Tower Sheilds

[1Forge]

So I'm DM'ing a campaign and in the campaign theirs gonna be a huge battle, in the battle halflings will have an army and will use tower shields. I checked the book and there's nothing on them so i house ruled that tower shields act like normal shields but as a standard action (or a reaction with a DC equal to the enemy's Dex score) you can hide behind it providing full cover. Is this unbalanced, and if so what are your ideas?

Go to comment #24 to see my revised solution

[Naanomi]

Why would one ever use non-tower shields then? I'd say either treat them as thematically large shields (with standard shieldness) or portable cover that is too bulky to add AC 'normally'

[Giant2005]

I think the reaction thing is a touch overpowered but using a full action is less-so.

[1Forge]

How about disadvantage to dexterity checks while wearing one, or mabey -10 ft of speed? I feel the AC bonus is still important , and tower shields are defined as portibal cover. (also i did the reaction thing so when a volley of arrows is released from enemy soldiers they have a chance of moving fast enough to save themselves.

[Toadkiller]

Maybe drop speed too, - 10 to movement? Less important in a battle formation but makes the tower shield less attractive for solo use. Or, the bonus to AC/cover only applies when used in a formation?

[1Forge]

the -10 sounds okay, but im not making it only work in formation, then it would be flat out impossible for PC's to use if they ever felt so inclined. I'd also say -15 and you dont get the reaction if your not proficient with shields. Any other thoughts or is my halfling army ready to go crush some elvish/dwarvish border dispute?

[Giant2005]

i did the reaction thing so when a volley of arrows is released from enemy soldiers they have a chance of moving fast enough to save themselves.

I understand the principles behind it but that doesn't stop it from being extremely OP.
Think of all of the things it would obsolete when it comes to ranged combat: the Shield spell, the Monk's ability to deflect arrows, the Protection Fighting Style, the Defensive Duelist feat.
There are probably a lot more but that is enough to make the point. That point being: Why should someone carrying around a large piece of metal be better at it than all of those that have trained heavily to perform that same feat?
Not to mention the amount of damage it would do to ranged combat in general. Ranged combat would be so useless that any nation that even considers training their soldiers in ranged warfare should just save themselves the trouble of being conquered and cede themselves to their nearest rival.

If you want to make a Halfling army that can do the things you want them to do without completely changing the dynamic of the game, use one of those options that you will obsolete with your changes. Simply give them all the Protection Fighting Style and have them defend the man to their left, Spartan style, or give them the Defensive Duelist feat and that them look after their own skin.

[1Forge]

Okay what if they can also sacrifice their moving action to shield that way if a dude attacks them they can shield after, It would replace the reaction. Im just worried if i dont do something then the soldiers wont be able to attack because theyll be busy shielding from constant archer fire.
p.s. also i said they had to be proficient in these sheilds to gain the benifits so they would have to trin with it just like a monk, or a wizard.

[Slipperychicken]

You could try having it as a normal shield (+2 AC), but it requires heavy armor proficiency and a strength requirement (Str 13, not meeting it gives the wielder -10 to speed and disadvantage on some checks) and a proficient wielder can give himself half cover (i.e. extra +2 to AC and dex saves) with it in exchange for disadvantage on attacks for that round.

Also, I think total cover is absurd. At the most generous interpretation, I'd say three-quarters cover since the user's legs (and most likely head and weapon-arm) are generally still visible. If the user was completely stationary and willing to accept auto-failing perception checks to see past the shield (basically hiding behind it), he might get total cover from one direction, while enemies could either attack the shield or move around it.

[Giant2005]

Okay what if they can also sacrifice their moving action to shield that way if a dude attacks them they can shield after, It would replace the reaction. Im just worried if i dont do something then the soldiers wont be able to attack because theyll be busy shielding from constant archer fire.
p.s. also i said they had to be proficient in these sheilds to gain the benifits so they would have to trin with it just like a monk, or a wizard.

