Essentially, I want to make a paladin using a tower shield to maximize his defense. I'm really on thin ice with the paladin as I've never really built or played one before, but I do know that a Tower Shield limits the use of the Lay on Hands ability severely.
What I want:
A way to have a kind of damage reflecting effect when being hit.
God-like Survivability against both physical attacks and spells.
As many ways as possible to use lay on hands for something that does not require a touch, so that I may use it with a shield.
Level 3, 20 point buy, allowed to use Angel-Blooded Aasimar as my race. (+2 STR, +2 CHA)
How do I go about this? I'm especially interested in the reflection sort of deal.
Perhaps I could swap out my spellcasting for Warrior of the Holy Light or some such?
The Sacred Shield archetype sounds like it offers a lot of what you want: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin/archetypes/paizo---pal adin-archetypes/sacred-shield
It allows you to use two uses of your lay on hands to share your shield bonus with nearby allies (radius depending on level) for 3+cha rounds. This doesn't require a free hand, so it works fine with a towershield. So the higher you can get that shield bonus, the better for the entire party. This way your high AC doesn't discourage enemies from trying to hit you, as your allies also have their AC increased.
The Sacred Shield can also form a divine bond with his shield. The abilities you can add to your shield include Reflecting, which allows you to reflect one spell back to it's caster during the usage of your divine bond, but it's a +5 enhancement bonus ability, so not available until level 17. You can add spell resistance on earlier levels, which allow you to at least resist spells. Of course if your allies tend to use buff spells then you probably don't want to add spell resistance to your shield until they have cast those buff.
The archetype does replace smite evil, which will hurt your damage output, but the replacement ability encourages the target to attack you instead of your allies, which is probably a good thing with your focus on survivability.
The Divine Defender also offers spell resistance, but uses the armor as a divine bond instead of the shield. It also has an alternative usage of lay on hands, allowing you to increase the defenses of yourself and your allies. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin/archetypes/paizo---pal adin-archetypes/divine-defender
Nice.
Sacred shield is so good, I want to play one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Essentially, I want to make a paladin using a tower shield to maximize his defense. I'm really on thin ice with the paladin as I've never really built or played one before, but I do know that a Tower Shield limits the use of the Lay on Hands ability severely.
What I want:
A way to have a kind of damage reflecting effect when being hit.
God-like Survivability against both physical attacks and spells.
As many ways as possible to use lay on hands for something that does not require a touch, so that I may use it with a shield.
Level 3, 20 point buy, allowed to use Angel-Blooded Aasimar as my race. (+2 STR, +2 CHA)
How do I go about this? I'm especially interested in the reflection sort of deal.
Perhaps I could swap out my spellcasting for Warrior of the Holy Light or some such?
The simple answer is don't use a tower shield. They aren't very good at protecting you. They cannot be made out of mithral, they have a max Dex modifier of +2 which will ruin your AC at mid to high levels, give you a -2 penalty on attack rolls, you cannot shield bash with them, and have a -10 check penalty which means you have to burn a feat or you have a net -12 to hit while using the shield.
A tower shield is not very good at protecting you from spells (being a Paladin and getting +resistance gear is what you need for that), in fact it actively makes you easier to hit with most rays and/or single target spells. Its method of providing cover is clunky and useless versus AoE attacks in all but very specific instances and requires you to waste your actions doing nothing. Further, you cannot use your shield hand for anything other than holding your tower shield, which means you cannot use Lay on Hands without dropping your weapon.
More often than not, a tower shield will just get you killed. It's not even good for plugging tunnels since wasting your turn making a "wall" in front of you specifically only functions for you, which means that you are turning yourself into a bump on a log while the baddies just attack your friends behind you with nothing more than the usual +4 AC for soft cover. You can't even block a dragon's breath to keep it from hitting the ally directly behind you.
I apologize if this is disheartening but I'm trying to save you a lot of disappointment in the future. You'd be better off wielding a light shield as a Paladin (+1 to AC, your hand remains free for all but weapons) as you can freely cast/use lay on hands with the shield, and you can still put excellent shield magic effects on it or even reflection if you really wanted the ability (though reflection isn't that great honestly, not worth its price for a 1/day spell bounce; it would be worth more if it actually allowed you to benefit from spell turning 1/day).
The sacred shield Paladin is really bad too. It's smite replacement is really bad (mostly because of the horribly limited range, as 10 ft. from allies is a joke, and it doesn't really do anything vs your target that normal smite doesn't do better), the shield-to-allies thing would be cool, but again the horribly small radius basically requires you to be up the butt of the person you're defending and makes moving around for you and any ally who wants to benefit from your buff cumbersome and that will get you and your friends killed. Their capstone is equally worthless in any encounter that isn't against a single lone enemy (your huddle-buddies get regen but it's turned off if anyone other than your main foe hit them, which can keep it shut of pretty much every round, especially if one of your foes is a caster with AoEs).
