Shield question [3.5]

[KingoftheTrees]

This post is regarding shield usage for a ranged attacker/cleric/anyone who would want two hands free... Kind of a general question.

I was reading the cleric optimization board over at brilliantgameologists.com, and he brought up a good idea for a shield. Having an animated heavy shield with shield spikes that are made into magical weapons and then given the Defending property. My question to everyone is, how practical is this? Defending says that you have to declare how much of the enhancement you are using as an AC bonus at the beginning of your round as a free action. Would this be your free action for the round? (I'm a little unclear as to what all constitutes a "free action" and how many you are allowed a round) With this plan, you could have a +1 Animated heavy shield with +1 Defending shield spikes, cast magic Vestment on the shield itself (for up to +5 bonus) and Greater Magic Weapon on the shield spikes (again, up to +5 bonus) for a total of +12 shield AC. Let's make it Mithral for a 0 armor check penalty.

Another question is: How useful would a Variable Tower Shield be? You could have the tower shield be any size you want (buckler to tower) as a swift action. You cannot add shield spikes to it (according to the PHB) because bucklers and tower shields cannot have them. BUT the upside to a tower shield is that you can claim cover/total cover by sacrificing a standard action, meaning (I may be wrong with this) that you could essentially enter combat with no attacks of opportunity...? Say you're a cleric with the sun domain and you want to get next to something and cast Prismatic Sphere, would that strategy work? Also, being able to have a magic buckler would give you a 0 armor check penalty.

Which do you think would be better and why?

[erikun]

You have no limit to the number of free actions you can take in a round. The DM might impose a limit on this if they feel the rule is being abuses (ie. swapping stuff into/out of gloves of storing). I think this is almost a verbatum quote from the PHB, at that.

There is technically nothing wrong with using the Defending properity on shield spikes for the AC bonus, thus getting +12 AC out of a +5 Large Shield with +5 Defending Spikes. Some DMs may not go for it, saying you need to be attacking with the shield spikes to use the Defending properity. You could counter with the example of a +5 Defending dagger parrying in the off-hand, but it generally isn't a good idea to get into such arguments with the DM over things like this. You will likely find all "boss" opponents wearing armor studded with +5 Defending spikes if you do.

I thought there was some limitation to using two-handed weapons with Animated shields, although I could be wrong.

As for your other question, you are 100% correct. You may take full cover behind a Tower Shield and move without provoking Attacks of Opportunity.

Darkwood Bucklers have -0 skill check penality.

[KingoftheTrees]

I wasn't sure what limit there was, if any to that. Do you know what page that is on?

The defending property doesn't specify that you have to be attacking with said weapon... The article I read actually proposed the use of Shield spikes, Armor spikes, AND gauntlets with the Defending property, since it specifies that the bonus is "unnamed and stacks with all others". My DM takes the "what's good for the goose..." approach to gaming. If we find a rule or anything that benefits us, then he applies it to all of his beasties. I'm sure he would be ok with one of his players doing this as long as no ones complains when one of his bosses comes out with the same items.

The only limitation with animated shields is that you still keep the armor check penalty, which is why a mithral heavy shield would be a good idea.

[erikun]

Page 138-139 of the PHB says "Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort, and over the span of the round, their impact is so minor that they are considered free. You can perform one of more free actions while taking another action normally. However, the DM puts reasonable limites on what you can really do for free." It is under Actions in Combat > Action Types > Free Action, the second boldface word on p.139.

[Curmudgeon]

You're overlooking one important part of the rules about which weapons may have enhancements that add to your AC with defending:

Defending

A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the sword’s enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others.

Shield spikes aren't swords.

[erikun]

Defending enchantments are not limited to swords, though. There is nothing preventing you from enchanting shield spikes - or any weapon, really - with the defending properity. It would seem very unusual to interpret this as requiring an enchanted sword somewhere in your possession that it takes the enchantment bonus from to grant you AC. (It would be far more likely to treat that as simply a typo.)

[Keld Denar]

You forget, Curmudgeon ALWAYS rules things in the most absolute way possible. Funny, if you want to go that route, there is no "sword" entry in the PHB. I see Short Sword, Long Sword, Great Sword, but no "sword". So technically, Defending doesn't do ANYTHING, because nothing exists that it can be placed on.

^^

[Crow]

Most DM's only rule that you get the bonus if you are actually wielding the weapon. Otherwise, you could just hang a defending sword on your belt and be good.

As with every post like this, talk to your DM, because he makes the final call.

[KingoftheTrees]

The entries for shield and armor spikes state that they can be made into magic weapons "in its own right", so why wouldn't you be able to add any weapon enhancement to them that you can add to any other weapon?

But you all are right, it would ultimately be a DM call. But my dilemma in my campaign is which of those shields I should use... Right now I have the variable tower shield, but am thinking of switching to a mithral animated heavy shield, shield spikes or not. I was just wondering which you guys thought would be better, AND if the shield spike trick is allowed would it be worth it over the added bonus of cover that a tower shield can provide?

[Curmudgeon]

... there is no "sword" entry in the PHB. I see Short Sword, Long Sword, Great Sword, but no "sword". So technically, Defending doesn't do ANYTHING, because nothing exists that it can be placed on.

You're getting way ahead of yourself there, KD. Let's start by noting that there's also no "shield" entry, so "shield spikes" have nothing to attach to.

[Keld Denar]

Egads! He does have a sense of humor! Be still my beating heart!

<3

[erikun]

You're getting way ahead of yourself there, KD. Let's start by noting that there's also no "shield" entry, so "shield spikes" have nothing to attach to.

There is an entire category named Shields on the Armor and Shields table, not to mention shields being specifically mentioned.

Right now I have the variable tower shield, but am thinking of switching to a mithral animated heavy shield, shield spikes or not. I was just wondering which you guys thought would be better, AND if the shield spike trick is allowed would it be worth it over the added bonus of cover that a tower shield can provide?

Well, do remember that you don't have enough actions to transfer your variable buckler into a tower shield (quick action), take cover behind it (standard action), move next to an opponent (move action) and cast a spell. You are out of actions, and cannot even cast a quickened spell at that point.

Actually, now that I look at the description, it is "give up your attacks" not "spend a standard action." I still doubt your DM would allow you to be casting spells, even non-attacking ones, while under cover of a tower shield. Taking cover and moving is generally more useful to avoid AoOs and ranged attacks than to support spellcasting. Check with your DM to see if he would allow such a trick.

[Person_Man]

Having an animated heavy shield with shield spikes that are made into magical weapons and then given the Defending property. My question to everyone is, how practical is this?

Not practical at all. If you have a 16-20th level caster in the group, he can buff your AC more efficiently via a very wide variety of other spells. I'd also add that if you optimize AC beyond a "reasonable" point, your DM will simply bypass it by using attacks that ignore AC, like spells, psionics, and hitting you in the face with the DMG.

If you're playing at around ECL 12ishish or lower and aiming for a +3ish bonus to AC, you can get it much more efficiently by just buying a different magic item that improves your AC by that amount.