| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Under Shield Proficiency feat (page 133):
When you are using a shield with which you are not proficient, you take the shield’s armor check penalty on attack rolls and on all skill checks that involve moving.
Under Tower Shield Proficiency feat (page 133):
A character using a shield with which he is
not proficient takes the shield’s armor check penalty on attack rolls and on all skill checks that involve moving, including Ride.
First of all, there's an inconsistency as the Tower Shield Proficiency feat entry mentions "including Ride" which the other feat doesn't.
Second, in the summary of feats on page 116 it says next to Tower Shield Proficiency "No penalties on attack rolls when using a tower shield". That's confusing and incorrect, as a Tower Shield still incurs a -2 penalty on attack rolls even when the user is proficient with it. It should say instead (like the 3.5 Player's Handbook): "No armor check penalty on attack rolls".
Third, the information in both feats doesn't really coincide with the entry on Armor Check Penalty in the equipment chapter on page 150:
Armor Check Penalty: Any armor heavier than leather, as well as any shield, hurts a character’s ability to use Dexterity and Strength-based skills. An armor check penalty applies to all Dexterity- and Strength-based skill checks.
The above says Dexterity- and Strength-based skill checks, and not "skill checks that involve moving" (and Ride) as the entries in the feats chapter say. There might sometimes be a difference between the two.
|
Ok. This is correct. All Shields (including Tower Shields) add thier Armor Check Penulty to Attack Rolls if you are not proficient with them. Tower shields, however, because they are big and bulky, also cause you to take -2 on all Attack Rolls, even if you are Proficient. This does not change the first part, in any way.
Armor Check Penulty does apply to all movement based Skills, which are also all either Str or Dex based. However, if you make a Str or Dex check, not a skill check, an ability check, it still applies. All the Str and Dex based skills are related to movement and all the movement related skills are Dex or Str based. I'll need to double check this part for sure, but am pretty certain.
|
Why don't Paladins have tower shield proficiency? It would seem that the iconic image of a paladin is sword (or mace, or hammer, etc) and board moreso than the fighter which seems to gravitate to THW or TWF. Paladins have always, IMHO, been heavily armored pillars of resistance vs. ultimate evil. They stand vigiliant, even against the most viscious creatures, often providing cover for others to escape the evil's wrath. Yes, they have smite which enhances their offense, but they seem more a defensive-minded melee'er than an offensive one.
Why don't Paladins have tower shield proficiency? It would seem that the iconic image of a paladin is sword (or mace, or hammer, etc) and board moreso than the fighter which seems to gravitate to THW or TWF. Paladins have always, IMHO, been heavily armored pillars of resistance vs. ultimate evil. They stand vigiliant, even against the most viscious creatures, often providing cover for others to escape the evil's wrath. Yes, they have smite which enhances their offense, but they seem more a defensive-minded melee'er than an offensive one.
The iconic paladin is usually seen with a sword and board, not a sword and DOOR. ;)
And a fighter is more applicable to a sword and DOOR?!?
I don't think anybody is conically seen with a tower shield (except maybe those soldiers participating in a siege when they wheel their little walls up to the front).
|
Its funny that if you watch the show Spartacus: Blood and Sand, they are TWF in the arena with basically short swords and tower shields. If you look at the shields, you can see where they could completely hide behind them, but they are shield bashing, etc with them. Its actually a very entertaining sword and board fight, however unrealistic and hokey it may be to a trained medieval fighter.
Its funny that if you watch the show Spartacus: Blood and Sand, they are TWF in the arena with basically short swords and tower shields. If you look at the shields, you can see where they could completely hide behind them, but they are shield bashing, etc with them. Its actually a very entertaining sword and board fight, however unrealistic and hokey it may be to a trained medieval fighter.
I've seen that and I never really thought of them as tower shields. I always saw them more as heavy shields (they bash with them a lot after all).
