Using a buckler

[Darklone]

just to be absolutely sure, "rest of the round" means "until it's my turn to act again", right?

Thanks again.

Yes.

 

[thorimar]

From the SRD: Buckler: This small metal shield is strapped to the forearm, allowing it to be worn and still use the hand. A bow or crossbow can be used without penalty. An off-hand weapon can be used, but a -1 penalty on attack rolls is imposed because of the extra weight on your arm. This penalty stacks with those for fighting with the off hand and, if appropriate, for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if a weapon is used in the off-hand, the character doesn't get the buckler's AC bonus for the rest of the round.

Okay, so I read the quote from the SRD above but I still am unclear. It states that an off-hand weapon would suffer a penalty, which I understand because the whole weight of the buckler is on that arm. The SRD also indicates specifically that using a bow or crossbow does not incur this penalty. Why? I always made the assumption that because the bows were used two-handed they distributed the weight of the buckler and weapon more evenly, thus eliminating the penalty. This interpretation I am also okay with. My problem is with 2-h weapons. I can't see how it is less cumbersome to use a bow or crossbow while wearing a buckler compared to a two-handed melee weapon. I think the paragraph on bucklers skips over the one scenario that they could be the most useful for. I play a dwarven cleric/fighter who wears a MW buckler and wields a 2-H hammer (maul). On those rounds I spend moving or heaing I get the armor benefit. When I fight I sacrifice that AC for more damage(+1/2 STR). But I hadn't ever taken the -1 to-hit fromthe buckler rule because it didn't totally fit. Has this rule been clarified anywhere else? Maybe 3.5 will re-write this paragraph with the answer spelled out for us.

 

[Sejs]

When you're swinging a two-handed melee weapon (2h maul, in your example), you're moving both arms around alot. A 2h mele weapon is one that is one size category larger than you are. When you're using a bow or a crossbow your off hand is primarily used to hold the weapon steady - it's not really moving around and doing things, it's there to keep the bow in place. Thus, no penality to attack.

 

[Artoomis]

A few remarks on two-handed weapons with bucklers:

My Best Advice: Allow someone using a weapon with both hands to have a buckler strapped to his arm with no penalty, but no AC bonus from the buckler.

The Rules: You may use a buckler with a bow with no penalty and you still get the AC bonus from the buckler. If you use two weapons, you get a –1 to all your attacks and get no AC bonus for the buckler. There is no rule for two-handed weapons with a buckler.

The Sage: (In an e-mail)You can't use a buckler with a two-handed weapon. (Many DMs allow this, if you're one on them just use the two-weapon attack penalty.)

In any case, you don't get the buckler's AC bonus on any round when you attack with the hand that holds the buckler (even if you use a ranged weapon such as a bow).

Argument For: It’s not a big deal.It allows some extra flexibility. The rules seem to allow using a buckler with a two-handed weapon, but precisely how that's done is unclear. It is, after all, strapped to your arm - what happens when you pick up the two-handed weapon? That's the question, and the best(?) answer is to allow it but with no bonus from the shield.

Argument Against: It can be abused – you could possibly have a magic buckler with special properties that would still be active even when you don’t get the AC bonus. The rules don't say you can use a buckler with a two-handed weapon, so you can't.

 

[LokiDR]

In detail, every round, i was planning something like this:
a) shoot arrow(s)
b) end of round: un-nock bow, and get into defensive position (in case someone approaches and i need to make an AoO
c) next round, leave defensive stance and start shooting arrows if enemies haven't closed in.

Maitre D

Lots of people have tried this, and lots of people try to shoot them down. I see this as difficult situation but one that is workable under the rules.

I know that you can, as a free action, switch your grip on a two handed weapon to hold it one hand, then quickdraw a weapon (or use unarmed attack) to hit a person. This works quite well for most reach weapons.

Now try to work this on your buckler/spiked gauntlets character. While firing arrows, you don't have buckler or spikes for AoO. As a free action, you can drop one hand from the weapon, and therefore get the use of your buckler or spike gauntlets. At the begining of the next round, you put your hand back on the weapon again (free), fire your shots (whatever actions you want) and then drop one hand off again(free). This is no worse than wearing armor spikes and body slaming people as AoOs (look Ma, no hands)

Rule-wise, the only thing that really limits the dropping of a hand from the bow is the limit of DM on number of free actions you take. General armor spikes fix that problem. Also, ready a shield is a Move-Equivelant action. The DM may well impose -2 to all attacks you make as "off-hand" penalties for using "two weapons", the bow and the spikes/unarmed. A resonable cost for being defensive.

