Durable Tower Shields

[Eladrinblade]

One of a fighter's options is a tower shield, which he can use to gain total cover. This has the potential to completely block certain affects, like lightning bolts and dragons breath, but the shields hardness is only 5, and its HP is only 20. Now, with fire and lightning (and cold especially), the damage dealt to objects is reduced, but still; it doesn't take a whole lot to get through a tower shield.

How could a fighter make his shield more durable in this manner? The closer to core the solution is, the happier I'll be with it, but I'm open to anything rules-legal.

Please leave all "fighters suck!" comments at the door, I'm aware of all the arguments.

[Hamste]

Enchanted items are more durable, adamantine and the spell hardness (3.0 unless if they updated it somewhere though) are good ways to increase the durableness. Or you could just hope the Dm forgets just how weak shields are for hp and never things to attack it directly.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Steel Tower Shield, Races of Stone. Steel has Hardness 10 and its HP per inch of thickness is three times that of wood. Therefore, a Steel Tower Shield has Hardness 10 and 60 HP. Keep in mind that most energy damage is halved against objects, before hardness gets applied.

Also keep in mind that Cover does not automatically block effects, it only gives you a +2 to Reflex saves. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#cover) Fireball is a spread effect, which completely ignores cover so you don't even get the +2 bonus from it.

[Eladrinblade]

adamantine

I forgot that enchanted items are more durable, but tower shields are supposed to be made of wood, right?

[Eladrinblade]

Also keep in mind that Cover does not automatically block effects, it only gives you a +2 to Reflex saves. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#cover) Fireball is a spread effect, which completely ignores cover so you don't even get the +2 bonus from it.

Tower shields can grant total cover, if you forfeit your attacks.

[Maginomicon]

Well first off, correct me if I'm wrong, but most spells (not the damage type itself, it's a property of the spell) don't affect objects unless they explicitly say they affect objects. Fire damage (such as from mundane fire or from many creatures' fire-based attacks) can damage a tower shield, sure, but a fireball spell only affects creatures and unattended objects AFAIK, by RAW. It's a property of spells specifically. Even if the spell can affect objects, only by botching the saving throw (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#itemsSurvivingafteraSavingTh row) can a set tower shield be damaged since it's "attended". It's also important to note that the 3.5 FAQ goes into detail about exactly how to use a tower shield in-practice. Most significantly, it takes a standard action to gain total cover from a tower shield, so you can't do that and fight.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Tower shields can grant total cover, if you forfeit your attacks.

It grants total cover from one direction, so a Spread effect can still wrap around it and hit you.

[Spuddles]

If your DM wont let you use a mithral or adamantine tower shield, you could try one made from ironwood or bronzewood (ECS).


It grants total cover from one direction, so a Spread effect can still wrap around it and hit you.

Dragon's breath, however, is a burst, as are a cleric's turn/rebuke attempts. Just be aware of what sort of attacks are being used.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

There is a printed Steel Tower Shield in Races of Stone, it specifically says anyone proficient with the PHB Tower Shield can use that as well.
"Only weapons, armor, and shields normally made of metal can be fashioned from adamantine." This one is 'normally made from metal' and so you can definitely get one made from Adamantine.

[mattie_p]

It grants total cover from one direction, so a Spread effect can still wrap around it and hit you.

Unfortunately (or fortunately for the fighter, perhaps), with 3.5 there are no facing rules, so cover is in all directions unless specified otherwise.

[Eladrinblade]

I think that this:


Enchanted items are more durable.

Combined with this:


Keep in mind that most energy damage is halved against objects, before hardness gets applied.

Might do the trick, at least until higher levels.


Well first off, correct me if I'm wrong, but most spells (not the damage type itself, it's a property of the spell) don't affect objects unless they explicitly say they affect objects. Fire damage (such as from mundane fire or from many creatures' fire-based attacks) can damage a tower shield, sure, but a fireball spell only affects creatures and unattended objects AFAIK, by RAW. It's a property of spells specifically. Even if the spell can affect objects, only by botching the saving throw (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#itemsSurvivingafteraSavingTh row) can a set tower shield be damaged since it's "attended". It's also important to note that the 3.5 FAQ goes into detail about exactly how to use a tower shield in-practice. Most significantly, it takes a standard action to gain total cover from a tower shield, so you can't do that and fight.

I want to say I read somewhere the spells like lightning bolt and fireball can break through doors if they deal enough damage to destroy them.


ironwood

I didn't think of this, but I see that it's a 6th level, druid-only spell that cannot be permanencied. Not a huge problem though.