Paladins should use shields. Just not like this. :|
|
They cannot be made out of mithral, they have a max Dex modifier of +2 which will ruin your AC at mid to high levels,
If he's using full plate he's maxxed at +1 anyway. (+3 with mithril - though probably not worth it) And Palis are too MAD to have more than a decent dex anyway (probably 12), and they'd be dumb to have their stat belt be dex instead of strength. I don't see the issue there.
And I think you're underestimating the cover value. It's not great vs wizards since you don't know what they'll cast, but I had a tower shield character who basically shut down a dragon's breath weapon, forcing it down into melee.
Is it powergaming to use a towershield as a pali? No. But is it awful? No.
The Holy Vindicator is a great way to add to your AC, especally with Vindicator’s Shield. Id also reccomend an Inheritors Gauntlet as longswords will then count as Holy Symbols.
ANOTHER path is the Stonelord/Stalwart Defender, which will turn the Paladin into an unmoving wall, an actually do something positive with that horrible Armor Check Penalty. A Spell Ward Shield also fits into a Glove of Storing to help turn the ACP on and off when needed, you will also need a Ring of FeatherFall, trust me.
The simple answer is don't use a tower shield. They aren't very good at protecting you. They cannot be made out of mithral, they have a max Dex modifier of +2 which will ruin your AC at mid to high levels, give you a -2 penalty on attack rolls, you cannot shield bash with them, and have a -10 check penalty which means you have to burn a feat or you have a net -12 to hit while using the shield.
A tower shield is not very good at protecting you from spells (being a Paladin and getting +resistance gear is what you need for that), in fact it actively makes you easier to hit with most rays and/or single target spells. Its method of providing cover is clunky and useless versus AoE attacks in all but very specific instances and requires you to waste your actions doing nothing. Further, you cannot use your shield hand for anything other than holding your tower shield, which means you cannot use Lay on Hands without dropping your weapon.
More often than not, a tower shield will just get you killed. It's not even good for plugging tunnels since wasting your turn making a "wall" in front of you specifically only functions for you, which means that you are turning yourself into a bump on a log while...
I just came by to second everything Ashiel said. It's all 100% completely true. While tower shields sound good, mechanically they just suck. Bad. Real bad. The +3 AC you have with a tower shield just doesn't justify all the drawback you have with one over a light shield. At early levels those 3 extra points of AC might be nice, but by later levels it's unlikely to make much of a difference in your overall survival.
The cover feature is nearly unusable, and adding attack penalties and so forth just make it a bad deal all around.
Do yourself a favor and make a sword and board paladin, just don't do it with a tower shield.
|
|
At early levels those 3 extra points of AC might be nice, but by later levels it's unlikely to make much of a difference in your overall survival.
AC is a % thing - so those 3 points are just as useful vs attacks at level 10 as level 1. Though I suppose that at higher levels more stuff attacks your saves than at level 1.
Sacred Shields are amazing, if you play a tank.
Tower shields are also more useful than people think. Ever tried as a GM to put players against enemies with Tower Shield and Shield Wall teamwork feat? No reason your players can't use these tactics too.
At early levels those 3 extra points of AC might be nice, but by later levels it's unlikely to make much of a difference in your overall survival.AC is a % thing - so those 3 points are just as useful vs attacks at level 10 as level 1. Though I suppose that at higher levels more stuff attacks your saves than at level 1.
It's more about how to hit bonuses scale in this game and total AC versus relative to hit.
At level 2 when you can afford full plate and a tower shield you're looking at an AC of 24. A CR 2 creature has an average attack bonus of +4. Which means on average monsters need a natural 20 to hit you.
At higher levels, lets just look at 20 so I can make so simplifying assumptions. We assume +5 armor, +5 shield, +5 natural armor, +5 ring of protection. And well call it all mithral so that dex bonus goes from +1 to +3. So 22 more points of AC for 46.
A CR 20 creatuer has an average attack bonus of 32/33. It now hits you on 14. If you instead had a regular shield it would be 11. Sure it's 15%. But at this level it's just not nearly as important as being able to make attacks without hindrance, being able to use lay on hands effetively, and not wasting actions to provide yourself and only yourself cover (which wont actually protect your from much, and does nothing for anyone else).
Tower shields are bad.
|
|
It's more about how to hit bonuses scale in this game and total AC versus relative to hit.
True - but that's the same for the -2 to hit.
A CR 20 creatuer has an average attack bonus of 32/33. It now hits you on 14. If you instead had a regular shield it would be 11. Sure it's 15%.
Actually - it's a 30% reduction. With the light shield they hit 50% of the time, with the tower it's 35% of the time. That's a 30% reduction. (1-35/50)
But at this level it's just not nearly as important as being able to make attacks without hindrance, being able to use lay on hands effetively, and not wasting actions to provide yourself and only yourself cover
The lay on hands I'll grant you. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the +3 AC isn't as useful at high levels, the -2 to hit isn't as detrimental.
