Simple question. If you use an animated tower shield do you still get the -2 attack penalty? Any thoughts?
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.
This line makes me think it might...
That seems odd though since the -2 attack penalty is because it's so big and unwieldy.
not any odder then the arcane spell failure or armor check penalty which come about because even light and heavy shields are fairly big and unwieldy.
It's still a 1.5 foot~2 foot x 3 foot~4 foot piece of shield waving itself around in front of you trying to block anything from hitting you... that makes it hard to work around.
Simple Answer:
Read the last sentence:
IF one COULD construct an Animated Tower Shield somehow (i.e. house-ruling away that limitation), I find the line pretty clear. Non-proficiency is a given example of an attack penalty, so I see NO problem whatsoever recognizing that the attack penalty from Tower Shields would fall under "any penalty associated with shield use". Thematically, I would even say it's very close to the non-proficiency penalty, just that by it's very design it's not possible for ANYBODY to get as completely proficient at fighting behind a tower shield as is possible to do with a normal Shield (in other words, it's like a 'half-non-proficient' penalty that sticks around even when you are proficient) .
Simple Answer:
Read the last sentence:
D'oh. I knew there was a reason I had it written up as a heavy shield to begin with.
|
Animated shields shouldn't be comprehended with logic. There are simply too many things that don't make sense.
Why does a dancing shield not add to AC vs. touch attacks?
Why does a dancing shield give spell failure?
Why does a dancing shield require shield proficiency?
Why can't a tower shield dance?
Why does a dancing shield have any penalties and requirements when a Shield spell does not?
Is a dancing shield Strictly Ballroom?
Creative Director
|
Animated shields shouldn't be comprehended with logic. There are simply too many things that don't make sense.
Why does a dancing shield not add to AC vs. touch attacks?
Why does a dancing shield give spell failure?
Why does a dancing shield require shield proficiency?
Why can't a tower shield dance?
Why does a dancing shield have any penalties and requirements when a Shield spell does not?
Is a dancing shield Strictly Ballroom?
They can be comprehended with logic when you approach it by the viewpoint that we don't want the dancing quality to allow folks to bypass all the disadvantages and requirements shields have.
It doesn't add to touch attacks because that's just the way touch attacks work. You can touch a dancing shield with a touch attack and it'll affect the user. That's the whole point of touch attacks; you just have to touch the user or his stuff.
It grants spell failure because it moves around to block stuff and is constantly roving and both getting in the way of the spellcaster's mojo and distracting him (and because of game balance requirements).
It requires shield proficiency because it has no intrinsic defensive "programming." The user has to deploy it by mental command or subtle shifts in position, and in order to do that he has to know how to use a shield in the first place.
A tower shield can't dance because it's just too big and awkward, and for game balance reasons.
The shield spell doesn't have any of these penalties because it's a different effect entirely. It consumes a limited resource (a spell slot) and has to be cast to activate. It's also, thematically, more appropriate for an arcane spellcaster to use than it is, thematically, for an arcane spellcaster to wield a shield. And finally, a shield spell is temporary. An animated shield is forever. Even though it only works for 4 rounds at a time... over the course of a day it lasts a LOT longer than the shield spell.
And Strictly Ballroom was a dumb movie because it had no dinosaurs.