Can you disarm a shield?

Disarming gauntlets is a little too literal.

Stynkk wrote:

PRD - Combat - Move Actions:

Ready or Drop a Shield
Strapping a shield to your arm to gain its shield bonus to your AC, or unstrapping and dropping a shield so you can use your shield hand for another purpose, requires a move action. If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you can ready or drop a shield as a free action combined with a regular move.

Dropping a carried (but not worn) shield is a free action.

This, I think, is the meat of it. That last sentence, to me at least, implies that worn shields are indeed still carried, they just are not strapped on via the above paragraph. If worn shields were not also carried, then there would be no need for "(but not worn)".

Also, someone said something earlier about a contrary ruling indicating that shields were the only weapon you can't disarm. False. Armor spikes.

Oh nice find there. Yep that pretty much clearly states that a shield is worn (like say armor) when in the use position and as such not disarmable...unless you think armor should be as well. Now a shield that you are carrying on your person is perfectly targetable as a disarm (remeber disarm doesn't actually say the item must be carried in hand...just carried).

Jiggy, you argue like a kolaryut.

That's not always a good thing. In fact, doing so often ignores the primary advantages humans have over inevitables.

That is how one should argue the rules. Once you realize what a rule really means then you can begin to houserule it if you don't like what you find.

Lyrax wrote:

Jiggy, you argue like a kolaryut.

That's not always a good thing. In fact, doing so often ignores the primary advantages humans have over inevitables.

That is how one should argue the rules. Once you realize what a rule really means then you can begin to houserule it if you don't like what you find.

Thank you.

@Stynkk: Note that "gripping does not mean carrying" and "gripping means not carrying" are two different things, only one of which I suggested.

That is how one should argue the rules. Once you realize what a rule really means then you can begin to houserule it if you don't like what you find.

I don't think that's actually true at all. Seeing the rules for what they should be is a much higher priority for me.

I don't think that's actually true at all. Seeing the rules for what they should be is a much higher priority for me.

That is not how I read your statement, and sometime the RAW is the RAI. I think this is one of those cases.

Lyrax wrote:

I don't think that's actually true at all. Seeing the rules for what they should be is a much higher priority for me.

That is not how I read your statement, and sometime the RAW is the RAI. I think this is one of those cases.

Strapping the shield to your arm is not the same to me as holding it or carrying it.
The rules seem to indicate that you can hold it or strap it on, and the effects are not the same. It seems that when you strap the shield to your arm it is worn for mechanical purposes.

The word strapped in this case only mechanically means "equipped." It doesn't mean you are using it, or that it is in your hands. By using it I mean dedicating that hand to using it to gain a shield bonus from it. If you are doing that you are most certainly holding it and it CAN be disarmed. I understand the argument that, if you only have it equipped and aren't actually using the hand you hold it in to defend yourself, then it shouldn't be able to be disarmed. It makes sense, especially in the case of the buckler I think.

For me, I determine if an item is held (or gripped) if it would be dropped if the character becomes stunned.

So, for disarming, it must be an item which would be dropped.

Shields cannot be disarmed, as they are not dropped if you become stunned, as they are strapped to your arm.

Locked Gauntlets are specifically called out as being an exception to the rule, if you beat the CMD by 10.

For me, I determine if an item is held (or gripped) if it would be dropped if the character becomes stunned.

So, for disarming, it must be an item which would be dropped.

Shields cannot be disarmed, as they are not dropped if you become stunned, as they are strapped to your arm.

Locked Gauntlets are specifically called out as being an exception to the rule, if you beat the CMD by 10.

So, in your game I can stop all disarms for the cost of 1 sp?

That is not how I read your statement, and sometime the RAW is the RAI. I think this is one of those cases.

Strapping the shield to your arm is not the same to me as holding it or carrying it.
The rules seem to indicate that you can hold it or strap it on, and the effects are not the same. It seems that when you strap the shield to your arm it is worn for mechanical purposes.

Well, yes. But wielding a weapon is also different from holding or carrying it. I don't see any 'you can't disarm weapons because they're wielded, not held or carried' arguments.

Why not?

Because that's a stupid argument, that's why, and we all know it. Why else does the disarm maneuver exist, if not to strip your opponent of weapons and that could otherwise make him or her a more effective combatant?

I don't think shields should be treated any differently.

Mistwalker wrote:

For me, I determine if an item is held (or gripped) if it would be dropped if the character becomes stunned.

So, for disarming, it must be an item which would be dropped.

Shields cannot be disarmed, as they are not dropped if you become stunned, as they are strapped to your arm.

Locked Gauntlets are specifically called out as being an exception to the rule, if you beat the CMD by 10.

So, in your game I can stop all disarms for the cost of 1 sp?

I'm not following your logic.

A weapon cord does not stop you from being disarmed and/or dropping your weapon. It states so quite clearly in the text. What it does do is allow you to recover your weapon as a swift action, after you have been disarmed or dropped your weapon.

If you're using a shield (as opposed to carrying it), you're *wearing* it, you're not simply carrying it in your hand.

Disarm text: "If your attack is successful, your target drops one item it is carrying of your choice..."

Thus, you can't disarm someone of a shield they're wearing.

If you're using a shield (as opposed to carrying it), you're *wearing* it, you're not simply carrying it in your hand.

Disarm text: "If your attack is successful, your target drops one item it is carrying of your choice..."

Thus, you can't disarm someone of a shield they're wearing.

This also means you don't drop your shield when stunned.

This is why sunder is your friend. When in doubt, break it!

If you're using a shield (as opposed to carrying it), you're *wearing* it, you're not simply carrying it in your hand.

Disarm text: "If your attack is successful, your target drops one item it is carrying of your choice..."

Thus, you can't disarm someone of a shield they're wearing.

I'm not sure that I agree with this, but it is always nice to have Paizo Staff input regarding issues that are muddy. I suppose you win some and you lose some. Thanks Sean.

Although, I will ask for shields to be updated with the same reminded text as Gauntlets posses - you can't use Disarm to disarm you of a shield. I like consistency... :)

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

If you're using a shield (as opposed to carrying it), you're *wearing* it, you're not simply carrying it in your hand.

Disarm text: "If your attack is successful, your target drops one item it is carrying of your choice..."

Thus, you can't disarm someone of a shield they're wearing.

I'm not sure that I agree with this, but it is always nice to have Paizo Staff input regarding issues that are muddy. I suppose you win some and you lose some. Thanks Sean.

Although, I will ask for shields to be updated with the same reminded text as Gauntlets posses - you can't use Disarm to disarm you of a shield. I like consistency... :)

There's also nothing stating you can't be disarmed of your armor, but it goes back to being worn.

I presume it would be the same for armor, shields, gauntlets, a cestus, or the tekko-kagi. If you wear it, you're not carrying it. Not carrying it, can't be disarmed.

This doesn't seem like a logical stretch to me at all.

This doesn't seem like a logical stretch to me at all.

Whether you think its a logical stretch is not my concern. Sean gave his input and I'll be supporting it moving forward.

However, I'm saying Gauntlets, Locked Gauntlets & Spiked Gauntlets (which are wearble weapons) have the reminder text: this item can't be disarmed.

A shield is also a wearable weapon and should have the same text somewhere in the CRB that it can't be disarmed - for rules consistency and clear communication of this idea.

Armor/Armor Spikes does not have this reminder text, because armor is not in your hands slot when you wear it and could never be subject to Disarm.

for rules consistency and clear communication of this idea.

Fair point. I guess this is likely where we run into the word count issue again.

Or it's because gauntlets are listed as weapons in the weapon section, but (unlike other weapons) can't be disarmed, and they're called out as exceptions to the "any weapon can be disarmed" rule.

Or it's because gauntlets are listed as weapons in the weapon section, but (unlike other weapons) can't be disarmed, and they're called out as exceptions to the "any weapon can be disarmed" rule.

Yes, but a portion of the player base sees that shields can be used as weapons and therefore are weapons in every way/manner/sense imaginable, which is how the "any weapon can be disarmed" rule lead to "so obviously you can disarm a shield because it's a weapon".

Sort of like the whole "combat maneuvers are attacks and can therefore crit" idea that you had to shoot down a while back. *shudder*

I think you and I are on the same wavelength, though. Let's you and me play, 'kay? ;)

Yes, but a portion of the player base sees that shields can be used as weapons and therefore are weapons in every way/manner/sense imaginable, which is how the "any weapon can be disarmed" rule lead to "so obviously you can disarm a shield because it's a weapon".

This is exactly the problem. But why?

Or it's because gauntlets are listed as weapons in the weapon section, but (unlike other weapons) can't be disarmed, and they're called out as exceptions to the "any weapon can be disarmed" rule.

Shields that can bash are also listed in the weapons section... so what you're saying about Gauntlets should at the very least also apply to Light and Heavy Shields. And, if you're going to ammend light and heavy shields for Disarm consistency going forward, then you might want to look at updating the text for shields in general.

I think people are imagining that you are actively gripping the shield with your hand (in addition to the straps) and thus interpreting that it is fair game for Disarm.

Shields can't be disarmed because they aren't carried.

Which means they can be stolen.

Shields can't be disarmed because they aren't carried.

Which means they can be stolen.

Good thinking steve, but...

From Steal: Items that are closely worn (such as armor, backpacks, boots, clothing, or rings) cannot be taken with this maneuver.

From SKR, people wear shields (as armor) so if you could steal a shield you could then steal armor.

Take it from me, shields may be strapped on, but seeing the move/action thingie means that in general, in PF, they are not.

Strapped (to bind the shield to once arm) would mean they are taking a few rounds to strap it.
If my player said this: okay, it's strapped.. If not, it's flying through the air as easily as his weapon.
If he lives, he'll learn :)

Take it from me,

I think I'd rather take it from Sean K Reynolds, thanks.

Developer beats Verisimilitude Activist, in my eyes.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Or it's because gauntlets are listed as weapons in the weapon section, but (unlike other weapons) can't be disarmed, and they're called out as exceptions to the "any weapon can be disarmed" rule.

Yes, but a portion of the player base sees that shields can be used as weapons and therefore are weapons in every way/manner/sense imaginable, which is how the "any weapon can be disarmed" rule lead to "so obviously you can disarm a shield because it's a weapon".

Sort of like the whole "combat maneuvers are attacks and can therefore crit" idea that you had to shoot down a while back. *shudder*

I think you and I are on the same wavelength, though. Let's you and me play, 'kay? ;)

It is not "Any weapon can be disarmed." It is "Any item carried in hand can be disarmed" the disarm maneuver says nothing about it needing to be a weapon.

Take it from me, shields may be strapped on, but seeing the move/action thingie means that in general, in PF, they are not.

Strapped (to bind the shield to once arm) would mean they are taking a few rounds to strap it.
If my player said this: okay, it's strapped.. If not, it's flying through the air as easily as his weapon.
If he lives, he'll learn :)

I agree, it should take about as long to actually strap on a shield as it does to lock a weapon in a locked gauntlet.

It is not "Any weapon can be disarmed." It is "Any item carried in hand can be disarmed" the disarm maneuver says nothing about it needing to be a weapon.

And "weapon in hand" is a subset of "any object in hand." We're saying the same thing, I'm just being specific to the topic at hand (things in the weapons section of the book, which includes gauntlets).

Happler wrote:

It is not "Any weapon can be disarmed." It is "Any item carried in hand can be disarmed" the disarm maneuver says nothing about it needing to be a weapon.

And "weapon in hand" is a subset of "any object in hand." We're saying the same thing, I'm just being specific to the topic at hand (things in the weapons section of the book, which includes gauntlets).

I understand. I just found it easier to deal with if you go with "object carried in hand can be disarmed" rather then "any weapon can be disarmed". Gauntlets are not carried in hand, they are worn. Shields are not carried in hand, they are strapped on.

This also helps remind people that stuff like a readied wand can be disarmed. Or someone has a holy symbol in hand to cast, disarm them! Also stuff like Spell components out for casting (need them in hand). I have seen a fighter ready an action to disarm the casters spell components to force a spell failure on casting.

Quantum Steve wrote:

Shields can't be disarmed because they aren't carried.

Which means they can be stolen.

Good thinking steve, but...

From Steal: Items that are closely worn (such as armor, backpacks, boots, clothing, or rings) cannot be taken with this maneuver.

From SKR, people wear shields (as armor) so if you could steal a shield you could then steal armor.

However...

From Steal: Items fastened to a foe (such as cloaks, sheathed weapons, or pouches) are more difficult to take, and give the opponent a +5 bonus (or greater) to his CMD.

Shields are only held on by a single strap (like cloaks, which can be stolen). Armor takes several minutes to take off, but shields can be taken off as easily as drawing a sheathed weapon (which can also be stolen).

As an experienced fighter with shields in SCA, no you cannot disarm a shield.

Generally shields have one strap and a handle. Axes however do a great job of hooking shields and pulling them down to leave the shoulders and head open.

I would only allow a disarm to take away a shield bonus for the next action.

The classic viking round shield (what I would call a small shield) was a center gripped shield that generally was not strapped.

Any large shield whether made of metal or wood would be strapped, and nearly impossible to disarm.

Picking up your shield from the ground and setting it on your arm should not take more than 3 seconds.

Take it from me, shields may be strapped on, but seeing the move/action thingie means that in general, in PF, they are not.

Strapped (to bind the shield to once arm) would mean they are taking a few rounds to strap it.
If my player said this: okay, it's strapped.. If not, it's flying through the air as easily as his weapon.
If he lives, he'll learn :)

A shield unless it is a viking round shield will always be strapped. In this case a large shield should ALWAYS be strapped. it is impossible to use a shield without that leverage.

Also as someone that has had to 'strap on a shield' quick, a move action would easily cover this. I would say a swift action. if you have your shield set up right, it is a matter of slipping your hand through a strap, nothing more.

If a round is indeed 6 seconds A move action should cover this. If the shield has been unstrapped for any reason like maintenace then it takes more time.

Still, if you are already armored up, you should have your shield ready to go.

Solution to all these problems-

Wear a locking gauntlet on the hand you are holding your shield with.

Better yet, make a craft check and say to your GM "I'd like to build my shield so that the arm strap acts like a Locking Gauntlet."

My bet is you'd get a shrug and a "sure".

The classic viking round shield (what I would call a small shield) was a center gripped shield that generally was not strapped.

Mechanically a Viking Round is actually a buckler. (I know this is very arguable, but the descriptions are pretty clear. Personally I think Shields get sold short n a lot of ways in PF/3.5)

off topic

Mournblade94 wrote:

The classic viking round shield (what I would call a small shield) was a center gripped shield that generally was not strapped.

Mechanically a Viking Round is actually a buckler. (I know this is very arguable, but the descriptions are pretty clear. Personally I think Shields get sold short n a lot of ways in PF/3.5)

off topic ** spoiler omitted **

+1. Vikiings are teh scary.

Mechanically a Viking Round is actually a buckler. (I know this is very arguable, but the descriptions are pretty clear. Personally I think Shields get sold short n a lot of ways in PF/3.5)

This is way off topic, but Bucklers are strapped in PF. Viking round shields were also HUGE, covering more than half a person's body. Bucklers are not.