I'm not sure I even understand what you are envisioning anymore.
I thought it was a bunch of Halflings marching toward their enemy and protecting themselves from a rain of arrows as they do so. I just don't follow how counter-attacking fits into that scenario. Are you saying that you want them to be able to raise their shield to render themselves immune from ranged attacks, lower them and return fire with ranged attacks of their own before raising the shields again and rendering themselves immune once more?
If so, that would be exceptionally broken if not for the fact that the enemy would obviously also being using the same form of invincibility. In that case, it just renders ranged combat entirely ineffective and ultimately pointless. The situation as presented couldn't occur because ranged combat would no longer exist - the invention of the tower shield would have forced all nations and individuals across the planet to abandon the tactic and return to 100% melee deployment.
What is more broken and significantly so is the aspect of immersion. Everyone's turns within the 6 second round are being performed concurrently - the shield bearers don't get to wait for a break in incoming arrows to lower their guard and return fire because those firing their arrows are doing so constantly. To be able to use the shield to provide cover from the unrelenting arrow fire while also simultaneously not being behind cover so you can shoot them; would require some kind of metaphysical character class called Schrödinger's Shield Bearer: The Shield Bearer that is both covered and uncovered simultaneously.

[jaydubs]

If I wanted to represent tower shield infantry wading in through arrow fire, I'd just give them a more limited form of the Aggressive feature that NPC Orcs get. Something along the lines of:

Shielded Charge
When the creature is wielding a shield and uses the Dodge action, it can move up to its speed toward a hostile creature it can see as a bonus action.

So instead of introducing a tower shield with its own special rules, halfling tower shield infantry just have a special ability to let them advance at speed while dodging. And when describing them in action, you reflavor the usual dodging for holding their shields in a defensive formation.

I mean, that was one of the big changes in 5e. NPCs don't have to follow the same rules as PCs. Instead of risking unbalancing the whole system, just slap a limited special ability that covers the specific tactic you want to represent.

[Lonely Tylenol]

You could try having it as a normal shield (+2 AC), but it requires heavy armor proficiency and a strength requirement (Str 13, not meeting it gives the wielder -10 to speed and disadvantage on some checks) and a proficient wielder can give himself half cover (i.e. extra +2 to AC and dex saves) with it in exchange for disadvantage on attacks for that round.

I feel like this is the sanest option. Shields, as-is, confer a +2 bonus to AC with the trade-off of taking up an arm (and thus lowering damage); shields don't have the traditional drawbacks of most armor, which is a Str requirement and disadvantage on Stealth checks. Giving the tower shield a strength requirement and, say, disadvantage on Stealth checks would allow you to give it a buff (cover in exchange for disadvantage on attacks sounds reasonable) while remaining internally consistent with the system as we know it throughout.

[MrStabby]

I feel like this is the sanest option. Shields, as-is, confer a +2 bonus to AC with the trade-off of taking up an arm (and thus lowering damage); shields don't have the traditional drawbacks of most armor, which is a Str requirement and disadvantage on Stealth checks. Giving the tower shield a strength requirement and, say, disadvantage on Stealth checks would allow you to give it a buff (cover in exchange for disadvantage on attacks sounds reasonable) while remaining internally consistent with the system as we know it throughout.

I would suggest making it a fighting style that lets you use your shield in this way. This means not everyone can do it and those that can at least have to sacrifice something. It would still be very effective though.

[Malifice]

So I'm DM'ing a campaign and in the campaign theirs gonna be a huge battle, in the battle halflings will have an army and will use tower shields. I checked the book and there's nothing on them so i house ruled that tower shields act like normal shields but as a standard action (or a reaction with a DC equal to the enemy's Dex score) you can hide behind it providing full cover. Is this unbalanced, and if so what are your ideas?

Horribly OP mate.

Make them shields with the following qualities:

Defensive: On your turn you may duck behind your tower shield as a bonus action. If you do so, choose one melee or ranged attack made against you before the start of your next turn. This attack is made with disadvantage.

Bulky: Tower shields are heavy. Your speed is reduced by 5' when you are carrying a tower shield.

