I know for things like Bucklers, the shield is strapped to your arm and cannot be easily dropped. Other shields only require a move action to don or drop. Does that also apply to tower shields?
Also, I'm assuming that you're still considered to have the tower shield strapped to your arm, correct? It doesn't just stand on it's own, right?
Tower Shields are a little confusing, though it's not too hard to assume that they function like light or heavy shields. One could argue that it takes a little more effort to don a Tower Shield, but it's already an un-attractive item to use as it is.
If it's not equipped, you don't get its AC bonus, the same as any other shield.
There is this interesting tidbit within the Tower Shield description:
In most situations, a tower shield provides the indicated shield bonus to your Armor Class. 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. You gain total cover for attacks that pass through this edge and no cover for attacks that do not pass through this edge (see Combat). The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding. You cannot bash with a tower shield, nor can you use your shield hand for anything else.
When employing a tower shield in combat, you take a –2 penalty on attack rolls because of the shield's encumbrance.
In most situations, a tower shield provides the indicated shield bonus to your Armor Class. As a standard action, however, you can use a tower shield to grant you total cover until the beginning of your next turn.
When employing a tower shield in combat, you take a –2 penalty on attack rolls because of the shield's encumbrance.
So, you trade the shield bonus to AC to gain the benefit of full-coverage, am I understanding that right?
And also, do you know if a deployed shield stands up on it's own? I would guess if you lose the shield bonus, it wouldn't be considered 'on' a character.
A tower shield is a shield. All shield rules apply with some additions found in the tower shield description (no shield bash, -2 to hit, cover rules).
Why do you think it stand on its own? You dont loose the shield bonus, you upgrade it to full cover. A shield is an unattended object if it is not 'on' your character. Everybody can move it away with a move action.
In most situations, a tower shield provides the indicated shield bonus to your Armor Class. As a standard action, however, you can use a tower shield to grant you total cover...
I would say you dont get shield bonus to AC while impying shield in such way. Others may say otherwise.
The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding.
Dual Shielding FTW
I believe that is about touch spells (melee and ranged), otherwise they could miss due to cover.
Tower shields would be the One Shield to Rule Them All if it did provide +4 AC against touch spells.
Total Cover means noone can touch or ranged touch you from that side.
But you still can be Commanded to drop prone or run away.
I dont understand your question about ghost touch.
Do you mean against incorporeal creatures or what?
I believe the AC bonus would apply normally, thats what "ghost touch" does afterall.
So, you could carry another shield, gain it's shield bonus, and then use the Tower Shield for total cover?
Well, I don't see why you couldn't. You could essentially use the Tower Shield to gain Total Cover along one side... and then use your shield in the other hand to still provide shield bonus AC against all other attacks. A bit goofy, but rules wise I can't see any issues there.
So, you could carry another shield, gain it's shield bonus, and then use the Tower Shield for total cover?Well, I don't see why you couldn't. You could essentially use the Tower Shield to gain Total Cover along one side... and then use your shield in the other hand to still provide shield bonus AC against all other attacks. A bit goofy, but rules wise I can't see any issues there.
DarkPhoenix pointed out a part of the description of tower shields earlier.
"The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding."So you wouldn't be able to equip another shield whilst deploying a tower shield.
I guess it makes sense, taking a -2 to attack rolls, since your arm would be essentially strapped to a small wall...
In most situations, a tower shield provides the indicated shield bonus to your Armor Class. As a standard action, however, you can use a tower shield to grant you total cover...I would say you dont get shield bonus to AC while impying shield in such way. Others may say otherwise.
The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding.
Ah, perfect, I didn't notice that. Thanks for pointing it out!
I'd have to disagree; you most certainly can have another shield equipped. It just takes another hand, since you can't use the Tower Shield hand for anything else other than using your Tower Shield.
Of course, they are correct in that using the Tower Shield for cover does not confer its AC, since you aren't wielding the Tower Shield, you're simply holding it to provide Total Cover.
You could in theory have two shields equipped at the same time; however, you don't get the shield bonus from both.
I'd have to disagree; you most certainly can have another shield equipped. It just takes another hand, since you can't use the Tower Shield hand for anything else other than using your Tower Shield.
Of course, they are correct in that using the Tower Shield for cover does not confer its AC, since you aren't wielding the Tower Shield, you're simply holding it to provide Total Cover.
One hand for Tower Shield, the other hand for Shield... but would that come at a penalty in your other hand, as normally you'd take a -2 to attack rolls in your other hand?