In addition - while the full cover is only for you and won't help allies targeted directly by attacks - said full cover can stop AOEs, especially line attacks. (Since you're in the AOE, it's targeting you and therefore it's affected by the full cover.)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
+3 AC (which is doubtful since the max AC bonus can be crippling) will never be worth being unable to cast spells or use Lay On Hands without dropping your weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
+3 AC (which is doubtful since the max AC bonus can be crippling) will never be worth being unable to cast spells or use Lay On Hands without dropping your weapon.
This a thousand times. Paladins are already THE tanks in this game, with barbarians being a pretty good second. A big part of that is because Paladins' Lay on Hands and other spells are beastly.
As to full plate having a +1 max dex (as Charon notes), full plate CAN be made out of mithral which ups the max-dex to +4. After that, there is celestial chain or celestial full-plate that will allow a Paladin to reach a +7 Dex bonus (which is actually normal by 20th level assuming the Paladin had a 14 Dex and never bothered to level it with ability bumps over the course of their lives, but it could be as high as +9 without a lot of trouble, but I prefer more Cha personally).
And I think you're underestimating the cover value. It's not great vs wizards since you don't know what they'll cast, but I had a tower shield character who basically shut down a dragon's breath weapon, forcing it down into melee.
Unfortunately this isn't true. The dragon will never have a reason to come down into melee because if it absolutely must deal with the shieldadin it'll just ready an action to nuke when you stop shield walling, or it will cast spells, or it will murder your party while you're utterly failing at your job. If the dragon DOES come into melee, what are you going to do against it? You can't use your spells without dropping your weapon, you can't use lay on hands without dropping your weapon, you can't smite the dragon, and all your attacks have an unavoidable -2 to hit.
A tower shield is effectively giving +2 AC to everything you ever attack. Remember this.
Actually - it's a 30% reduction. With the light shield they hit 50% of the time, with the tower it's 35% of the time. That's a 30% reduction. (1-35/50)
The lay on hands I'll grant you. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the +3 AC isn't as useful at high levels, the -2 to hit isn't as detrimental.
In addition - while the full cover is only for you and won't help allies targeted directly by attacks - said full cover can stop AOEs, especially line attacks. (Since you're in the AOE, it's targeting you and therefore it's affected by the full cover.)
It is 15%, 15 absolute percent. I wasn't calculating the reduction between the two. The difference between a 50% chance to hit and a 35% chance to hit is 15%. Why do I care about the reduction? It's not really a useful number, at least IMO.
Yes, at higher levels the -2 isn't an important penalty. But at low levels where the AC bonus is actually useful, the penalty to hit makes it still bad.
Said full cover can stop AoEs, sort of. If the caster is dumb. For example, fireball just needs to be targeted behind your square. It could stop burning hands. Of course the caster could also just move to the side and cast too. About the only way it works is if you ready an aciton to put down the shield as the caster begins to cast. The fact that you have to use a standard action to block line of effect, and you can't even do it very effectively makes it suck pretty bad.
|
|
Unfortunately this isn't true. The dragon will never have a reason to come down into melee because if it absolutely must deal with the shieldadin it'll just ready an action to nuke when you stop shield walling, or it will cast spells, or it will murder your party while you're utterly failing at your job.
Just put up the cover and ready an action to get in front of the breath weapon. It works crazy good against the lines, and pretty decent against the cones. Once the dragon is high enough to cast beefy spells it doesn't work - but the whole game's balance is crap past levels 10-12 anyway, so that's when I stop playing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't do both of those things. Readying an action is a standard action. Also, FYI, the tower shield only provides total cover to you personally. It does absolutely nothing for your allies in any way.
Benefit: 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.
|
|
You don't ready to put down the cover. You put down the cover and ready an action to move in the way of the attack. (in seperate turns)
And as I said earlier - it doesn't help against arrows/rays etc aimed at partymembers. But it works fine for blocking AOEs.
It says "for attacks targeting you only" - as in not for attacks targeting someone else, it's not "for attacks targeting only you."
And as I also said previously - it's crap against spellcasters. What they can do is too varied. But it works great against monsters with AOEs such as dragons who're too young for significant spellcasting and rely upon their breath weapon.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am fully aware that you said you ready to move. Putting down the cover is a standard action. Readying to move is also a standard action. The cover goes away at the start of your next turn, so you can't do those two things on different rounds (and if you could, you just wasted two rounds of standard actions to block AoE effects from a single direction for you only).
Yes, attacks targeting you only. I'm aware of that, that's why I mentioned it. The goal here is to protect other people. The tower shield is not helping you do that.
|
|
Yes, attacks targeting you only. I'm aware of that, that's why I mentioned it. The goal here is to protect other people. The tower shield is not helping you do that.
I think you're still misunderstanding my point here. It DOES give cover to other people so long as the attack in question is targeting you as well.
|
|
The cover goes away at the start of your next turn,
Really? That seems dumb. Why should it take an action to not move the shield back into normal position? *shrug* Looks like you're right though. My bad. I must have been thinking the 3.5 version. (The last time I played a tower shield using character.)
