Tower Shields

[Amburst]

I want to push tower shields more in a game i am making. Should i lower the Armor Check Penalty to -5 from -10, or just make normal shields harder to find?

[Flickerdart]

Shields are a waste of time, anyway - making them rarer or more common will not change the fact. If you want people to use Tower Shields, make them not useless. Changing ACP will not make them not useless.

[Amburst]

Shields are a waste of time, anyway - making them rarer or more common will not change the fact. If you want people to use Tower Shields, make them not useless. Changing ACP will not make them not useless.

What would you do to make them not useless.

I'm throughing the pcs into a D-Day like scenerio almost right off the bat, and i was going to have people walk with tower shields in the front row to provide cover from arrows with archers popping out every now and again to take a shot.

[Luka]

you could make there be enough archers to kill them at once or drop them to low HP. Also, shields are NOT useless, it depends on the build the character has, I suggest finding some homebrewed material that could make shields more useful, like a PrC or game mechanics for the shields :smallwink:

[Flickerdart]

What would you do to make them not useless.

I'm throughing the pcs into a D-Day like scenerio almost right off the bat, and i was going to have people walk with tower shields in the front row to provide cover from arrows with archers popping out every now and again to take a shot.
That would only protect the shield wielders. The archers would still be exposed.


you could make there be enough archers to kill them at once or drop them to low HP. Also, shields are NOT useless, it depends on the build the character has, I suggest finding some homebrewed material that could make shields more useful, like a PrC or game mechanics for the shields :smallwink:
Shields are inferior to two-handing a weapon. Unless you build to use your shield as a weapon (Blood-Spiked Charger) comes to mind, or are a Crusader with the few shield maneuvers, a shield is actively detrimental. A Tower Shield is even worse than a regular shield, as it gives you a penalty on attack rolls AKA doing something useful.

[Amburst]

The place they are attacking has people shooting repeating crossbows with at least a 7 bolt clip.

I dont want a PrC, but if i must, i must. Different shield mechanics could work though

[Rubik]

If you want shields to be useful, have them give cover-based miss chances to the wielder and to everyone behind him. Tower shields should give an easy-to-use 30% miss chance, with enhancements boosting it.

And shields should be useful against spells as well. As it stands they do jack-squat unless they're magically enhanced (such as with Spell Turning).

[Amburst]

If you want shields to be useful, have them give cover-based miss chances to the wielder and to everyone behind him. Tower shields should give an easy-to-use 30% miss chance, with enhancements boosting it.

And shields should be useful against spells as well. As it stands they do jack-squat unless they're magically enhanced (such as with Spell Turning).

When i'm really wanting to encourage the tower shield will not involve many magics (aka mostly illusions or light damaging nonAOEs), so i'm not concerned about magically enhancing them.

The 3rd edition tower shield gives around 9/10 cover for its bearer usually and the idea of providing lesser cover to people behind them was already in my mind.

[Rubik]

When i'm really wanting to encourage the tower shield will not involve many magics (aka mostly illusions or light damaging nonAOEs), so i'm not concerned about magically enhancing them.

The 3rd edition tower shield gives around 9/10 cover for its bearer usually and the idea of providing lesser cover to people behind them was already in my mind.I meant, make shields actually give miss chances as standard, with magic able to make the miss chances higher.

I'd totally take a tower shield if it gave 30% miss chance off-the-rack, especially if it worked against acid arrows and such. And then you can set the shield to get total cover (but not one you can hide behind), and it'd be awesome.

...at least if you take off the oh-so-stupid penalty to attack rolls. Hell, you're already paying a feat tax to use it (or a class tax -- fighter, bleh).

So, yeah.

[Amburst]

Increasing the cover percents does side nice. And I'm not going to fully remove the penalty, just lessen it to a more acceptable amount.

[Larkas]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Testudo_formation.jpg

You're going for the testudo formation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testudo_formation), right? Just give everyone in formation 9/10 cover, or even full cover for those not in the front line.

That would work reasonably well in a D-Day deployment without firearms; catapults and spellslinging aside :smallsmile:

[Amburst]

Yea, i had been planing for a formation like that. Only i was going to have fewer rows of shields because of a lack of me for the assault

[Rubik]

Note that, as mentioned, shields do absolutely nothing against magic. At least tower shields should provide cover from touch and ranged touch attacks.

"What, my regular fire arrows can't hit the guy behind the giant wooden slab but the wizard's magic fire arrows can? What a crock of crap."

[Larkas]

Note that, as mentioned, shields do absolutely nothing against magic. At least tower shields should provide cover from touch and ranged touch attacks.

"What, my regular fire arrows can't hit the guy behind the giant wooden slab but the wizard's magic fire arrows can? What a crock of crap."

That always confused me. What about that story about a Fireball being blocked by a thin glass window?

[Amburst]

Note that, as mentioned, shields do absolutely nothing against magic. At least tower shields should provide cover from touch and ranged touch attacks.

"What, my regular fire arrows can't hit the guy behind the giant wooden slab but the wizard's magic fire arrows can? What a crock of crap."

Good point. Giving the shields buffs for light magics would be a good idea

[Larkas]

Namely, this story (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20070112). Isn't the tower shield a "solid barrier" when used for cover?

[Flickerdart]

That always confused me. What about that story about a Fireball being blocked by a thin glass window?
Fireball propagates if it can destroy an obstacle. Glass would be wiped out without effort.

[Larkas]

But a metal tower shield, specially if it is magical, wouldn't :smallconfused:

[nedz]

Generally, if you wanted shields to be useful you'd have to ban two handed weapons.

Bucklers are an exception to this because there are a couple of feats that allow you to use them, and still use both of your hands to fight.

Tower shields are useful for providing cover, but then you have to drop them to fight :smallconfused: This tactic is probably good at 1st level, or thereabouts; maybe a bit higher for a heal-bot ?

[Amburst]

I fully expect the shields to be dropped by any pc with one when they reach the bunker, but i want to nudge them to keep one.

What enchantments would you suggest putting on the shields?

[Rubik]

I fully expect the shields to be dropped by any pc with one when they reach the bunker, but i want to nudge them to keep one.

What enchantments would you suggest putting on the shields?Animated is the best one.

There really aren't many others beyond everbright (to prevent rust and acid damage).

[Amburst]

Animated is the best one.

There really aren't many others beyond everbright (to prevent rust and acid damage).

What about a minor orb of invunerability amde permament? It would block all third level and lower spells, which is the maximum level availible.

[Rubik]

What about a minor orb of invunerability amde permament? It would block all third level and lower spells, which is the maximum level availible.Is that an official thing, or homebrew? If the former, where? If the latter, yes, it'd make a good enhancement, though it'd be rather expensive.

[Dienekes]

Well first thing's first, the Tower Shield is meant to be a pavise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavise) not a scutum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scutum_%28shield%29) which would probably just be a large shield.

Anyway as for shields in DnD in general, they kind of suck at anywhere but the lowest levels of gameplay. Now I've been thinking of ways to make them better:

Double AC bonus and apply it to Reflex and Touch AC. It's simple and still not the best but it's something.

Giving a miss chance is also a good idea, but offers little protection against spells.

Allowing a user of a shield to straight up negate attacks can have potential. Maybe, give up an AOO to negate an attack each round.

Have part of the shield bonus apply to those around you, this stacks with other adjacent shield users, so shield walls and testudo formations can be used. Now this would unfortunately leave them all clustered and open to area of effect attacks, which again would make the bonus to Reflex Saves better.

[Amburst]

Opps, missed the "centered on you" part, so that idea doesn't work officially.