One hand for Tower Shield, the other hand for Shield... but would that come at a penalty in your other hand, as normally you'd take a -2 to attack rolls in your other hand?I'd have to disagree; you most certainly can have another shield equipped. It just takes another hand, since you can't use the Tower Shield hand for anything else other than using your Tower Shield.
Of course, they are correct in that using the Tower Shield for cover does not confer its AC, since you aren't wielding the Tower Shield, you're simply holding it to provide Total Cover.
Correct. But not just for attacks made with your hand, Unarmed Strikes and Natural Weapons also qualify for the -2.
I recently blogged about Tower Shields, FYI. The problem with using the item for total cover is that if you set it in your turn, an adjacent attacker can take a five foot step [or simply approach from farther away] and end move on your un-set side.
A good solution is to READY the use of the shield for total cover [since you can ready any standard action], triggered by a physical attack, set in the direction from which the attack is coming.
I recently blogged about Tower Shields, FYI. The problem with using the item for total cover is that if you set it in your turn, an adjacent attacker can take a five foot step [or simply approach from farther away] and end move on your un-set side.
A good solution is to READY the use of the shield for total cover [since you can ready any standard action], triggered by a physical attack, set in the direction from which the attack is coming.
My interpretation was the purpose of a tower shield was for blocking ranged attacks from bows and such. Historically, that was their purpose. But I suppose a readied action would work too.
Correct. But not just for attacks made with your hand, Unarmed Strikes and Natural Weapons also qualify for the -2.One hand for Tower Shield, the other hand for Shield... but would that come at a penalty in your other hand, as normally you'd take a -2 to attack rolls in your other hand?I'd have to disagree; you most certainly can have another shield equipped. It just takes another hand, since you can't use the Tower Shield hand for anything else other than using your Tower Shield.
Of course, they are correct in that using the Tower Shield for cover does not confer its AC, since you aren't wielding the Tower Shield, you're simply holding it to provide Total Cover.
Would a shield come at a -2 AC penalty for wielding it in the other hand? Or does a -1 translate better?
Why would you take an AC penalty? The only penalty from using a Tower Shield is to your attacks. The idea behind that penalty is the massive size of the tower shield throws off you balance.
Personally, I think shields should provide a higher bonus to AC as is since they were more effective than armor in most historical battles; however, that's another story.
Why would you take an AC penalty? The only penalty from using a Tower Shield is to your attacks. The idea behind that penalty is the massive size of the tower shield throws off you balance.
Personally, I think shields should provide a higher bonus to AC as is since they were more effective than armor in most historical battles; however, that's another story.
Well, it'd be just as difficult wielding a shield as a sword with your arm strapped to a tower shield while it's deployed, at least that's what I would assume. Since you can't twist and turn while the shield is deployed or risk losing the concealment... at least, that's how I see it. I mean, if it throws you off-balance for using a weapon, why would it be easier to use a shield on the other arm?
|
Well, it'd be just as difficult wielding a shield as a sword with your arm strapped to a tower shield while it's deployed, at least that's what I would assume. Since you can't twist and turn while the shield is deployed or risk losing the concealment... at least, that's how I see it. I mean, if it throws you off-balance for using a weapon, why would it be easier to use a shield on the other arm?Why would you take an AC penalty? The only penalty from using a Tower Shield is to your attacks. The idea behind that penalty is the massive size of the tower shield throws off you balance.
Personally, I think shields should provide a higher bonus to AC as is since they were more effective than armor in most historical battles; however, that's another story.
A shield would get -2 to attack if used to do so, but otherwise no, there would be no penalty to use it along with a tower shield. You could always houserule one in but... it doesn't really seem fair, unless they have a magic shield or feats the penalty you suggest would equal or exceed the benefit of the shield itself.
Well, it'd be just as difficult wielding a shield as a sword with your arm strapped to a tower shield while it's deployed, at least that's what I would assume. Since you can't twist and turn while the shield is deployed or risk losing the concealment... at least, that's how I see it. I mean, if it throws you off-balance for using a weapon, why would it be easier to use a shield on the other arm?Why would you take an AC penalty? The only penalty from using a Tower Shield is to your attacks. The idea behind that penalty is the massive size of the tower shield throws off you balance.
Personally, I think shields should provide a higher bonus to AC as is since they were more effective than armor in most historical battles; however, that's another story.
Not necessarily. The idea behind the shield is to have something large to cover your body with to deflect attacks. Even if you're not actively using it to deflect/parry attacks, it's still providing protection simply by being there. However, I do see the validity of your point. If you want to impose some sort of penalty, I would suggest -1 to AC and nothing more. Otherwise... you're negating the whole purpose of having the shield. (Granted I'm not a fan of people using shields primarily as a weapon... It's main purpose is protection, but can also be used as a weapon.)