If you put down the cover it is statically set in place. You can't move it. And then it goes away at the start of the next turn.
Shield, Tower: This massive wooden shield is nearly as tall as you are. In most situations, it provides the indicated shield bonus to your AC. 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.
You choose a single side of your square. Moving from behind it wouldn't allow you to rechoose a new edge. You would need another standard action to place it down and protect that new edge.
Edit:
Actually Aratok points out a better reason.
Your suggesting:
Turn 1) Plant shield as standard
Turn 2) Ready action to move (with tower shield cover still in place)
But as mentioned the cover goes away at the start of your turn.
|
|
Your suggesting:
Turn 1) Plant shield as standard
Turn 2) Ready action to move (with tower shield cover still in place)But as mentioned the cover goes away at the start of your turn.
Yeah - as I said - my bad. It worked that way in 3.5. (Except Turn 2 was also a standard action, but the shield had remained in total cover mode from turn 1.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's a pretty good consensus I got, yeah. Though keep in mind, that this isn't exactly about effectiveness as our GM is quite responsible with helping your character out at his job as long as you roleplay and have a solid character concept. Which I do.
I'm out for flavor, essentially.
What if I go with Vow of Vengeance? I could easily get a +8 to hit if using smite at level 3 because a 20 point buy with an angel blooded aasimar could set me up at 16 str, 16 con and 16 charisma with all 10s for the rest.
Can Vow of Vengeance be taken with, for instance, Divine Defender? Could Temple Champion be worth it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is good to see someone out for flavor and not just mechanical advantage or dps. I doff my hat to you roleplayer.
|
|
That's a pretty good consensus I got, yeah. Though keep in mind, that this isn't exactly about effectiveness as our GM is quite responsible with helping your character out at his job as long as you roleplay and have a solid character concept. Which I do.
Ask him if he'll let you bash with a tower shield as if it were a heavy shield. (Makes no sense that you can't considering it's based on the Roman legionaire shield and they bashed with it.) If so, you can just two-hand the shield so that you don't have to worry about having a casting hand free. (plus get 1.5x strength damage)
At one point I planned out a pali who was going to do that with a heavy shield, but I never actually played him.
|
|
They cannot be made out of mithralReference? I need to know this one for my PC.
Many DMs would probably allow it. But since there is no base version of the tower shield made out of metal, officially it can't be made out of mithril because mithril can only be used to make items which are primarily metal.
|
Many DMs would probably allow it. But since there is no base version of the tower shield made out of metal, officially it can't be made out of mithril because mithril can only be used to make items which are primarily metal.
Wow...look at that, never noticed. Was just assuming that them being wooden was mentioned because the assumption was that they were built cheaply and on the spot for siege use. A character dedicated to their use would have normal shield materials, though I was just assuming all this.
Very common non-wood in fantasy movies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They cannot be made out of mithralReference? I need to know this one for my PC.
Shield, Tower: This massive wooden shield
Items not primarily of metal are not meaningfully affected by being partially made of mithral. (A longsword can be a mithral weapon, while a quarterstaff cannot.)
The ultimate combat book is in error. Further if you check the dimensions of a tower shield, a shield made of metal would be disgustingly heavy for its weight, to the point that making a tower shield out of metal and then converting it to mithral to arrive at the correct weight of the item would result in a shield that is as weighty and cumbersome as a normal wooden tower shield, so even from a simulationist standpoint (not just mechanically) a mithral tower shield isn't practical.
However, a Darkwood tower shield is 100% legal. It costs another 450 gp plus 150 gp for the masterwork component and reduces the check penalty by 2 (from -10 to -8) and makes it weigh 22.5 lbs instead of 45 lbs. Unfortunately it does nothing for the maximum Dexterity bonus allowance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm assuming a towershield made out of steel would be less thick (scutum, roman tower shields, had multiple layers of wood, fabric and leather applied, a steel version would probably only need one; same way a steel plate only needs a thin sheet to give as much protection as a hardwood armor would), and mithral would reduce those.
Also, ultimate equipment has a magical mithral tower shield in it so...
Yes. I addressed that. It's most likely an error as the mithral effect was applied directly to the base tower shield rather than adding a metal version of the tower shield, indicating that a metal version of the shield would still weight and have the same statistics as a wooden tower shield which doesn't really fit very well.
For example, oak wood (a strong wood very suitable for making a shield from) weighs in at about 59 lbs. per cubic foot of wood. Meanwhile wrought iron has a weight of about 485 lbs. per cubic foot, or 450 lbs. for cast iron, putting it at roughly 8.2 times as heavy for the same general mass.
Now keeping this in mind, wood has hardness 5 and 10 HP/inch of thickness. A wooden tower shield has hardness 5 and 20 HP, meaning it's about 2 inches thick. To meet the same weight as the tower shield, an iron shield would need to be at least eight times thinner than the wooden shield or more accurately only 0.24 an inch thick and would have only have 2 hit points (albeit at hardness 10), but it'd weigh about the same as the wooden shield but would be a flimsy joke.
