrin]

Better yet, why not give railings for the wheels to travel on through a narrow pass and make it a fortress defense mechanism? The operator slams intruders into a wall and shoots at them as they run away.

That makes it less a weapon/shield and more a vehicle, then. It's fine, as such, just not the same thing as a huge shield with a crossbow attached to it.