A shield would get -2 to attack if used to do so, but otherwise no, there would be no penalty to use it along with a tower shield. You could always houserule one in but... it doesn't really seem fair, unless they have a magic shield or feats the penalty you suggest would equal or exceed the benefit of the shield itself.Agreed that if used to attack, the -2 penalty to attack would still be imposed.
A shield would get -2 to attack if used to do so, but otherwise no, there would be no penalty to use it along with a tower shield. You could always houserule one in but... it doesn't really seem fair, unless they have a magic shield or feats the penalty you suggest would equal or exceed the benefit of the shield itself.Well, it'd be just as difficult wielding a shield as a sword with your arm strapped to a tower shield while it's deployed, at least that's what I would assume. Since you can't twist and turn while the shield is deployed or risk losing the concealment... at least, that's how I see it. I mean, if it throws you off-balance for using a weapon, why would it be easier to use a shield on the other arm?Why would you take an AC penalty? The only penalty from using a Tower Shield is to your attacks. The idea behind that penalty is the massive size of the tower shield throws off you balance.
Personally, I think shields should provide a higher bonus to AC as is since they were more effective than armor in most historical battles; however, that's another story.
Nah, I don't really have a problem with it, just seems kinda goofy to me. It wasn't even the original inquiry I made, I'm not quite sure where the topic turned to wielding a tower shield and regular shield. xD
|
In the scenario of using a Tower Shield and another shield (or weapon) in your other hand; the -2 penalty imposed by the tower shield on attack rolls is only applied if you haven't "deployed" the Tower shield for total cover right?
Because if you've deployed it for total cover you've used your standard action and cannot (normally) make an attack that round?
So the -2 penalty is only applied when you are using the tower shield to receive the shield bonus to AC right?
In the scenario of using a Tower Shield and another shield (or weapon) in your other hand; the -2 penalty imposed by the tower shield on attack rolls is only applied if you haven't "deployed" the Tower shield for total cover right?
Because if you've deployed it for total cover you've used your standard action and cannot (normally) make an attack that round?
So the -2 penalty is only applied when you are using the tower shield to receive the shield bonus to AC right?
Correct, but if you continued to have the shield deployed into the next turn, you wouldn't have to "redeploy" it.
And by the rules, you wouldn't get the -2 to AC. At least, that's how most figure it. If you were attempting a shield bash with the smaller one, then it would suffer the -2 on the attack roll, but otherwise the Shield Bonus to AC is not affected (well, assuming you don't shield bash).
The only way to get a shield bonus while using the tower shield in cover mode, is to expose yourself, thus giving up the cover.
You can have one or the other, not both.
The situation in questions was having a tower shield in one hand and a small shield in the other (smaller than a tower shield, anyways). While deployed, you sacrifice the AC bonus the tower shield has for total coverage, but you'd still get the AC bonus from the other shield.
While this was not at all what the thread was originally about, it's an interesting concept.
|
|
Correct, but if you continued to have the shield deployed into the next turn, you wouldn't have to "redeploy" it.
I don't know if that part of your statement is correct. It's a standard action to gain the cover benefit until the beginning of your next turn, meaning you need to continuously "deploy" it (a standard action) to continuously receive the benefit. No? That's how it reads to me anyhow. I'm not 100% certain by any stretch.
You do need to reset it.
You only gain cover over one edge of the square. You would gain the AC bonus from attacks via other directions if you used 2 shields.
Dual Tower Shields to block a corner, if you don't need to redeploy it, round 1, block one edge, round 2 the other.
Dual Tower Shields to block a corner, if you don't need to redeploy it, round 1, block one edge, round 2 the other.
Two things. First, no need to resurrect a thread that died years ago. Especially since #2, that doesn't work. The cover doesn't last, and you need to spend a standard action every single round you want the protection. So you can't gain cover from 2 separate shields by setting them yourself.
Total Cover means noone can touch or ranged touch you from that side.
But you still can be Commanded to drop prone or run away.
Was this correct?
Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target.
I think you can ready an action to give yourself Total Cover from a caster, and then they can't see you, so they can't target you.
Worth the resurrection just for the laugh picturing someone trying to walk about with a Tower Shield on one arm and an ordinary one on the other gave me.
You guys and 'your well it doesn't say you can't' logic. Can't wait to tell the Ermine Street Guard about it.
Can't see any reason you couldn't. You'd get a big ACP and you'd have trouble fighting properly, but it doesn't sound any more physically unrealistic than blocking a giant's club, or firing two arrows at once from a composite longbow, or fighting with a greatsword in a 5' corridor, or all the other fantastic things adventurers do.