Gives them an opportunity cost, and a drawback for the benefit.

[Mr.Moron]

I'd spitball something like this.

Tower Shield
This large massive shield is too bulky to use for rapid defense but can allow a prepared defender to gain extra protection.


A Tower Shield provides no benefit for AC but you count as using a shield for all spells and abilities that reference shields. (Including those that increase the AC benefit of your shield, a tower shield effectively provides a bonus of +0).
While using a Tower Shield you can dodge as a bonus action ducking behind it for protection. When you do so, you can use a strength saving throw in place of dexterity saving throw as a reaction until your next turn.

[darkscizor]

What about this?

Tower Shield
This large, bulky, 8-lb. shield costs 20gp and is usually used by groups of soldiers, who hold them high to give cover from ranged attacks.

Qualities:

A tower shield reduces it's wielder's speed by 10 feet (2 squares).

Bracing a tower shield against attacks gives half-cover, a +2 to AC, and requires the wielder's round and one hand when held for this ability.

A tower shield grants a +3 to Armor Class. You can gain this bonus from only one tower shield at a time, and you cannot stack this bonus with other shields. You require one hand to hold the shield and gain this bonus to AC.




This solves OP "full-cover" arguments, and gives a higher bonus to AC than normal shields. +5 to AC and half-cover seems like an appropriate exchange for the player's action. What do you think?

[Shining Wrath]

The Tower Shield ought to be a trade of superb protection against reduced mobility. It also ought to only be useful in a formation; that is, a solo fighter should not want to use a target shield, it's too easy for someone to maneuver around it. As people have pointed out, it's a cumbersome thing; effectively, you are carrying a small wall around.

So here's what I go with:

The tower shield grants +4 to AC.
The tower shield grants 1/2 cover against ranged fire.
The tower shield reduces your speed by 10'.
Unless you have at least two allies who are not incapacitated adjacent to you, all melee attacks against you are made with Advantage.


It's incredibly powerful in a phalanx. No one in their right mind carries one into a dungeon, unless you've got a large party.

EDIT:

You may sacrifice your entire move to gain +6 to AC, 3/4 cover against ranged fire. If you do so, you grant advantage to melee attacks regardless of any nearby allies. Cowering behind your shield is a useful response to archery, but woe betide you if the archers have infantry in their van.

[Once a Fool]

I think the best way to represent its bulk and it's added protection is simple.

It's a shield (so, all related options and limitations apply) that grants +0 to AC, but allows the wielder to dodge as a bonus action.

No need to worry about special rules for using it in formation; protection style already has that covered (so to speak).

[AgentPaper]

Tower shield: +2 AC. If you are not proficient or have less than 13 strength, reduces speed by 10 feet and grants disadvantage on dexterity checks. When you use the dodge action, you gain partial cover (+2 AC) against ranged attacks from any source you can see.

Fighters, paladins and war clerics are proficient.

Seems like the most straightforward option. Gives another perk for playing a strength-based shield user, without making normal shields obsolete.

[Shining Wrath]

Think OP wants to have a formation something like this.

http://badassoftheweek.com/images/158183026542/boudicca1.jpg

[CNagy]

So I'm DM'ing a campaign and in the campaign theirs gonna be a huge battle, in the battle halflings will have an army and will use tower shields. I checked the book and there's nothing on them so i house ruled that tower shields act like normal shields but as a standard action (or a reaction with a DC equal to the enemy's Dex score) you can hide behind it providing full cover. Is this unbalanced, and if so what are your ideas?

This is just some crazy spitballing, but Tower Shields are best in formation--so how about:

+0 Armor Class bonus (this shield is unwieldy and awkward compared to the standard shield)
You may use a bonus action to gain half cover. You lose this cover if you move.
Formation Bonus: If at least 3 allies within 5' have Tower Shield cover, your partial cover becomes three-quarters cover.

