|
I have a player wanting his character to use Tower Shield while mounted. Looking for input.
Mechanically, there is not a prohibition on using the tower shield while mounted. I do, however find it to not work for me from a perspective of RPG as model of a fantastic reality. But, I'd like to avoid a straight: No, doesn't work.
Looking at a number of ideas for house rules that might include variations on:
1) lack of total cover
2) ACP to ride skill
3) Ride check to get benefit
4) Treating mount as encumbered
5) Adjustments to use of mounted combat features
Anyone have any existing houserules on the topic or thoughts?
I have a player wanting his character to use Tower Shield while mounted. Looking for input.
Mechanically, there is not a prohibition on using the tower shield while mounted. I do, however find it to not work for me from a perspective of RPG as model of a fantastic reality. But, I'd like to avoid a straight: No, doesn't work.
Looking at a number of ideas for house rules that might include variations on:
1) lack of total cover
2) ACP to ride skill
3) Ride check to get benefit
4) Treating mount as encumbered
5) Adjustments to use of mounted combat featuresAnyone have any existing houserules on the topic or thoughts?
Other than 2, the rest of the ideas seem really restrictive, and being a DEX skill, tower shields do in fact cause an ACP of -10 on the table.
1) At quick glance doesn't seem to be too bad, but then I was thinking "Well why do you use a tower shield..." and basically the total cover rule is the reason you are. Essentially saying you get no benefit for spending the money (and possibly a feat) to use it, that seems harsh. It's also a standard action to gain this benefit which means the only thing that is happening is movement (not charges or overruns etc). I would however not let the character give total cover to the mount.
3) You don't need to use a ride check to just use any other piece of equipment (exception being mounted armory, but that is a called out exception). Every other option for combat is covered in that base "riding mount in combat" check or "guide with knees" check.
4) The mount being encumbered is very odd and seems wonky because it is so distant from the existing rules.
5) Again, seems wonky as there is no precedent for it.
I'd personally just let the -10 ACP take effect and call it a day. It is a significant penalty (how many other places do you see -10 to a skill ;-) and follows the rules in the book.
There are historical tower shields that were specifically designed to be used while mounted.
The biggest issue with a tower shield while mounted is you can't bring it to bear on the other side of the mount easily.
The -10 penalty is by far enough and I would simply leave it at that.
|
|
Ok, I missed the change in PF that applies ACP to all of Ride instead of just fast mount. -10 ACP to ride is significant.
For full cover, I'll use the Sage Advice ruling that full cover can apply to the rider, but not to the mount.
***************************
As for tower shield being a cav shield, I disagree. I understand to tower shield to represent something more like a Mycenean shield, as it is "almost as tall as you are," and there is a Homeric epithet regarding shields reaching to the toes or similar. The most cover provided by a cav shield that I'm aware of was the kite shield, which is quite a bit smaller than full height, but designed to cover the leg on the shield side.
******************************
Thanks for the help all!
Don't forget, he can ALREADY gain full cover from the mount
"Cover: You can react instantly to drop down and hang alongside your mount, using it as cover. You can't attack or cast spells while using your mount as cover. If you fail your Ride check, you don't get the cover benefit. Using this option is an immediate action, but recovering from this position is a move action (no check required)."
So mechanically, there is very little reason to use the tower shield unless he just wants the +2 AC.
Or for style, gotta respect style :)
|
|
Don't forget, he can ALREADY gain full cover from the mount
"Cover: You can react instantly to drop down and hang alongside your mount, using it as cover. You can't attack or cast spells while using your mount as cover. If you fail your Ride check, you don't get the cover benefit. Using this option is an immediate action, but recovering from this position is a move action (no check required)."
So mechanically, there is very little reason to use the tower shield unless he just wants the +2 AC.
Gaining cover from the mount gives normal cover bonus (+4), not full cover.
|
Ok, I missed the change in PF that applies ACP to all of Ride instead of just fast mount. -10 ACP to ride is significant.
For full cover, I'll use the Sage Advice ruling that full cover can apply to the rider, but not to the mount.
Unless you're a cavalier and get to ignore the ACP from your armor/shields when using ride.
As far as full-cover goes...
As a standard action, however, you can use a tower shield to grant you total cover until the beginning of your next turn. When using a tower shield in this way, you must choose one edge of your space. That edge is treated as a solid wall for attacks targeting you only.
So I say let the rider have it the bonus if he really wants it. He will be unable to do anything (including order his horse) because he's already used his standard action, and when the fireball comes, the horse is going to get cooked alive because the shield only effects "you only".
Unless you're a cavalier and get to ignore the ACP from your armor/shields when using ride.Ok, I missed the change in PF that applies ACP to all of Ride instead of just fast mount. -10 ACP to ride is significant.
For full cover, I'll use the Sage Advice ruling that full cover can apply to the rider, but not to the mount.
Which is a class ability and not something that is available to the rest of the world, basically the exception to the rule. I have a hard time begrudging classes their class abilities, that's what makes them what they are ;)