[Maginomicon]

Unfortunately (or fortunately for the fighter, perhaps), with 3.5 there are no facing rules, so cover is in all directions unless specified otherwise.
There may not be facing rules, but there are rules for facing explicitly for the purposes of using a tower shield. They're detailed at the same source I mentioned earlier.

[Glimbur]

Riverine, from Stormwrack? I'm too lazy to go check if it's legal, but it makes items very difficult to break.

[ArcturusV]

Isn't the premise of the cover as a whole rendered kinda pointless? It's one of those things I dislike about Tower Shields in general, that they gave this stupid rule to it:

"The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can still cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding." ~Player's Handbook description of Tower Shields

So that means the only thing it's providing cover against is other fighters, more or less. Shield spell may stop a Magic Missile, but an actual shield being used as cover won't. Similarly it won't stop things like a Lightning Bolt, Fireball, etc. Won't even save you from having some Wizard cast a suck spell like Flesh to Stone, etc.

I mean a mundane arrow basically is never going to do enough damage to actually break through a shield's hardness and HP (And probably wasn't a real threat unless you're level 1-3). And a spell that might actually break it, is already bypassing the shield anyway...

Just one of those silly rules that I don't like.

[TuggyNE]

I want to say I read somewhere the spells like lightning bolt and fireball can break through doors if they deal enough damage to destroy them.

They can. But those are unattended objects. The difference is substantial.


Isn't the premise of the cover as a whole rendered kinda pointless? It's one of those things I dislike about Tower Shields in general, that they gave this stupid rule to it:

"The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can still cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding." ~Player's Handbook description of Tower Shields

So that means the only thing it's providing cover against is other fighters, more or less. Shield spell may stop a Magic Missile, but an actual shield being used as cover won't. Similarly it won't stop things like a Lightning Bolt, Fireball, etc.

Lightning bolt, fireball, and so forth are not targeted spells: they do not have a Target: line. In fact, I think even rays and orbs aren't targeted spells in that sense. (Their effects are targeted, but the spells themselves are effect spells.)

[CyberThread]

Personally, I say put armored spikes on said object, including the bottom rim, and attack the ground, so that it faces the direction you want, and now it is stuck in the ground, making it an unattended object ..aka...just another wall that you can hide behind.

Another imporant bit, is the good and often forgotten spell buckle, which has a scroll stapled to the inside of the buckle, which you can read off, and not spend a turn finding an item and all that.


Use that mechanics to put on the inside of your newly made wall, to create an even bigger wall, or make a fortified position of some sort, that alters the area around the shield, like wall of stone or something cheezy like brambles :P

[mattie_p]

There may not be facing rules, but there are rules for facing explicitly for the purposes of using a tower shield. They're detailed at the same source I mentioned earlier.

Are you, perchance, referring to the FAQ? Do note that source is not considered RAW by everyone (including myself - I identified what I believe to be at least one RAW error in the FAQ in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=289930). The FAQ is probably useful for helping determine RAI in cases where the RAW is confusing, but I do not believe that it is a rules source.)

[Maginomicon]

Are you, perchance, referring to the FAQ? Do note that source is not considered RAW by everyone (including myself - I identified what I believe to be at least one RAW error in the FAQ in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=289930). The FAQ is probably useful for helping determine RAI in cases where the RAW is confusing, but I do not believe that it is a rules source.)
So what? The "rules" for tower shields in the SRD are so vague and useless that the FAQ description MUST be considered RAI, and RAI is all that matters in the end.

[Spuddles]

Isn't the premise of the cover as a whole rendered kinda pointless? It's one of those things I dislike about Tower Shields in general, that they gave this stupid rule to it:

"The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can still cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding." ~Player's Handbook description of Tower Shields

So that means the only thing it's providing cover against is other fighters, more or less. Shield spell may stop a Magic Missile, but an actual shield being used as cover won't. Similarly it won't stop things like a Lightning Bolt, Fireball, etc. Won't even save you from having some Wizard cast a suck spell like Flesh to Stone, etc.

I mean a mundane arrow basically is never going to do enough damage to actually break through a shield's hardness and HP (And probably wasn't a real threat unless you're level 1-3). And a spell that might actually break it, is already bypassing the shield anyway...

Just one of those silly rules that I don't like.

Magic Missile explicitly flies around cover and obstacles to strike targets. Fireball is a spread, so it goes around obstacles. Line effects stop at obstacles, as do emanations and bursts.