I'm guessing the curling up behind it is just them using fighting defensively and or combat expertise.
|
Medieval fighters would be using the Pavise to protect them during fights utilizing crossbows. It wouldn't have been unknown to them on the battlefield except as a device to injure your opponent.
I would think of the Roman Scutum as a heavy shield as well. They're not nearly as large as those depicted in some television and movies as they're only a knee to shoulder shield, about 3-1/2 feet in length. The tower shield is labeled as being nearly as tall as the weilder.
|
Its funny that if you watch the show Spartacus: Blood and Sand, they are TWF in the arena with basically short swords and tower shields. If you look at the shields, you can see where they could completely hide behind them, but they are shield bashing, etc with them. Its actually a very entertaining sword and board fight, however unrealistic and hokey it may be to a trained medieval fighter.
Ha! I'm so glad someone else notices that. I'm really interested to know what they make those out of. They couldn't be steel because they'd probably be too heavy to do half the crap they do with them. But I've never seen them deform like aluminum would. Do you think they use some sort of plastic?
Why don't Paladins have tower shield proficiency? It would seem that the iconic image of a paladin is sword (or mace, or hammer, etc) and board moreso than the fighter which seems to gravitate to THW or TWF.
Actually, there is no iconic image of a fighter. Well, actually, there is, and his name is Valeros. But he's not representative of the typical fighter. There is not typical fighter, or, depending on how you want to look at it, they're all typical.
Many might go towards big weapons or fighting with two weapons, but that's not all the class is meant to be. The class is meant to encompass everyone who uses martial prowess and little else. Doesn't matter if they have a greatsword, a scimitar without anything else, two kukris, a crossbow, their fists, a tower shield and a longspear..... They're all what the fighter is meant to be.
The fighter class is meant to have unrivalled martial training, and thus they even get tower shield proficiency as one of their (admittedly smaller) perquisites.
And the perk thing is really the only thing setting them apart here.
Sure, paladins evoke a very special image: Either they use a sword and a shield (and it really is a sword most of the time), or maybe greatsword (again, it's somehow a big sword more often than a big hammer or axe). But that's not everything they can do. They can work well as sword'n'board warriors, as two-handed warriors, as two-weapon-warriors, as archers....
They just don't have quite as much training as fighters, who have a (sometimes small) advantage over everyone else.
I do think, though, that the typical sword-and-board paladin would be glad with a large shield but would not get a tower shield, as it looks like he wants to hide behind it.
Yes, they have smite which enhances their offense, but they seem more a defensive-minded melee'er than an offensive one.
Nah, they're warriors. All warriors in Pathfinder value offence. Sure, almost all of them value defence and staying power, too, but in Pathfinder, the role of warrior means being good at both dealing and taking damage. Some classes, and some class builds, might favour one over the other, but they usually don't go near to abandoning any of these, because that's often a recipe for disaster.
And smite is quite nice as an offensive measure. Add some of the spells, and the sacred weapon variant of divine bond, and you have a powerful offensive force.
The closest thing to someone ignoring either offence or defence would be prestige classes like the stalwart defender, who has a lot of defensive abilities, but even they get offensive abilities.
I personally think a tower shield should always count as partial cover unless you attack that round. It should also provide you with some benefit against ray spells, and fireballs. Really all shields should.
Add Shield bonus to reflex save, or something.
Um, doesn't it? You get a +4 shield bonus to AC (twice what "partial" cover grants you, or look at it as +2 from large shield and +2 from partial cover as it is bigger effectively) then you spend the standard action with a tower shield and you get total cover. Total cover gives you an additional +4 to AC (untyped) and gives you +2 to Reflex saves against attacks and effects originating from the other side of that cover (spreads might prove problematic) "line".
The only thing it doesn't give is the +1 REF save and given the cost and that it is an item that is "constant" (not single use) there are balance mechanics to consider there. I'd say mechanically it does exactly what you think it should.