PDA

View Full Version : Tower Shield Help



Panigg
2010-08-07, 03:56 PM
"This massive wooden shield is nearly as tall as you are. In most situations, it provides the indicated shield bonus to your AC. However, you can instead use it as total cover, though you must give up your attacks to do so. The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding. You cannot bash with a tower shield, nor can you use your shield hand for anything else.

When employing a tower shield in combat, you take a -2 penalty on attack rolls because of the shield’s encumbrance. "

For some reason I've always been under the assumption that you can simply ram this baby into the ground and make it a stationary Total Cover. But from the description it doesn't seem to work like that.

Can anyone help me out with this one?

derfenrirwolv
2010-08-07, 03:58 PM
To the archers in front of you, its total cover. they absolutely can't shoot you.

To the wizard tossing disintegrates at you, you've simply placed a bulls eye.

To the medium or large thing in front of you trying to eat you , they have to walk around to the side and THEN eat you.

Something bigger than that can probably target you over the shield

Marnath
2010-08-07, 04:07 PM
I would think you could jam it in the ground and make it a stationary cover, sure. I contend that that would help against targeted spells if you did because you're not holding it anymore. But seeing as disintegrate can destroy a fairly decent amount of volume, there's a decent chance it'll still nail you after it eats your shield. Nothing says you can't have crawled away into the bushes by then though :smallwink:

Panigg
2010-08-07, 04:12 PM
No, but I'm talking RAW here. Read the description again. Does it say you can ram it into the ground?

I'm confused about the "However, you can instead use it as total cover, though you must give up your attacks to do so." part. I understand this as just simply ducking behind, but still holding the shield.

So in theory you could duck behind it, not being able to attack, but still be able to move around.

Yorrin
2010-08-07, 04:18 PM
Think of it more like a riot shield:

http://www.themodernwarfare.com/images/mw2/weapons/riot-shield.jpg

You can run around with it in front of your face and the guy in front of you can only really target your feet (if that), or you can use it like a regular shield while attacking with your sidearm.

Panigg
2010-08-07, 04:23 PM
I think this is kind of silly. If you give up your attacks, you could simply be invincible to enemy attacks, even if they flank you...

Yorrin
2010-08-07, 04:28 PM
Thus why you dont see a lot of Tower Shield builds. Though I once made a Dwarf in Mountain Plate (RoS) who did TWF with Tower Shields, just for the lolz.

ericgrau
2010-08-07, 04:29 PM
For some reason I've always been under the assumption that you can simply ram this baby into the ground and make it a stationary Total Cover. But from the description it doesn't seem to work like that.

Can anyone help me out with this one?

That's basically correct. It is a portable wall. But, like a wall, it only works in the direction where you set it. Though, ya, you don't need to ram it into the ground. You could push down a hallway with archers behind arrow slits at the end of it until you block off the slits. In the mean time you'll be invulnerable unless someone jumps out of a secret panel beside you or behind you.

The real reason the tower shield doesn't see much use in builds and gameplay is b/c most DMs don't set up tactical dungeons. Which is a shame IMO. Don't tell me your high melee damage is worth anything when you die before you can get your first swing. And arrow slits aren't the only example; any sort of cover will do it. In general it's smarter in D&D to start at long range and weaken your foe at range before closing... unless your DM makes no terrain and starts you 40 feet away from your enemy.

Panigg
2010-08-07, 05:27 PM
So you can do both, if I understand you correct. Ram it into the ground and cover behind and move with it.

balistafreak
2010-08-07, 10:34 PM
That's basically correct. It is a portable wall. But, like a wall, it only works in the direction where you set it.

To be fair, there is absolutely NO text that implies that the "total cover" is in one direction. No, seriously, read it. "Give up attacks to gain total cover" is what it says. Anything else is a houserule...

... the problem is that "gaining total cover" is hilariously poorly defined, and really needs more explict houseruling to actually be worth anything.

The "best" way I've found (which admittedly is full of assumed houseruling) is to put in rules for "creating" a 5-foot wall within/on your square, with your own self on a certain side of it.

Marnath
2010-08-07, 10:39 PM
I imagine in this instance it's "total cover, vs. a specific facing."

W3bDragon
2010-08-07, 10:48 PM
So you can do both, if I understand you correct. Ram it into the ground and cover behind and move with it.

However, since the text doesn't say that it was designed to be rammed into the ground, that would suggest that it wouldn't be very stable when used in that fashion. Any strong hit could topple it over. If you don't secure it well, even a weak hit would topple it.

Marnath
2010-08-07, 10:50 PM
I'm almost positive there's a picture in heroes of battle where a bunch of archers are using them this way. If anyone has the book and can upload images, that'd be sweet. It's in the rules for volleys, i think. Either that or in the feats section.

Gnomo
2010-08-07, 11:08 PM
There's an entry in the FAQ about the tower shield, it adds a lot of stuff that do not appear in the SRD.

I remember it says something like that you choose one side of your occupied space and gain total cover from all attacks that pass trough that side.