Now if you made the same shield out of mithral, the weight would be halved but you are explicitly not adding more material, so the shield would now cost a whopping +22,500 gp, and have 7 hit points, and weigh the same as a darkwood tower shield. Its benefits are unjustified and you actually end up with a really crappy shield (by comparison, a normal darkwood tower shield is 450 gp more than a mwk tower shield, weighs 1/2 as much as a mithral one would, all the while retaining its 20 HP, or you could theoretically increase the thickness of the shield to give you +20 more HP for the same weight of the shield, if you want to argue special modifications to the items the rules don't account for. In essence mithral tower shields just don't work.
More likely an oversight or bad writing from the contributor. People are human, they make mistakes.
It's magic! Even if a normal towershield can't be made of mithral, that one is.
A tower shield is not just a block of wood, the same way a metal shield isn't just a sheet of metal. Using the same calculations you use for a wall for a shield is going to lead to bogus results; just try the same with steel and wooden shields that exist.
Or wait, lemme do it; heavy wooden shield has 15 HP, so 1,5 inches, right? It's weight is 10 lbs. Heavy steel shield is 15lbs. Soooo, that'd put it at 0,18 inch if it was the same weight, but, since it's 1,5 times as heavy that makes it... 0,24.
Mein gott!
Of course, it has 10 hardness and 20 HP, not 2.
A heavy steel shield and heavy wooden shield are two entirely different kinds of shields according to the equipment rules. They have different statistics and are as different from one-another in game terms as studded leather armor and chain shirts. They are both shields but you cannot make chain shirts out of darkwood and you cannot make leather armor out of mithral.
What you are doing is trying to take an item that only exists as wood and make it out of a material it expressly forbids, but use the base statistics of the original item for all calculations. You're not even being honest with your comparison (or you have completely failed to comprehend what I was saying).
Notice that the steel shield and wooden shield have different base statistics. They share similar AC modifiers but they are considered different items on the chart and have differing weights to boot. What you were doing was taking the base tower shield, using its statistics (again steel and wooden light and heavy shields have different base statistics) and applying the new material to it. This is wrong, when pointing out that it was wrong, you said "Well it's the same but it's thinner!"
So I took your argument and challenged it with the facts. Could you have a mithral tower shield? In theory, yes, but you would first need to have a metal tower shield to be its base (just as steel shields do), and it would either be extremely thin by comparison and thus very flimsy, or it would weigh a ****-ton (and by proxy, unless you just felt like being a cheater, would have a proportionately larger stack of penalties). So a metal tower shield would be even worse in terms of +Dex, check penalty, and weight, and possibly attack penalties since encumbrance in the game is based on weight and the shield would now be roughly eight times as heavy for the same coverage and thickness.
At which point making it into mithral would make it something that a normal human being might be able to lift and carry around with great effort, but it wouldn't be any better than a normal tower shield beyond having more hardness and Hp. It most certainly would be no easier to move around or make you more agile, because it would still be 4 times as heavy as a normal tower shield based on your own argument about a tower shield's make.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, concerning the "it's magic" thing with the UE shield, yes it is magic. A specific magic item that seems to have an error. If its being magic is changing the weight/material composition of the base item, what happens if I cast dispel magic on it or you enter an antimagic field with it? Does it turn back into wood? Does it suddenly weigh 369 lbs? What happens to "its magic", hm?
If you can't answer that reasonably, I think it's safe to say that the magic item was just badly written / has errors. It's okay. It happens sometimes. Whomever wrote the continual flame ioun stone also didn't understand how magic, magic items, spells, or items work either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reasoning for why you shouldn't house rule it is it'd be either really heavy or not significantly lighter.
The reasoning for why you can't without a house rule is because the tower shield is made of wood and:
Items not primarily of metal are not meaningfully affected by being partially made of mithral.
That's the end of it. Everything else is speculation for funzies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed. Here was the train of discussion.
1. A:Tower shields are wood, not metal. Can't make 'em out of mithral.
2. Q:What if we make the shield out of metal.
3. A:Converting the shield's material weight to metal would result in a disgustingly heavy shield, meaning no meaningful benefit.
4. Q:What if the shield is thinner and thus less heavy?
5. A:Here's a breakdown of weight to mass for wood vs iron. To get a similar weight to mass ratio, the result would result in a very dinky shield.
6. Q:That's bad reasoning! Are you saying that X shield should only have Y HP?
7. A:No it's your reasoning. You suggested making it thinner to obtain the same weight. I said making a shield of equivalency would be too heavy. You suggested reducing mass. I showed the natural effects of increasing mass. Since we can't shrink the shield's space it covers (lest it no longer be a tower shield) the only way to reduce mass is by thinning it, thus the result. So you either get A) a disgustingly heavy shield that would be even worse than a tower shield, or B) a tinfoil fortress.
