Tower Shield penalty to hit

[Yogibear41]

Is there anyway to offset/remove the -2 to hit while using a tower shield?

[FinnDarkblade]

I believe Masterwork would reduce it to -1. Nevermind, I didn't notice you said to-hit. The only thing I can come up with so far is using the Steel Tower Shield from Races of Stone, making it out of Mithril, and asking your DM nicely. Although in that case I suppose you could just use Darkwood on the normal one.

[holywhippet]

I think the animated enchantment might work. It makes the shield float nearby and still act like a normal shield. The animated description does say:


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.

I'm not sure if that applies since the -2 to hit penalty is based on encumbrance.

[TuggyNE]

I'm not sure if that applies since the -2 to hit penalty is based on encumbrance.

It sure seems to be a "penalty associated with shield use" from here.

[holywhippet]

It sure seems to be a "penalty associated with shield use" from here.

Yeah, but to me it means the regular penalties rather than the one specific to the tower shield. Then again I can't figure out why most of those penalties are being applied either.

[TuggyNE]

Yeah, but to me it means the regular penalties rather than the one specific to the tower shield. Then again I can't figure out why most of those penalties are being applied either.

They're being applied to prevent precisely this sort of (ab)use: using Animated to get rid of any penalty or hindrance at all except the intended "this shield occupies a hand I need for something else". Animated does one thing, and one thing only.

[rexx1888]

yeah, except that animated is an expensive enchantment, so why did the designers decide it needs a limiter like that on it. Honestly, this is a problem with much of 3.5. You pay some form of cost to gain something (such as a feat or money or time etc) and then the designers decided they still needed to kick you in the nuts for it(for example, monkey grip). Its a ****house thing to do to a bunch of players honestly :\ another good example is the tower shield there. Just to use it most characters have to dump another feat into it, so why does it have to be a pain to use, the romans didnt seem to have too much trouble murdering people with it.....

[holywhippet]

Ah, well on the subject of the Romans, they were using it when fighting in formations. They were not necessarily great fighters, what they were great soldiers. Those shields were to effectively create a mobile wall they could hide behind and stab out from. The encumbrance problem wouldn't have worried them too much as they weren't going to be flanked as a rule and could just keep fighting on their own terms.

I think they penalize the tower shield like that because it has such a nice AC bonus and can make a fighter type really hard to hit.

[Greenish]

yeah, except that animated is an expensive enchantment, so why did the designers decide it needs a limiter like that on it.Maybe because it's already so useful?

[Rakaydos]

Ah, well on the subject of the Romans, they were using it when fighting in formations. They were not necessarily great fighters, what they were great soldiers. Those shields were to effectively create a mobile wall they could hide behind and stab out from. The encumbrance problem wouldn't have worried them too much as they weren't going to be flanked as a rule and could just keep fighting on their own terms.

I think they penalize the tower shield like that because it has such a nice AC bonus and can make a fighter type really hard to hit.

Roman legionarres were Rogues. With Improved grapple. Press into their square to deny dex and to deny use of larger weapons, then stab repeatedly with short blades and sneak attack.

[AstralFire]

Ah, well on the subject of the Romans, they were using it when fighting in formations. They were not necessarily great fighters, what they were great soldiers. Those shields were to effectively create a mobile wall they could hide behind and stab out from. The encumbrance problem wouldn't have worried them too much as they weren't going to be flanked as a rule and could just keep fighting on their own terms.

I think they penalize the tower shield like that because it has such a nice AC bonus and can make a fighter type really hard to hit.

The tower shield really needs more to distinguish it than what it gets; it's situationally useful at low levels, but just not compelling at higher ones.

[FinnDarkblade]

The tower shield really needs more to distinguish it than what it gets; it's situationally useful at low levels, but just not compelling at higher ones.

Is any basic, non-magical piece of equipment compelling at high levels?

[holywhippet]

Is any basic, non-magical piece of equipment compelling at high levels?

Spell component pouch? Without it spell casters can't assume they have the components they require for casting their spells.

[FinnDarkblade]

Spell component pouch? Without it spell casters can't assume they have the components they require for casting their spells.

