Shield spell + Mage Armor spell

[Mistwell]

You do , but taking the feat Improved Buckler Defense would avoid that. You also incur the arcane spell failure of the buckler unless it Mithrial (or provides some other way by class or magic to negate this spell failure).

Actually the FAQ says you do not need a feat for it. "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."

 

[Darthjaye]

Actually the FAQ says you do not need a feat for it. "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."

But in order to use shields or armor you need to be proficient in it, and wizards and sorcerers are not. Not sure how that applies, but I would think it would apply an additional -4 on top of it's normal penalties to skills such as concentration. It would also (unless it were a Mithrial one) apply the spell failure.

Casting is a standard action. As such I would think if you have to use the hand you lose the AC from shield. You would if you swung a weapon with it, why not when swinging your hands around to cast spells?

 

[KarinsDad]

But in order to use shields or armor you need to be proficient in it, and wizards and sorcerers are not. Not sure how that applies, but I would think it would apply an additional -4 on top of it's normal penalties to skills such as concentration. It would also (unless it were a Mithrial one) apply the spell failure.

Casting is a standard action. As such I would think if you have to use the hand you lose the AC from shield. You would if you swung a weapon with it, why not when swinging your hands around to cast spells?

Depending on DM, put weapon in Buckler hand (free action), cast spell with normal hand (standard action), switch weapon back to normal hand (free action).

Even for a DM that does not allow this, there are no penalties to casting or concentrating if you use a Buckler hand, especially with a Mithral Buckler (weight 2.5 pounds and no penalties at all). A Mithral Buckler does not incur any penalties for combat whatsoever. The normal penalty for combat is the armor check penalty if the character is not proficient with a Shield and a Mithral Buckler has an armor check penalty of zero.

The point is, you are not actually doing an action with both hands. You are just casting a spell with one hand. The loss of Buckler AC bonus is specifically tied to using both hands simulataneously (e.g. using two weapons or a two handed weapon). Casting a spell does not require two hands.

For that matter, you can cast a spell with Gauntlets of Ogre Power (2 pounds per gauntlet) on. Or, at least there are no rules that a free hand means one without a Glove or Gauntlet on.

 

[Hypersmurf]

But in order to use shields or armor you need to be proficient in it, and wizards and sorcerers are not. Not sure how that applies, but I would think it would apply an additional -4 on top of it's normal penalties to skills such as concentration.

If you're not proficient with a shield or armor, you apply its Armor Check Penalty to all attack rolls.

A mithral buckler has an Armor Check Penalty of 0.

So strictly, a wizard using a mithral buckler with which he is not proficient takes a -0 penalty on all attack rolls. If this concerns him, he can take the Shield Proficiency feat to avoid the penalty.

-Hyp.

 

[Bront]

Why? With a Mithral Buckler or Light Shield, he would not suffer an off hand attack either.

A whopping +1 to AC at level 3 is not game breaking.

Nor is +5 to AC at level 15.

If a PC Wizard who already has to spend money out the ying yang just in order to put spells into his spellbook wants a mithral buckler or light shield as well, I'm not going to stop him.

He's giving up other useful magical items or spells in order to do that.

Buckler rules state

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.

You can’t bash someone with a buckler.

Doesn't say anything about loosing that -1 because of it being mithril, as it's not the armor check penalty.

But yes, monitarily, it's not game breaking.

There is no such rule. You lose the bucker's bonus if you use two weapons or use a two handed weapon. You do not lose it for attacking with a one handed weapon or casting a spell.

There are times when the Spirit of the Rules should trump the Letter of the Rules, but this is not one of them.

You missed the part about having a weapon in the other hand, which means you can't cast with that hand.

 

[Bront]

If you're not proficient with a shield or armor, you apply its Armor Check Penalty to all attack rolls.

A mithral buckler has an Armor Check Penalty of 0.

So strictly, a wizard using a mithral buckler with which he is not proficient takes a -0 penalty on all attack rolls. If this concerns him, he can take the Shield Proficiency feat to avoid the penalty.

-Hyp.

This is why I think that any non-proficient armor issue should have a -1 min penalty, or else it makes light armor proficiency fairly useless, and allows for the shield issue you described above, which I think is silly.

Even cheeper, you can use a darkwood heavy shield. Still have a Arcane spell failure though, so less helpfull in this issue, but technicaly, a rogue can now use a heavy shield with no combat disadvantages.

 

[Darthjaye]

This is why I think that any non-proficient armor issue should have a -1 min penalty, or else it makes light armor proficiency fairly useless, and allows for the shield issue you described above, which I think is silly.

Even cheeper, you can use a darkwood heavy shield. Still have a Arcane spell failure though, so less helpfull in this issue, but technicaly, a rogue can now use a heavy shield with no combat disadvantages.

I agree. Why even list in class desciptions that a class has no familiarity with armor OR SHIELDS if it doesn't matter one bit. The scenario some have left us with means a arcane spellcaster could (not that it would be prudent or possible with some) carry around a Light Mithrial Shield or a heavy Mithrial Shield (only a 5% spell failure) and still cast while holding it in place. No point in listing it in the proficiencies if it's not pertinent somehow.

 

[MarkB]

I agree. Why even list in class desciptions that a class has no familiarity with armor OR SHIELDS if it doesn't matter one bit. The scenario some have left us with means a arcane spellcaster could (not that it would be prudent or possible with some) carry around a Light Mithrial Shield or a heavy Mithrial Shield (only a 5% spell failure) and still cast while holding it in place. No point in listing it in the proficiencies if it's not pertinent somehow.

It's pertinent in that he's had to spend out extra on a mithral shield instead of buying an ordinary wooden one. Increased flexibility and ease of use is pretty much the whole point of mithral - if it lets barbarians wear full plate without penalty and rangers wear breastplates without penalty, why shouldn't it let spellcasters use shields without penalty?

 

[Bront]

It's pertinent in that he's had to spend out extra on a mithral shield instead of buying an ordinary wooden one. Increased flexibility and ease of use is pretty much the whole point of mithral - if it lets barbarians wear full plate without penalty and rangers wear breastplates without penalty, why shouldn't it let spellcasters use shields without penalty?

Because there's more to using a shield effectively than just the weight issue.

 

[KarinsDad]

Buckler rules state

Doesn't say anything about loosing that -1 because of it being mithril, as it's not the armor check penalty.

True. But that penalty only applies if you are using two weapons or a two handed weapon. The penalty does not apply for holding a weapon in one hand and casting with the other.

Such a rule would be house rule territory.

You missed the part about having a weapon in the other hand, which means you can't cast with that hand.

Actually, I'm not the one who missed anything. The original quote was:

You can hold a mithril buckler, and a weapon, and cast a spell. That's the beauty of it.

Note: This does not state wield a weapon. Nor does it state which hand the weapon is in.


However, regardless of which hand the weapon is in:

a) You can cast a spell in either hand with no penalty. The Buckler -1 penalty only applies to a two handed weapon or wielding two weapons.

b) You can always switch the weapon to the buckler hand (if it is already not in that hand), cast with the regular hand, and switch it back.


Even if the buckler is not made of mithral, there are no penalties for casting with it while holding a weapon (in either hand) at the same time except for the standard Arcane Spell Failure chance. If made of Mithral, it has an Arcane Spell Failure chance of zero.