1, It is in ultimate equipment Ashiel. Already out there. No, it is not an error. If you think it is, prove it. Go ask Jacobs, we will wait with baited breath. Please don't be obnoxious to another person when they show you it is in ultimate combat and already in the system. You can say it can't be done! Yet it is in UC.
7, Next Ashiel, do you have experience in making metal shields? What is your knowledge of steel and the different types and grades? I say this because straight swords, real actual weapons, are rather thin and certainly not fragile, tin-foil, flimsy or lacking in durability when the right high-grade steel is used (such as 9260 spring steel) to make an effective weapon.
What does this mean? Well a metal shield doesn't have to be as thick as wood. Bucklers are thin (as are most swords), and they do the job. If you don't have expertise on metal shields, please don't bother pretending you have a clue and acting authoritative.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1, It is in ultimate equipment Ashiel. Already out there. No, it is not an error. If you think it is, prove it. Go ask Jacobs, we will wait with baited breath. Please don't be obnoxious to another person when they show you it is in ultimate combat and already in the system. You can say it can't be done! Yet it is in UC.
Which is most likely an error because someone forgot that you can't make wooden items out of mithral, or more likely they forgot that the tower shield is specifically a wooden object. Thus I did prove it. I quoted the rules that say it's not legal at last twice. Also, why would I ask JJ? I'd be better off asking JB. JJ writes pretty decent APs but he's never been a rules guy and has said as much IIRC.
7, Next Ashiel, do you have experience in making metal shields? What is your knowledge of steel and the different types and grades? I say this because straight swords, real actual weapons, are rather thin and certainly not fragile, tin-foil, flimsy or lacking in durability when the right high-grade steel is used (such as 9260 spring steel) to make an effective weapon.
I do have experience making blades. Nothing as large as a sword but blacksmithing is something I have dabbled in (but I need to fix my forge because the cord to my mounted fan broke and I don't have an apprentice with nothing better to do than work bellows). The flat of the blade is generally the weakest part of a sword. Likewise when making blades you generally want the edge to be the hardest part of the sword (for holding an edge mostly) while keeping the back and/or center of the blade softer to reduce the chance that it will break (because the softer steel will help absorb impact and prevent it from breaking apart while hacking something with it). A good technique to use for that is clay or similar coating on certain portions of the metal as an insulator while you're heating the metal.
Given that it retains the hardness of the material it's probably the same quality that a blade made of X metal would be, but it would have very few hit points. There's a reason why if you want to break a blade you go for the flat, preferably the center of the blade, etc.
But if you really want to get into metal composition, durability, and usefulness of an extremely thin shield, I didn't even remark about the little details like how terrible it would be for absorbing shock from incoming attacks.
What does this mean? Well a metal shield doesn't have to be as thick as wood. Bucklers are thin (as are most swords), and they do the job. If you don't have expertise on metal shields, please don't bother pretending you have a clue and acting authoritative.
This isn't rocket science.
1. Shield says it is primarily wood.
2. Mithral says no to primarily wood items.
3. ???
4. No mithral shields.
The only reason it's even gotten this far was because some dudes were like "but why no mithral shields!?", and then it was explained with the old weight vs mass thing and now people are acting butt hurt. I didn't speak authoritatively beyond quoting what the rules actually allow/forbid, everything else was an explanation for why I think that is.
For the record wood is very strong too and can be worked to make it harder and lighter, which I would assume that most wooden weapons are. I've worked with oak to make staffs before and one of the more important processes towards the end of them is introducing fire to it in controlled amounts which dries and hardens the wood. You don't set it on fire but you do run it through the fire, turn it as necessary, etc. Give it a little sanding and the result is quite nice, the whole thing feels lighter, and it becomes extremely hard.
So how long have you been working with metals and woods, Mr. Bridge?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, on the one hand, we have Ashiel saying mithral tower shields can't exist.
On the other, we have an actual rules book saying mithral tower shields exist.
Ashiel responds saying it's an error and cites real-life physics for why it can't exist.
It's a shame the real world is not relevant to magical items, which are magic.
{. . .}
Dip 1 level of fighter to start (free proficiency in tower shields!) and grab Shield Focus in tower shields. Take your next 4 levels of Sacred Shield. Get a +1 tower shield somewhere in those first 5 levels; you may be able to afford a +2. Assuming just a +1 enhancement bonus, your tower shield now gives you a lovely +6 shield bonus... and that is shared with anyone adjacent to you. Combat Reflexes + Bodyguard and you can also aid another on the fly.