[Slipperychicken]

This is just some crazy spitballing, but Tower Shields are best in formation--so how about:

+0 Armor Class bonus (this shield is unwieldy and awkward compared to the standard shield)
You may use a bonus action to gain half cover. You lose this cover if you move.
Formation Bonus: If at least 3 allies within 5' have Tower Shield cover, your partial cover becomes three-quarters cover.

That's extreme. They were heavy, but not that heavy. The heaviest roman scutum was 22 pounds (compared to 13-15lb of other big shields) and was routinely held above the head or used to batter enemies away. For a fit soldier who has been trained to use it, that kind of weight distributed on the forearm is not an issue.

[CNagy]

That's extreme. They were heavy, but not that heavy. The heaviest roman scutum was 22 pounds (compared to 13-15lb of other big shields) and was routinely held above the head or used to batter enemies away. For a fit soldier who has been trained to use it, that kind of weight distributed on the forearm is not an issue.

Extreme, perhaps, but I think it is mechanically necessary. We are still dealing with bounded accuracy--anything that introduces a reliable and portable source of cover is already running the risk of throwing the numbers out of balance. Introducing the tower shield means that while negating cover still costs a feat (and even then, only for ranged attacks), providing cover just costs some coin.

And that's just attacks against AC. When considering the balance of the item overall, the fact that cover is going to provide a lot of protection against damaging AoE spells on the battlefield needs to be taken into consideration.

[1Forge]

I have read al your comments and heres what ill use.

Tower sheilds require proficeincy to receive any bouns

As a standard action you can gain 3/5 cover from non-magical ranged attacks in one direction (thats +5 right?) Doing this provokes an opportunity attack to a melee enemy within 5 ft

When in a formation of at least four you impose disadvantage to ranged attacks from one direction (my logic is a few lucky arrows could still break through a sloppy formation)

The +2 stands (my logic is soldiers have trained with these for years and are accustomed with them enough to use them as efficiently as a simple buckler)

Tower shields give disadvantage to all stealth, and acrobatics checks.

When hiding behind the shield for cover you receive disadvantage to all perception checks

When hiding behind a shield you cannot attack without forfeiting cover.

Tower shields drop your base land speed by 10ft and underwater by 25ft

Does that seem fair? p.s. thanks for all the comments i didnt expect this much response.

[Yagyujubei]

so to reign it in make the full cover feature only apply for ranged attacks, and impose some penalty (the movement penalty seems fine to me)

[1Forge]

Also I'd say you can move an extra 5ft if you lower your cover to half (like a force trying to rush an enemy and getting sloppy with the sheilds.)

Edit: Actually scratch that you can sprint but you lose cover, ill let them keep the +2 ac if they want to sprint.

Edit #2: Also ill say it provokes an opportunity attack from archers (that'll discourage it)

[Daishain]

I would have them declare a direction to take cover from. They get full cover in a 60 degree arc directly in front of the shield, half cover in a pair of 60 degree arcs adjacent to the first, and no cover, not even the standard AC bonus, from the sides and back. Judgement to be applied if a height differential is also in play.

This would keep the tower shield useful without completely invalidating ranged combatants. It also encourages careful placement, while being a fair bit more realistic.

[1Forge]

Good idea Daishan That would work great with my online campagn (y know their on a combat board and stuff) but when i dont have a board ill just use my DM powers of imagination to determine the angle of the shot.
And also you brought up a good point when you are taking cover behind the shield you don't receive the +2 to AC from behind you seeing as you get a +5 to cover, and your not actively using it to protect your back.

Edit: Oh also the reason im no longer giving full cover from the front is that tower shields though they are bigger, still dont cover all of your body completely, also there have been accounts of arrows piercing through the wood of shields historicly, and though its unlikely, with a high enough roll from an archer they could still be pegged. And because a +5 from cover and a +2 in proficiency is +7, which means you have to fail pretty badly to get hit already.

[Kane0]

Regular +2 to ac and as an action you can give yourself cover (another +2 ac and dex saves) until your next turn.
Must be proficient in heavy armor and shields, plus have 13 str minimim.
Also gives disadvantage on stealth checks.
/2cp