Talk:Tower Shield (5e Equipment)

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Strength requirement[edit]

I changed the Strength requirement from 13 to 17. From a mechanical perspective, people likely to use a tower shield are already using a shield, and already wearing heavy(ish) armor, which means the stealth check disadvantage isn't much of a setback and this item basically serves as an inexpensive +1 AC for those people. Having a high Strength requirement to maintain full speed helps give heavy armor characters with 13–16 Strength a reason to choose between a normal shield and tower shield. From a realism perspective, a giant 18-pound shield will seriously throw off your balance when trying to move quickly. —Proton[talk] 10:58, 13 May 2015 (MDT)

That sounds good to me. Marasmusine (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2015 (MDT)

Gonna suggest that, for the purpose of the Protection fighting style, the shield definitely has a good chance of blocking your vision of a given attacking enemy. The image of this thing being used for that style's ability is just kind of ridiculous to me. Knowlessman (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2017 (MST)

I've been reading about tower shields, and they were great against ranged attacks, and for spearmen in formation; but they were a hinderance for general melee work. I am rewriting the tower shield to better reflect this. Marasmusine (talk) 05:38, 22 August 2017 (MDT)

     Maybe this version is more historically accurate, but I feel it is unbalanced. It seems to be based on the assumption that "disadvantage on attack rolls" would be a problem for its wielder. A cleric, a paladin, a human spellcaster who takes a certain feat at 1st level, or any spellcaster who takes its first level in fighter/paladin/etc, gets in my opinion too much benefit from this shield. It's a constant +4 bonus to AC and +2 bonus to Dex saves, with no drawback if you focus on casting cantrips like acid splash or other spells instead of making attack rolls. ("You have half cover" implies it is constant, and there's no rule stating cover can't apply to melee attacks.)
     Aside from that, you now only need to spend movement (half of it, which is not often that problematic) to have three-quarters cover until the start of your next turn. So if you're willing to expend half your speed, you can have an effectively constant +7 bonus to AC and +5 bonus to Dex saves from this shield, but still have an action free to do something like Dodge or cast a spell (which again will be mostly unhindered). This seems just seems too good for any cleric or a defensive paladin, let alone a more strategic build. As of the most recent edit, this 45 gp starting equipment is drastically better for many builds than a legendary +3 shield.
     To be honest, I might be bothered by the fact that even though several other pages rely on how this shield used to work, this overhaul was made on a page which had no previous indication of having a problem. My experience on this wiki suggests that, in an instance of something like this, a variant should be made instead of an overwrite. - Guy (talk) 06:22, 22 August 2017 (MDT)
Gotta agree with Guy on this. A variant should've been made opposed to a complete rewrite or the rewrite should've been discussed with the OP.--Dark Dragon (talk) 11:59, 10 November 2017 (MST)
For the record, I did create a variant more closely resembling how this page used to function, and redirected the half-dozen-or-so links I had previously made to this page. I'm still glad someone agrees, though. - Guy (talk) 12:11, 10 November 2017 (MST)

The Gladius[edit]

Fun fact, the Roman legions used their great tower shields along with the Gladius, an almost archetypal short sword - maybe make the disadvantage apply to non-light weapons? - 03:56, 9 August 2018 (MDT)

Home of user-generated,
homebrew pages!