If you're willing to make a greater investment, how about multiclass into Tower Shield Specialist archetype of Fighter? At 1st level of Fighter it is the same as what you wrote, but at 2nd level of Fighter you get a bit of protection against burst spells/effects (and it scales, slowly); at 3rd level you get a reduction in penalties other than attack (and it scales, slowly); at 5th level you get rid of the attack penalty; at 9th Level you get your Shield Bonus against Touch Attacks (which if I understand correctly, should include Ranged Touch Attacks). This cuts substantially into Paladin Levels, so you might want to trade out spellcasting by way of the Warrior of the Holy Light archetype, which you can combine with the Sacred Shield archetype. Note that the 14th level Warrior of the Holy Light replacement ability (which you would only get at really high total levels) is the only one that uses Charisma, thus also making you somewhat less MAD (doesn't totally cut out the need for Charisma, since some other Paladin abilities that are not replaced still use Charisma). If you are willing to be Human (add the Eclectic feat when you start your multiclassing) or Half-Elf (keep the standard Multitalented racial trait) instead of Aasimar (keep in mind that you are somewhat less MAD), you can even get your Favored Class Bonus for both classes.
Traits of Fools for Friends and Helpful and you add +5 AC when you aid. Combined, you're adding +11 AC to anyone who stands next to you. That turns the wizard into a tank, the rogue into an unhittable monster and it makes the ranger/fighter/cleric into a mobile wall. Oh... and your AC is pretty sexy too. 10 base + 6 shield + 2 dex + 6 armor + 1 size = 25 AC. Since your really only trying to aid another, you only have to hit 10, so let your BAB do the heavy lifting. You can all but dump STR.
{. . .}
Getting Fools for Friends as one of your traits could be a problem if you are not playing in Second Darkness(*), since it is one of the Campaign Traits for that AP, and other APs have their own Campaign Traits that do not include this one.
(*)What do people do about Aura of Good (of a Paladin, or Good Cleric or Warpriest) sticking out like a sore thumb in the infiltration chapters of Second Darkness, anyway?
Also, having STR too low (even if not actually dumped) sounds like it would be asking for serious Encumbrance problems if you are carrying a Tower Shield, even if you are not carrying much else (and if you're going to the considerable trouble to have a Tower Shield, you probably want some decent armor as well, which is going to add substantial weight, even if you manage to get everything made of Mithril and/or Darkwood). You probably don't want to be slowed down, or enemies will be able to exploit your visibly obvious lack of mobility. You aren't going to be going DEX for attack or much of your defense with a build like this (unless you are going to be an archery switch-hitter, but you probably won't have the feats for that unless you get to really high levels), and STR is good for adding heavy lifting to actual attacks so that you can do some actual damage that will give enemies a painfully obvious reason to direct their attacks at you instead of your friends, even though you are visually obviously harder to hit.
OP, you stated that you liked to be able to survive attacks and this does it. Divine Grace will stack your saves up nicely. Tower Shield will drive your AC up. Sacred Shield will make your enemies *have* to come at you first. You could literally just stand in the middle of a circle of your allies and laugh your way through the fight.
This is true for the boss (although not necessarily obvious to the boss) but not for the minions -- they can still go after anyone they can reach, so actually dealing out some damage would give them some reason to go after you.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, on the one hand, we have Ashiel saying mithral tower shields can't exist.
On the other, we have an actual rules book saying mithral tower shields exist.
Wrong.
On the one hand, we have the rule book which says Mithral Tower Shields can't exist, because Tower Shields are made of wood.
On the other, you have a specific magic item, which at best provides a singular exception to that rule.
This is like extrapolating that all Undead can benefit from Morale bonuses just because one Module has a Ghoul Barbarian who gets all the bonuses.
So, on the one hand, we have Ashiel saying mithral tower shields can't exist.
On the other, we have an actual rules book saying mithral tower shields exist.
Wrong.
On the one hand, we have the rule book which says Mithral Tower Shields can't exist, because Tower Shields are made of wood.
On the other, you have a specific magic item, which at best provides a singular exception to that rule.
This is like extrapolating that all Undead can benefit from Morale bonuses just because one Module has a Ghoul Barbarian who gets all the bonuses.
Yeah, have to agree with Rynjin on this one. Assuming it wasn't a goof on the designer's part, the Force Shield is a unique magic item that is an exception to the general rule. So the only way to get a Mithral tower shield is to shell out 46k gold for a Force Shield, then hope your GM allows you to enhance unique magic items.
I will point out that for less than 46k gold you could easily pick up a magical light shield that gives better AC while still leaving your hand free for lay on hands and such.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you, Rynjin. :o
Ashiel responds saying it's an error and cites real-life physics for why it can't exist.
It's a shame the real world is not relevant to magical items, which are magic.
It's so good to see people with good reading comprehension. Too bad it doesn't happen that often. >:(
{. . .}
On Fools for Friends: Fair enough. There are other trait options that work nicely. Battlefield Disciple, Mentored. Either way, it's only a +1 difference.
Actually, I just looked up Fools for Friends and Helpful, and while the second of these doesn't explicitly that the effective +1 bonus to Aid Another (changes +2 to +3) is a Trait Bonus, it seems reasonable to assume that it is. This means that these 2 traits have a lot of areas of overlap, where they won't stack. So it is (probably) a moot point -- if you're playing Second Darkness, you'll probably want the former, and if not, you'll probably want the latter, but not both.
