Mithril bucker, or light shield

[GorTeX]

If you consider this from the FAQ

My DM says that my cleric has to drop his morningstar
to cast spells. Is he right?
Yes and no. To cast a spell with a somatic (S) component,
you must gesture freely with at least one hand. (Player’s
Handbook, page 140) A cleric (or any caster, for that matter)
who holds a weapon in one hand and wears a heavy shield on
the other arm doesn’t have a hand free to cast a spell with a
somatic component (which includes most spells in the game).
To cast such a spell, the character must either drop or sheathe
his weapon.
Another simple option is for the cleric to carry a buckler or
light shield instead of a heavy shield. The buckler leaves one
hand free for spellcasting, and you don’t even lose the
buckler’s shield bonus to AC when casting with that hand. The
light shield doesn’t give you a free hand for spellcasting, but
since you can hold an item in the same hand that holds the light
shield, you could switch your weapon to that hand to free up a
hand for spellcasting. (You can’t use the weapon while it’s held
in the same hand as your shield, of course.) The rules don’t
state what type of action is required to switch hands on a
weapon, but it seems reasonable to assume that it’s the
equivalent of drawing a weapon (a move action that doesn’t
provoke attacks of opportunity).

I think this pretty much clearifies what WOTC intended with the buckler.

When wearing a Buckler, the hand is free to wield a weapon. Being able to wield a weapon in a hand means you can cast a spell with that hand as well.

 

[bestone]

YAaay, lets just wear 2 mithril bucklers, and take shield specialization, woo woo, 4ac for free!

 

[Klaus]

2 bucklers offer shield bonuses to AC. Bonuses of the same type don't stack (except for dodge bonuses, usually). So if you wield a +3 buckler (+4 shield bonus) and a +1 buckler (+2 shield bonus), you only get the +4.

Of course, you could wear a +1 fire resistance buckler in one arm and a +1 cold resistance buckler on the other. The AC bonuses wouldn't stack, but you'd benefit from both resistances.

 

[Darklone]

Nah, get a light spiked shield and a heavy spiked shield, go for TWF with Imp Shield bash, get one shield as a bashing one and max the other one for AC. Enhance the bashing one's spikes with the defending special weapon ability while you put something different on the heavy shields spikes... two weapons and two shields and all can be enchanted.

 

[Legildur]

Posts 5, 6 and 7 all say, "The rules do not say you may use your hand to cast." This is true. What is also true is that the buckler rules state what the buckler interferes with (attacking with weapons), that the buckler is strapped specifically to your forearm, and that the buckler has an Arcane spell failure chance.

If the designers decided that saying "strapped to your forearm" was enough to show freedom of your hand, then you would need another sentence saying "your hand is free to cast spells" as much as you would need the same sentence for Chainmail. After all, chainmail only says, "This suit includes gauntlets". Gauntlets cover your hands. This makes your hands not free in much the same way that the buckler does. So you must ask, is it reasonable that "strapped to your forearm" is enough of an explanation to void the necessity of having to say "your hand is free to cast spells"?

That leads us back to: do you consider your forearm and your hand to be one and the same thing?

Do you?

I do. But I think you already figured that out and didn't need me to spell it out.

As for the comparison with armor... that is straw man. Shields and armor are different things. No where in the armor description does it say that you don't have a free hand - clerics, paladins, rangers, bards, etc can all cast in armor, ie, they have a free hand. The issue around the somatic component is not unique to arcane casters.

Additionally, armor does not hinder attacks rolls (assuming proficiency, of course) and yet a buckler does.

I would certainly allow a caster to hold a focus in a buckler hand, but not cast with that hand.

 

[Felix]

I do. But I think you already figured that out and didn't need me to spell it out.

I wanted you to say it. How do you defend the notion?

As for the comparison with armor... that is straw man. Shields and armor are different things. No where in the armor description does it say that you don't have a free hand <snip>

It is not a straw man. If armor does not interfere with your hand because it doesn't specifically say so, then why do you impose a different standard on shields, where they must say that they specifically leave the hand free? Take a look at the difference between Bucklers and Heavy Shields:

You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A heavy shield is so heavy that you can’t use your shield hand for anything else.

This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you don’t get the buckler’s AC bonus for the rest of the round.

[Emphasis added]

You don't have a free hand to cast spells with heavy shields because a rule states that this is so. The buckler does not, merely illustrates the problems it causes with wielding weapons.

Additionally, armor does not hinder attacks rolls (assuming proficiency, of course) and yet a buckler does.

And? Your hand is still free to wield a weapon. Merely because it is slightly hindered by the ACP does not mean that the hand is not free.

---

The only way your ruling makes sense is if Forearm = Hand. You have stated that this is what you believe. Well, as you like. I consider it foolish not only anatomically speaking, but also because the descriptions of the Heavy Shield and the Buckler illustrate that the game designers understand the difference between the two and do not believe that they are one in the same.

 

[Legildur]

The only way your ruling makes sense is if Forearm = Hand. You have stated that this is what you believe. Well, as you like. I consider it foolish not only anatomically speaking, but also because the descriptions of the Heavy Shield and the Buckler illustrate that the game designers understand the difference between the two and do not believe that they are one in the same.

Are you saying that a forearm and hand are not connected? Anatomically speaking, of course..... I want you to say it.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I believe that the "measured and precise movement of the hand" required for a somatic component is not possible with a buckler on the arm because of the weight, as indicated by the attack penalty for wielding a weapon in the buckler hand.

This restriction is over and above the ASF chance imposed for having a buckler ready on either arm, regardless of which one you may decide to choose to cast with, which can obviously be negated through the use of mithril. You'll note that making a buckler out of mithril does not remove the attack penalty, only the Armor Check penalty. (The attack penalty is not derived from the Armor Check penalty as you made out). Therefore the weight is still a factor.

 

[Elethiomel]

Yet it allows movements precise enough to aim a bow or crossbow without penalty. It only penalizes "power moves" - not precision moves.

 

[pallandrome]

Why would it HAVE an arcane spell failure rate, if it were impossible to cast with? What purpose would the arcane spell failure rate serve?

That being said, I disagree that "There is nothing the DM can do about it". The DM can always just say no. He is the DM, after all...

 

[Elethiomel]

Why would it HAVE an arcane spell failure rate, if it were impossible to cast with? What purpose would the arcane spell failure rate serve?

The arcane spell failure rate applies also to spells cast with the other hand.