Yeah they can, there's a low-level conjuration spell that creates components. Here (http://dndtools.eu/spells/complete-mage--58/summon-component--790/) it is, and it's even a swift action. Or heck, if you want to get really simple, Eschew Materials.

No high-level caster is going to leave themselves vulnerable to losing access to a lot of their spells by having an item destroyed or stolen.

[Blackhawk748]

Honestly i always forget that the Tower shield does this, so most of the time i never enforce the rule, its not like the shield is game breaking or anything. Oh and the Hide shield from, Sandstorm i think, gives a +3 AC -3 ACP and allows you to still take cover, no penalty on attack and its not Exotic

[holywhippet]

Yeah they can, there's a low-level conjuration spell that creates components. Here (http://dndtools.eu/spells/complete-mage--58/summon-component--790/) it is, and it's even a swift action. Or heck, if you want to get really simple, Eschew Materials.

No high-level caster is going to leave themselves vulnerable to losing access to a lot of their spells by having an item destroyed or stolen.

That takes up a level 1 spell slot though. Even if they filled all of their level 1 slots with that spell they still wouldn't have enough castings to cast all of their other spells. It would work as an emergency measure, but it's far more likely a spell caster will keep a few spell component pouches as backups.

[Sayt]

Pathfinder has the Tower Shield Specialist (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter/archetypes/paizo---fighter-archetypes/tower-shield-specialist), which negates the penalty at level five, and gives a better ACP reduction while using a tower shield (But also applies to other armour you're wearing.)

[FinnDarkblade]

That takes up a level 1 spell slot though. Even if they filled all of their level 1 slots with that spell they still wouldn't have enough castings to cast all of their other spells. It would work as an emergency measure, but it's far more likely a spell caster will keep a few spell component pouches as backups.

Well, you could use scrolls of the spell inside an infinite scroll case but it's true that it's not as convenient as the pouch. Still, low levels has Eschew Materials and then in Epic there's Ignore Material Components. But we're getting off-topic so I'm going to leave this line of inquiry here.

[Slipperychicken]

The tower shield really needs more to distinguish it than what it gets; it's situationally useful at low levels, but just not compelling at higher ones.

Total cover at will is nothing to sneeze at. If you use it a 5ft hallway in front of a friendly reach-weapon user? You can let him stab with impunity.

[No brains]

Don't forget the cloaking field exploit!

When you have total cover, you have total concealment. When you have total concealment, so do all the items you possess. :smalltongue:

As for the topic at hand, hide shield seems like a good compromise. Also, using touch/flat-footed attacks with the tower shield like the other guy mentioned makes the penalty matter less. At first level, if you have a tower shield and you grapple an enemy, that +4 AC will make sure nobody else interferes with you.

[Maginomicon]

A wand of shieldbearer (Spell Compendium, p188) is far cheaper and IIRC does what you want.

[AstralFire]

Is any basic, non-magical piece of equipment compelling at high levels?

Wrong question. The right question is, "is there a meaningful difference in most play between different types of weapons?" and the answer there is yes - reach or no reach, one handed or two handed are big differences in weapons.

By contrast, there uh... isn't really a big difference in what type of shield you're using most of the time, even if you really try.

[TuggyNE]

Yeah they can, there's a low-level conjuration spell that creates components. Here (http://dndtools.eu/spells/complete-mage--58/summon-component--790/) it is, and it's even a swift action. Or heck, if you want to get really simple, Eschew Materials.

That's painful. Spell slots (even first-level) and swift actions don't come free, you know. And a feat slot is even worse.


No high-level caster is going to leave themselves vulnerable to losing access to a lot of their spells by having an item destroyed or stolen.

Of course not. That's why any self-respecting high-level caster has at least a dozen of the things. :smalltongue:

[FinnDarkblade]

Of course not. That's why any self-respecting high-level caster has at least a dozen of the things. :smalltongue:


Wrong question. The right question is, "is there a meaningful difference in most play between different types of weapons?" and the answer there is yes - reach or no reach, one handed or two handed are big differences in weapons.

Alright, alright. I cede the point on this one. Although I'd still say it's completely viable to go without a spell component pouch at high levels by using the scroll method. You could even hold the case in Gloves of the Master Strategist to protect it. But it definitely wouldn't be as efficient.

[Epsilon Rose]

Alright, alright. I cede the point on this one. Although I'd still say it's completely viable to go without a spell component pouch at high levels by using the scroll method. You could even hold the case in Gloves of the Master Strategist to protect it. But it definitely wouldn't be as efficient.

Wouldn't using a scroll have the same problem as the pouch (it's an obvious point of failure that your opponent can destroy) while also eating up swift actions (that could otherwise be spent casting quickened spells?
That said, aren't there items or planar touch stones that will give you eschew materials for 'free'?

[Thurbane]

Off the top of my head, the only thing I have seen that removes the -2 to hit penalty was levels in the Hobgoblin Racial Paragon class - unfortunately, this well written piece of homebrew appears to have lost it's way off the internet.

[FinnDarkblade]

Wouldn't using a scroll have the same problem as the pouch (it's an obvious point of failure that your opponent can destroy) while also eating up swift actions (that could otherwise be spent casting quickened spells?
That said, aren't there items or planar touch stones that will give you eschew materials for 'free'?

The destruction bit is why I said to put the case in Gloves of the Master Strategist. But like I said, it's definitely not as efficient.

[Slipperychicken]

I don't know. Once you have a good attack bonus, trading off a -2 to hit for at will Total Cover is a pretty good deal. Rather than removing the penalty, it would probably be more efficient for you to just increase your attack bonus normally.

[Epsilon Rose]

The destruction bit is why I said to put the case in Gloves of the Master Strategist. But like I said, it's definitely not as efficient.

Yeah, but you can't use the scrolls while they're in your glove. You might as well just put the pouch in the same glove.

[FinnDarkblade]

Yeah, but you can't use the scrolls while they're in your glove. You might as well just put the pouch in the same glove.

The one benefit of having the infinite scroll case in the glove is that it also gives you relatively quick access to any other scrolls you're carrying.
*note* I've already ceded the point and agreed that it's not as efficient as the spellpouch. What are you trying to get at?

[AstralFire]

I don't know. Once you have a good attack bonus, trading off a -2 to hit for at will Total Cover is a pretty good deal. Rather than removing the penalty, it would probably be more efficient for you to just increase your attack bonus normally.

At-will total cover that makes you give up your attacks and does nothing against targeted spells. A useful tradeoff at lower levels, but not at all at higher ones.

[Rubik]

At-will total cover that makes you give up your attacks and does nothing against targeted spells. A useful tradeoff at lower levels, but not at all at higher ones. The only way I can see this working is by getting a collar of perpetual attendance and having the unseen servant wield the tower shield for you.

[Person_Man]

A +2 bonus to hit is mechanically exactly the same as negating the -2 penalty to hit. You can gain bonuses to hit from a huge variety of sources.

[Slipperychicken]

At-will total cover that makes you give up your attacks and does nothing against targeted spells. A useful tradeoff at lower levels, but not at all at higher ones.

I mean, it's not as good as full-attacking most of the time, but it's fantastic if you ever need to not get hit, like if a nonmagical opponent beats you down to 2hp and it's clear that the next full attack would kill you.

Would it be possible to full-attack, then use an extra standard action (such as from a Belt of Battle or the Factotum's Cunning Surge) to use to tower shield's cover?

[AstralFire]

I mean, it's not as good as full-attacking most of the time, but it's fantastic if you ever need to not get hit, like if a nonmagical opponent beats you down to 2hp and it's clear that the next full attack would kill you.

Would it be possible to full-attack, then use an extra standard action (such as from a Belt of Battle or the Factotum's Cunning Surge) to use to tower shield's cover?

As far as I know (I don't have Rules Compendium and I'm not sure if there's an FAQ ruling) there is no action specified for how giving up your attacks works. It's not clear to me whether you have to give up your attacks for that round before declaring that you're using it for cover, or if you can instead give up your attacks for the next round, but the former makes more sense to me. No amount of action economy shenanigans would seem to circumvent that.

[Epsilon Rose]

The one benefit of having the infinite scroll case in the glove is that it also gives you relatively quick access to any other scrolls you're carrying.
*note* I've already ceded the point and agreed that it's not as efficient as the spellpouch. What are you trying to get at?

Mostly just trying to make sure I understand things correctly.