On low STR: Muleback Chords. For 1000gp, problem solved.
Okay, fair enough, although it doesn't solve the other problems of low STR.
As for being a threat: I think you might have missed the part where no ally adjacent to our tower shield using hero can be hit by our enemies. W/ 4 levels of Sacred Shield Pally, we're adding a static +4-6 shield bonus (depends on our other feats and the enhancement to our shield) to adjacent allies. W/ Bodyguard, we're adding another +4 or more (again, this benefit can be raised a few points with items and such). At 5th level, we can stand next to the wizard and his AC is 10 base + 1 dex + 6 shield + 4 aid another = 21 AC. That's the squishiest ally I can think of and he's pretty well defended.
I didn't miss it, but I figure intelligent use of flanking and Teamwork Feats could eat up enough of the Sacred Shield AC Bonus to allow minions to get some hits in on your allies, unless they just do not have any way to get around you.
And, really, who *wouldn't* want to stand next to a walking +10 AC buff? Sure, the wee minions can go running around to try to hit someone else, but you've turned the soft, squishy targets into hardened tanks. Where are the minions gonna go? To hit the fighter?
I can think of a couple of reasons (both highly subject to circumstance, but the relevant circumstances could be reasonably common):
1. Some of your enemies could cast nasty Area of Effect spells, and have enough of them that you can't just eat one, scoot out of the way (if it has persistence), and be done with it.
2. Your allies might not all be able to fit in the required area, even if they don't have to worry about #1 above.
It's not an offensive build and it sells out to the concept. But... It's really quite effective at what it tries to do (protect its weakest allies).
I know that, but still, it is good to be able to make it more painfully obvious that you are the one the enemies need to attack. Also, in case you get stuck fighting away from the rest of your party, you want to be able to do some damage so that you can put the hurt on your enemies before they eventually wear you down (and unless you are lucky enough to be fighting in a doorway, they WILL flank you). Obviously you would want to avoid this situation, but that might not always be possible.
As for spell casting: There's really not much necessary by way of stats. Str is a dump, Dex only needs to go to +2. Con and Int can stop at +1 or +2. Wis can go to 10. You *could* throw Cha way up. That might be useful. In any case, the Paladin spell list has never been attractive. Hero's Defiance for a sort of Ferocity effect. Linebreaker to get into combat easier. Basically, I wouldn't worry too much about it.
I hear on these forums that some of the "Litany" series of spells are pretty good, and some of these do need to be cast on opponents, thus making both Caster Level and Charisma important to keep up if you plan to make spellcasting work decently for anything other than utility and party buffing (and even for that, Caster Level often matters for duration).
On the other hand, the Warrior of the Holy Light's replacement ability is not too shabby, and while it scales with level (and gets to be pretty good at 8th level), it doesn't use Charisma except indirectly by depending upon Lay on Hands for number of uses per day -- and Warrior of the Holy Light gives you extra uses of Lay on Hands as well (also scaling with level, although more slowly than the base).
I guess you *could* keep going with Paladin as far as it will take you, but I personally stop at 4 levels. If you were taking Paladin up, Con & Cha are you main stats. Don't die, don't be affected by spells, continue spamming your absolutely obscene AC bonus.
I guess this would be not too shabby if you were planning to become a Battle Herald or something like that, although if you are giving up too much offensive ability, you end up nerfing your own Challenge ability, although Huntmaster partly gets around this, and maybe some Cavalier archetype that isn't in the table on d20pfsrd.com modifies Challenge in a way that makes it more useful to your allies without hosing its use for qualifying for Battle Herald. If you are going to do something like this, though, you really want to be a Half-Elf (instead of Aasimar as the original poster specified), because you are really going to hurt if you don't have Multitalented Mastery, unless you are playing in Legacy of Fire so that you can take the totally broken trait Finding Haleen (which would still be super-strong even at half strength), in which case you can be Human with the Eclectic feat (and Fast Learner -- forgot about that in my previous post).
On the other hand, if you are going to have just a 4 level dip in Sacred Shield Paladin (and you probably still want it to be also Warrior of the Holy Light), and you are NOT going Battle Herald, you are probably going to go back to Fighter (if you are going Stalwart Defender, you need some extra levels to get enough BAB to qualify anyway), in which case it might as well be Tower Shield Specialist, which eventually lets you become more offensive as I described in the previous post.
Arcane, On the flip side, though, if you wanted to do damage or whatever else... why pick up a tower shield in the first place? It ruins attacks and makes it so you cannot 2-hand for damage.
Even when being defensive, you want to be able to do some decent damage, for the reasons stated above (although this becomes less if you are going for additional obvious party support such as Battle Herald -- still, you want to be able to do damage if you get stuck by yourself). You can still do some respectable if not outstanding damage with the proper 1-handed weapons, and STR is still important for this (any Tower Shield build won't be good for going for DEX-based damage).