Don't let anyone tell you this is munchkin tatic. Munchkin is doing the same thing as a cleric, buffing the hell out of yourself, arrows, armor, and armor/spikes.

A feat should probably be required by your DM to make this work completely (quickdraw, improve unarmed, two weapon fighting) to represent the extra training you have had.

 

[Artoomis]

... In any case, if a weapon is used in the off-hand, the character doesn't get the buckler's AC bonus for the rest of the round.

I would not allow the use of the buckler if you used a weapon in the off-hand. Period. Nor would I allow you to threaten with amor spikes (or a spiked gauntlet) if you are using a weapon in both hands (or sword and shield) - I'd make one hand required to be free).

I'd allow it if you used a MEA to do it - thus actually using an action to switch around to leaving the off-hand free. That way you could do it, but only if you chose to make one attack instead of a full attack.

 

[diaglo]

Re: Re: Using a buckler

The DM may well impose -2 to all attacks you make as "off-hand" penalties for using "two weapons", the bow and the spikes/unarmed. A resonable cost for being defensive.

using two weapons is steeper than that.

the -2 penalty only counts if you have TwoWeaponFighting as a feat plus Ambidex. but in 3.5 it will all be one.

 

[melkoriii]

I personaly hope they fix the Buckler in 3.5

There is no reason to spend 15gp on a shield that you are suppose to use with a weapon in that hand but still dont get the AB bonus.

There is no reason to not use a Small shield as you get everything the Buckler gives you and it cost less.

I can count on one hand the number of times I have not attacked useing a 2-H Sword and Buckler to keep the the AC.

 

[Sejs]

I would not allow the use of the buckler if you used a weapon in the off-hand. Period.

By 'use' do you mean get the AC bonus from the buckler, or that you wouldn't allow someone to attack with the hand that has a buckler on it? Normally, you can wear a buckler on the off-arm, and wield a weapon in the off-hand, but if you attack with the off-hand weapon you forfit the buckler's AC bonus and suffer a -1 to hit. If you wanted to attack (still at -1), but retain the buckler's AC bonus you'd have to take the Shield Expert feat. If you wouldn't allow someone with a buckler on their off-arm to attack at all... then what's the point of a buckler? It would just be a small shield that costs more money for some reason.

Nor would I allow you to threaten with amor spikes (or a spiked gauntlet) if you are using a weapon in both hands (or sword and shield) - I'd make one hand required to be free).

Not threatening an area with a spiked gauntlet if that hand is currently occupied with a weapon makes sense. The hand is already doing something, and the primary benefit of the spiked gauntlet is that you can be disarmed of your normal weapon and still be armed. Or if you're supprised or whatnot, you're still armed even if you don't have your sword out - you have a weapon built in to your gauntlet.

Not allowing armor spikes to threaten an area, however, I disagree with. Armor spikes are a martial weapon, and don't require the interaction of your hands at all. Your hands being otherwise occupied (or bound, or missing, etc) shouldn't impact your ability to use armor spikes.


melkoriii:

There is no reason to not use a Small shield as you get everything the Buckler gives you and it cost less.

When you attack with any shield you lose it's Ac bonus for that round unless you have the Shield Expert feat. A buckler lets you wield a weapon in that hand, rather than having to shield bash (as buckler's cannot shield bash anyway). A small shield, however, doesn't let you wield a weapon in that hand - you can hold a torch, a potion, or whatever.. you could even hold a weapon in that hand - but you can't attack with it.

 

[Artoomis]

By 'use' do you mean get the AC bonus from the buckler, or that you wouldn't allow someone to attack with the hand that has a buckler on it? Normally, you can wear a buckler on the off-arm, and wield a weapon in the off-hand, but if you attack with the off-hand weapon you forfit the buckler's AC bonus and suffer a -1 to hit. If you wanted to attack (still at -1), but retain the buckler's AC bonus you'd have to take the Shield Expert feat. If you wouldn't allow someone with a buckler on their off-arm to attack at all... then what's the point of a buckler? It would just be a small shield that costs more money for some reason.

I meant get the AC bonus.

...Not allowing armor spikes to threaten an area, however, I disagree with. Armor spikes are a martial weapon, and don't require the interaction of your hands at all. Your hands being otherwise occupied (or bound, or missing, etc) shouldn't impact your ability to use armor spikes.

...A regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) can be made with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case.

I stand by my earlier statement on this one. To attack with Armor Spikes, as far as I am concerned, requires a free hand. That's implied when it is stated that you can make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack).