|
If so, does he lose the Shield bonus if he makes an AOO until his next turn?
Holding a weapon should continue to grant a bonus, wielding the the weapon should not. If moving with greatsword, he gets the bonus. Using for an AoO reasonably should negate the shield bonus until the start of his next turn, and the AoO would be at -1 to hit.
|
I would say this is kind of conditional.
If your weapon provides no benefit to you when held, i.e. you've got another weapon in your main hand that threatens aoo's, and your offhand weapon doesn't provide a magical bonus to luck, strength, skills, ect., then it wouldn't count as being "used".
But if you're "using" it to threaten a specific square, or holding it for a luck bonus, or light, or anything else of the sort, then it would count as being used.
To simplify matters, I would suggest just calling it "in hand" as "use". It solves more problems than it creates. In this context, however, it's generally good to allow quickdraw to function as quicksheathe as well.
|
|
I'm not seeing where you're getting the impression that they are using hold and use as two separate things from the quoted entry.
So I don't see how you can safely eliminate "hold" from the definition. Perhaps you could help me follow your reasoning by pointing out the specific line(s) that give you that impression and why.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm not seeing where you're getting the impression that they are using hold and use as two separate things from the quoted entry.
So I don't see how you can safely eliminate "hold" from the definition. Perhaps you could help me follow your reasoning by pointing out the specific line(s) that give you that impression and why.
I'm not him, but I suspect the key is in the dictionary definition you quoted - the three "keywords" you pointed out were stated in the context of "as a means of accomplishing a purpose or achieving a result; employ". Simply carring an object around in your hand - weapon or not - is in no way applying it toward a purpose, and is therefore not using it.
|
|
The simple way to think of it is binary. Each round you choose whether your buckler is active or the weapon in that hand is active.
If you are ready to make attacks of opportunities with it, it is almost certainly in "Weapon Mode" and not useful as a shield.
My experience is that identifying an off-hand/buckler-hand weapon as being prepared for use in this way tends to lead to complications either in practice or consistency with respect to fighting with two weapons, two-handed weapons, AoOs, etc. But, it's an area that demands an interpretation, and that means folks will do it differently based on how they see it.
Take the situation of a character with longsword and sickle, with buckler. An opponent provokes, and character seeks to trip with the sickle as AoO. Under what circumstances can he do so? Did he have to take TWF penalties on his round, regardless of whether he attacked with the sickle? What if he didn't attack in the prior round, but moved only. What if he took TWF penalties, but dropped opponent with first longsword attack and never used the sickle? These are interrelated with the buckler on/off idea.
|
|
Holding it in your hand is a purpose in and of itself. Having it available for an attack/attack of opportunity is a purpose. Using it for light, or threat, or just keeping it free of its sheath... all are purposes, all have intent.
I.E., not really a counter argument since it becomes an argument about intent and intent is something that can be claimed, but not proved when it is just one persons word against another.
Example:
Joe's offhand sword is in his offhand. It counts as being used since he has it out for the purpose of being ready to attack with it. His intent is to be combat ready, or so he claims.
Jill's offhand sword is in her offhand. It doesn't count as being used since she just happens to be holding it and doesn't have it out for a specific reason. Her intent is a lack of intent, or so she claims.
Jill gets to use her buckler's ac against the surprise sneak attack. Joe does not.
It means "Make an attack with." Nothing else.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
From the discussions I'm hearing here, it sounds like the key point in all of this is whether or not *threatening* counts as using.
*I'm* not going to try and answer that, but I suspect that the resolution of this thread hinges on that point more than any other.
|
The simple way to think of it is binary. Each round you choose whether your buckler is active or the weapon in that hand is active.
If you are ready to make attacks of opportunities with it, it is almost certainly in "Weapon Mode" and not useful as a shield.
My experience is that identifying an off-hand/buckler-hand weapon as being prepared for use in this way tends to lead to complications either in practice or consistency with respect to fighting with two weapons, two-handed weapons, AoOs, etc. But, it's an area that demands an interpretation, and that means folks will do it differently based on how they see it.
Take the situation of a character with longsword and sickle, with buckler. An opponent provokes, and character seeks to trip with the sickle as AoO. Under what circumstances can he do so? Did he have to take TWF penalties on his round, regardless of whether he attacked with the sickle? What if he didn't attack in the prior round, but moved only. What if he took TWF penalties, but dropped opponent with first longsword attack and never used the sickle? These are interrelated with the buckler on/off idea.
Take an index card.
On one side write "I'm using my buckler as a shield AC is XX, I can't use sword in my buckler hand"
On the other side write "I'm using my buckler arm for my sword, AC is XX-1, I can use the sword in my buckler hand"
When you start your turn pick which side you want the card to be on. You can't flip it until the beginning of your next turn.
Huh. It is simple after all.
Take an index card.On one side write "I'm using my buckler as a shield AC is XX, I can't use sword in my buckler hand"
On the other side write "I'm using my buckler arm for my sword, AC is XX-1, I can use the sword in my buckler hand"
When you start your turn pick which side you want the card to be on. You can't flip it until the beginning of your next turn.
Huh. It is simple after all.
I disagree. I don't have to make this call at the beginning of my turn. The buckler acts as a shield until I choose to make an attack with the sword in that hand. If I don't attack, then the buckler is a shield. There is nothing in the RAW that says you have to declare your intent to attack or not at the beginning of your turn. It just says "use" the weapon. If you don't use it, you gain the AC benefit.
Clearly if you claim the AC benefit, then you can't then choose to attack with the sword. And if you attack with the sword, your AC is down 1 until your next turn. That's all you have to know.
|
|
I didnt state it as well as I could have or liked let me try another angle. And was going on memory for terms used in text I refered to (bad idea).Here we go from a different angle.
Lets look at the text for a Light shield.
"Shield, Light; Wooden or Steel: You strap a shield to
your forearm and grip it with your hand. A light shield’s weight lets you carry other items in that hand, although you cannot use weapons with it."So I can carry/hold a torch in my hand with a light shield and still gain the AC bonus from the light shield. I can carry/hold a long sword in that hand as well but I can not use/wield them in combat.
Holding/carrying very different from wielding/using. I see no reason why someone would not gain there Buckler AC bonus and a luckblades +1 luck bonus at the same time as long as the blade only requires it be held/carried in the hand as opposed to wielded. Likewise a sword that sheds light should not more hinder your ability to use a buckler for defense than a sword that does not shed light as long as you are not attack or otherwise using/wielding it.
My last post was actually in reply to Jiggly :p You just happened to ninja in while I was typing.
A light shield allows you to wield a torch, but prevents you from using weapons.
A buckler doesn't have that restriction, so it doesn't follow that it provides the same benefits either. In fact, the buckler itself is silent on carrying items other than a weapon. And "use" is not "wield" and it is not "attack". It is a word with a broader range, which implies that the restrictions go beyond "attacking" or "wielding". Else, a more specific word could have been... used.... :p
By holding a luckblade to gain the bonus, you are using it for its bonus. You gain a benefit from the weapon. That should come with a penalty from the buckler.
In the examples given under the buckler text, each time the offhand alone is used for something, it applies a penalty. It doesn't make sense to me to break that economy of response especially when the choice of phrase is intentionally non-specific to attacks.
Or another angle -- cheesing it up.
Some swords have special abilities. The luckblade is one of them. Another one is the flame tongue. If the buckler bonus is only lost on making an attack, then would it be lost when using the fiery ray ability? Technically, you're using the sword to cast a spell.
How about a holy avenger's greater dispel? You definitely get to keep the buckler bonus then because a dispel is not an attack action. Frost brand, mace of terror, sun blade, and so on. Despite the fact that you are using specific abilities that are only available through these weapons and require an expenditure of action, you still aren't depriving yourself of your buckler.
That doesn't make sense to me, so the idea of "only an attack" doesn't make sense to me.
The word "use" and not the word "attack", so the idea of "only an attack" doesn't make sense to me.
|
|
Huh. It is simple after all.
I'm not talking about the mechanics of tracking it, but thanks for the dismissive reply. :)
You are providing an interpretation that a weapon in the same hand as the buckler couldn't be used for an AoO, and that the decision applies to the entire round, regardless if an attack is made. In parallel, that weapon could not be used to take an AoO unless TWF penalties were taken in the prior round, regardless of whether an attack was made with the weapon and despite the fact that the AoO wouldn't incur those penalties. If you're happy with that, go for it. If you want to treat as completely different cases, go for it.
Whatever choice is made about this is an interpretation.
|
|
Huh. It is simple after all.I'm not talking about the mechanics of tracking it, but thanks for the dismissive reply. :)
The game is not written with the intent that it will be run by lawyers.
If there is a simple, obvious way to run things, that is most likely the way the designers are running it and figure other people will run it as well.
Huh. It is simple after all.I'm not talking about the mechanics of tracking it, but thanks for the dismissive reply. :)The game is not written with the intent that it will be run by lawyers.
If there is a simple, obvious way to run things, that is most likely the way the designers are running it and figure other people will run it as well.
Well, inventing the need to "declare" intent at the beginning of the turn would seem to contradict your claim that people will run it simply. I agree with you they will. They will say "you attacked with the sword in your buckler arm, so you don't gain the AC from it this turn. OK, that means my 25 hits."
There is nothing else needed.
You attack with the buckler arm sword, you lose the AC. You don't attack, you keep it. Simple. Easy. Conforms to RAW. Conforms to common sense. Needs no new mechanics.
|
|
Huh. It is simple after all.I'm not talking about the mechanics of tracking it, but thanks for the dismissive reply. :)The game is not written with the intent that it will be run by lawyers.
If there is a simple, obvious way to run things, that is most likely the way the designers are running it and figure other people will run it as well.
I don't see this as stemming out of the typical lawyerish approach that leads to this sort of statement. I'm fine agreeing to see this differently.
Looking forward to gaming once I get up into your neck of the woods.
dictionary.com on use:
Verb: Take, hold, or deploy (something) as a means of accomplishing a purpose or achieving a result; employ.
Noun: The action of using something or the state of being used for some purpose.Note the keywords, hold, use, employ.
There's a difference between active use and passive use. If you cast light on the shield, do you really lose the AC bonus on the shield because you're not using it as a shield when you're using it as a light source?
Of course you'd keep the AC bonus -- it's still a shield, you're still actively using it for that purpose. You're passively using the shield as a light source.
Take an index card.
On one side write "I'm using my buckler as a shield AC is XX, I can't use sword in my buckler hand"On the other side write "I'm using my buckler arm for my sword, AC is XX-1, I can use the sword in my buckler hand"
When you start your turn pick which side you want the card to be on. You can't flip it until the beginning of your next turn.
Huh. It is simple after all.
I get frustrated too sometimes ):
Does it mean attack with the weapon? Or wield the weapon? I personally think it should've been worded: "if you use your off-hand to wield a weapon". This makes it match similar wording earlier in the rules: "using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon").
You lose the AC bonus when you actively use the weapon (attack, combat maneuver, etc.) or cast a spell using somatic components that uses that hand. Items that are passively there do no cause you to lose the bonus.
Furthermore, since a wand is not a weapon, using a wand in your buckler hand hand does not cause you to lose the AC bonus. It is not a weapon -- nor does it cause somatic components like a spell. In fact, *any* item that is activated by a command-word can be put in the hand. You still get to apply the buckler's AC bonus.
|
|
Well, there is a difference between active and passive use.
However, the question is whether it matters as per the rules for bucklers and offhands. Since the entry doesn't make a distinction between use actively and use passively, I don't think it does.
Now, whether or not it should.... That's a whole different conversation. :p
|
|
I disagree. I don't have to make this call at the beginning of my turn. The buckler acts as a shield until I choose to make an attack with the sword in that hand. If I don't attack, then the buckler is a shield. There is nothing in the RAW that says you have to declare your intent to attack or not at the beginning of your turn. It just says "use" the weapon. If you don't use it, you gain the AC benefit.
Clearly if you claim the AC benefit, then you can't then choose to attack with the sword. And if you attack with the sword, your AC is down 1 until your next turn. That's all you have to know.
Essentially you are suggesting the same thing as what I said except if you don't attack on your round you can get the shield bonus and still make attacks of opportunity. *shrug* That works too.
So you start every round with your buckler card on "Shield bonus" and flip it as soon as you make an attack. ;)
|
|
I don't see this as stemming out of the typical lawyerish approach that leads to this sort of statement. I'm fine agreeing to see this differently.
Looking forward to gaming once I get up into your neck of the woods.
When I get snippy on the forums it's a sure sign I need to sign off and do something else ;)
However, the question is whether it matters as per the rules for bucklers and offhands. Since the entry doesn't make a distinction between use actively and use passively, I don't think it does.
Casting light on the shield doesn't make it a tuna. It's still a shield. Using the shield as both a light source (passive) and as a shield (active) is fine.
Using a weapon as a light source (passive) and as a weapon (active) is also fine. Not actively using the weapon doesn't prevent you from passively using the light source. Using a weapon for its glow is pretty much like using anything for its glow. Notably, it also takes no action from the hand to use the light source.
What action is used to use the light source? No action.
If no action is being done, how is the shield arm too busy to use the buckler to provide a shield bonus?
|
|
Depending on how you are using it, I would argue that it's a free action to 'use the light source'. Based on how the spell works, it'd provide light during combat, but the shadows would be very distracting I think if you were actively using the shield to block in melee.What action is used to use the light source? No action.
If no action is being done, how is the shield arm too busy to use the buckler to provide a shield bonus?
You might want to check out the 5 foot step, then.
Yes, you can change your location during combat by 5' for NO action.
And try to define NO action as an action, please.
As to buckler for defense or not:
You can either be USING your buckler to defend yourself, or you can be USING a weapon in the same hand for a purpose that does NOT allow use of the buckler.
Just holding something in your buckler hand does NOT prevent you from using the buckler to defend yourself, but actively using the other item would prevent using the buckler.
Now, if the other item does something passively, like provide light, you are not using it, so the buckler can still be used. The only thing you could rule, and it is outside the rules as written, is that the light source might be partially blocked by the buckler, so there is an small area of darkness as defined by hand, light source, and buckler positions.
Show me where the game rules define "use" as requiring an action.
They happen to do so right here in the buckler description that this thread is about.
To think that holding a dagger that gives a bonus to will saves is in anymore use than holding a nonmagical dagger in exactly the same way is ludicrous.
You're the one who whipped out the dictionary for a game with terms that should NOT be defined by their dictionary definition, so why don't you notice the real life implications of what's happening? The point is whether the use of the hand is interfering with use of the buckler, simply holding a dagger, regardless of its properties (aside from possessed or something), does NOT interfere with its use.
Holding a torch in general probably would, because it needs to be held up to be effective and not burn yourself.
Show me where the game rules define "use" as requiring an action.
Show me where the game rules reference a dictionary? (:
The concept behind losing the AC bonus is because the arm is busy doing something other than using a shield. If the arm is busy doing something -- doing something is typically an action. Holding a flashlight in your hand doesn't mean your arm is busy using the flashlight -- you just happen to have a flashlight in your hand.
This kind of stuff doesn't need to be annotated in the game rules. It's common sense. The game rules are just letting you know the consequence for making the shield arm too busy. It doesn't need to detail what counts as making an arm busy -- any tom/dick/harry can do that without rules.
For instance, does the shield bonus apply if your arm's functions have been taken over by a bad guy's spell? I'd assume not. . . since the arm isn't trying to defend you. The rules don't have the specify this because it's ridiculous to assume otherwise.
5-Foot Step falls under the heading "Miscellaneous Actions" on page 189. It is a "5-Foot Step Action".
It's also in Table: Actions in Combat listed as No Action. The old 3.X rule for this situation is that the text you quoted wins (data in tables that conflicts with actual text in the book loses).