Claudius Maximus
2010-08-07, 11:21 PM
By RAW the Tower Shield grants total cover against everyone, in all directions, with an exception for targeted spells. It's hardly invulnerability vs. melee attacks though, since they can just sunder the thing (the PHB version is always wood, too, so it isn't even that hard).

arguskos
2010-08-07, 11:36 PM
By RAW the Tower Shield grants total cover against everyone, in all directions, with an exception for targeted spells. It's hardly invulnerability vs. melee attacks though, since they can just sunder the thing (the PHB version is always wood, too, so it isn't even that hard).
Here is where I lol at the metal tower shield presented in Races of Stone, which can then be made from something like Riverene or Adamantine, and thus make you basically immune to melee attacks.

Also, since no action is given for using a tower shield as total cover, does that mean you can do such and cast spells from underneath it? :smallconfused: If so, wow, there's an amusing RAW-tactic: play a wizard with a Riverene Tower Shield, use it for total cover, and blow everything away with magiks.

Gavinfoxx
2010-08-08, 12:14 AM
A tower shield made to be rammed into the ground is a Mantelet or a Pavise.

These aren't really statted separately in D&D, but that is totally the idea behind tower shields in general. I actually like a big shield that you *actually carry* as being, say, an Extreme Shield, and just giving everything that has proficiency in tower shields, Extreme shields instead, and using Tower Shields as actual Mantelets or Pavises ONLY -- ie, cover that you put on the ground.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2010-08-08, 12:24 AM
To the archers in front of you, its total cover. they absolutely can't shoot you.

To the wizard tossing disintegrates at you, you've simply placed a bulls eye.

To the medium or large thing in front of you trying to eat you , they have to walk around to the side and THEN eat you.

Something bigger than that can probably target you over the shield

No, a Disintegrate targeted at the shield would destroy the shield, not the person carrying it. If he were casting a targeted spell like Dominate Person, targeting the shield would cause it to affect the character. For any spell which creates an effect such as a ray, it still grants total cover. Any effect which deals damage would damage the shield, not the character.

FelixG
2010-08-08, 12:28 AM
To the archers in front of you, its total cover. they absolutely can't shoot you.

To the wizard tossing disintegrates at you, you've simply placed a bulls eye.

To the medium or large thing in front of you trying to eat you , they have to walk around to the side and THEN eat you.

Something bigger than that can probably target you over the shield

Large or medium critters or even bigger cant even eat you, you can just shift your shield around to cover different approaches as the thing moves, not presenting a target while not being able to attack at the same time.

There is no real facing in 3.5 so you can defend/attack all sides without having to specifically state that you turn to do it.

Escheton
2010-08-08, 12:52 AM
It takes a move action to don a shield. Grabbing it off your back and planting it for cover takes you a full round. Unless you have a bab of 1 or higher and grab it while moving. Costs you your attack either way. And as cover you give up your attacks. Tough I am not sure if you can't still trample with a tower as cover...

Fizban
2010-08-08, 12:58 AM
Counter to wizard with riverine tower shield: disarm.

I've never really seen what the problem is with the tower shield. DnD 3.5 does not use facing, and the description does not mention any specific facing stuff, so why would it ever only apply in one direction? It's a riot shield as tall as you are, and you're actively defending yourself with it: I don't see how you could get hit by one person, though I'll grant you should be able to do something with readied actions and flanking. As has been mentioned, it's made of wood, so you can probably hack through it faster than the last door you went through, and if someone get's uppity and makes one out of adamantine you can just disarm it instead. It could use a few houserules, but it doesn't absolutely need them.

AdamSmasher
2010-08-08, 01:04 AM
Counter to wizard with riverine tower shield: disarm.

I've never really seen what the problem is with the tower shield. DnD 3.5 does not use facing, and the description does not mention any specific facing stuff, so why would it ever only apply in one direction? It's a riot shield as tall as you are, and you're actively defending yourself with it: I don't see how you could get hit by one person, though I'll grant you should be able to do something with readied actions and flanking. As has been mentioned, it's made of wood, so you can probably hack through it faster than the last door you went through, and if someone get's uppity and makes one out of adamantine you can just disarm it instead. It could use a few houserules, but it doesn't absolutely need them.
The problem is that there are a LOT of people who adamantly refuse to do ANYTHING that isn't RAW, and, by RAW, a tower shield technically makes you invincible. A level 1 commoner can technically be totally invulnerable to the attacks of Asmodeus himself because he has total cover. And, technically, you can't even target him to disarm him or sunder or use a targeted spell because he has total cover.

Now it's ridiculously easy to just say "No, you can disarm a tower shield." or "No, you can sunder it." or "No, you only get Total cover against one guy/direction at a time", but that's just way over some people's heads.

Panigg
2010-08-08, 02:58 AM
Anyone care to post the FAQ or a link to it?

Thiyr
2010-08-08, 03:33 AM
The problem is that there are a LOT of people who adamantly refuse to do ANYTHING that isn't RAW, and, by RAW, a tower shield technically makes you invincible. A level 1 commoner can technically be totally invulnerable to the attacks of Asmodeus himself because he has total cover. And, technically, you can't even target him to disarm him or sunder or use a targeted spell because he has total cover.

Now it's ridiculously easy to just say "No, you can disarm a tower shield." or "No, you can sunder it." or "No, you only get Total cover against one guy/direction at a time", but that's just way over some people's heads.

At that point, you would just attack the shield then. As the shield is a carried object, it is a viable target for sundering, as per "Sundering a Carried or Worn Object". Then you just attack the shield's AC, and sunder it that way. This almost makes more sense than using the normal sunder rules in the first place, as you can't shield bash with a tower shield.

Panigg
2010-08-08, 03:46 AM
At that point, you would just attack the shield then. As the shield is a carried object, it is a viable target for sundering, as per "Sundering a Carried or Worn Object". Then you just attack the shield's AC, and sunder it that way. This almost makes more sense than using the normal sunder rules in the first place, as you can't shield bash with a tower shield.

Alright... if ever someone in my party is using a TS I'll make sure to housrule in some stuff, like facing etc.

2xMachina
2010-08-08, 03:48 AM
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a

FAQ is the first link.

It says, Standard action to take Total Cover in 1 direction.

Of course, ignoring FAQ, pop Total Cover and cast spells.

EDIT: Don't think you can sunder Riverine items. They're force items. And you can't disarm non-weapons.

EDIT2: The FAQ version does nerf it a lot. You waste your action to get cover in 1 direction. So they side step and kill you. Or ignore you and kill your team mates.

Panigg
2010-08-08, 03:56 AM
Thanks. That clears things up. They really should've put more details in the description of TS. But you could say that for most things really.

You can disarm non-weapons. It's in the RAW even...

If you’re attempting to disarm a melee weapon, follow the steps outlined here. If the item you are attempting to disarm isn’t a melee weapon the defender may still oppose you with an attack roll, but takes a penalty and can’t attempt to disarm you in return if your attempt fails.

But it gets weird again. A shield can technically be used as a melee weapon, so it doesn't get a penalty a tower shield however cannot be used a melee weapon, so it should get a penalty, but really, I think it should get a bonus instead. How exactly do you plan on hitting the leather that holds the shield to the foes arm? That screams like a + to the disarm of the tower shield bearer.

FelixG
2010-08-08, 05:14 AM
Alright... if ever someone in my party is using a TS I'll make sure to housrule in some stuff, like facing etc.

Facing is pointless, again you are spending all of your action and forgoing attacking so you CAN move it around to give yourself cover from attackers, if you are going to force facing on the poor sap who uses the shield (who already cant attack) you might want to house rule he can attack anything not directly in that facing as well as its only fair.

If you are going to nerf something it would only be proper that you dont make it keep all of its drawbacks at the same time.

Panigg
2010-08-08, 05:40 AM
Facing is pointless, again you are spending all of your action and forgoing attacking so you CAN move it around to give yourself cover from attackers, if you are going to force facing on the poor sap who uses the shield (who already cant attack) you might want to house rule he can attack anything not directly in that facing as well as its only fair.

If you are going to nerf something it would only be proper that you dont make it keep all of its drawbacks at the same time.

I think if there is someone with a TS I'm just going with the FAQ. It's pretty good on explaining the use of a TS.

Besides, if they really want to go with a TS, they probably going to use some sort of homebrew PRC and I'll probably allow for some "use total cover as move action/swift action" shenanigans in that PRC.

Honsetly I think that isn't overpowered at all seeing as only fighters can use it without sacrificing a feat.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-08, 06:25 AM
The problem is that there are a LOT of people who adamantly refuse to do ANYTHING that isn't RAW, and, by RAW, a tower shield technically makes you invincible. A level 1 commoner can technically be totally invulnerable to the attacks of Asmodeus himself because he has total cover. And, technically, you can't even target him to disarm him or sunder or use a targeted spell because he has total cover.
Sunder targets an object. The SHIELD doesn't have cover.
any spell defeats it.
the guy is also useless for as long as he is under cover defense.

Seriously, if you are worried that you can't attack the guy with the tower shield...The only thing he's doing is to move. And you can get in his way since he won't be able to attack you, so no overrun/trample/bullrush.

Garian
2010-08-08, 08:05 AM
I just got a sort of crazy idea. Creating a build,starting as low level as possible that wielded two tower shields and used a breath weapon of gaze attack. My first idea on this was to make a fighter 1/sorcerer1 and take inheritence feats that let a sorcerer trade one of their spells per day into a moderator good breath weapon. Can't recall the feat name right now.

Maybe this belongs as it's own topic but does anyone else have an idea for a build like this?

Snake-Aes
2010-08-08, 08:13 AM
the covermode describes "You give up all your attacks to do so". Otherwise it's no different from just using a normal shield.

balistafreak
2010-08-08, 12:24 PM
I actually like a big shield that you *actually carry* as being, say, an Extreme Shield, and just giving everything that has proficiency in tower shields, Extreme shields instead...

This provision already exists in the rules. :smalltongue: Anyone with Tower Shield Proficiency can trade it for Exotic Shield Proficiency, as in Races of Stone. So your Fighter/Crusader can use an Extreme Shield just fine, just not a tower shield.