|
| 21 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Buckler: "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 offhand 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 lose the buckler’s Armor Class bonus until your next turn. You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm, but you lose the buckler’s Armor Class bonus until your next turn. You can’t make a shield bash with a buckler."
It mentions that the buckler is on the forearm, not in hand like light shields and heavy shields. Is it, therefore, considered a considered a "free hand"? Is it considered an "empty hand"? Is it considered a hand that is "carrying nothing"? The rules only explicitly allows the hand to use weapons and somatic components.
A lot of things require free hands, or empty hands, or hands that are carrying nothing. So what kind of hand is attached to the buckler arm? The ACG FAQ says bucklers don't "occupy" the hand, but we shouldn't use an entry on the Slashing Grace feat to be the end all be all on how bucklers work.
Some things that care about hands being free/empty/carrying nothing:
-carrying/using items like wands, potions, scrolls
-using feats such as Deflect Arrows, Snatch Arrows, Crane Wing, and Dervish Dance
-reloading certain ranged weapons
-class features such as Lay on Hands and Spell Combat
-archetypes such as Sword Saint and Free Hand Fighter
-and many more!
So I'm requesting that a FAQ is posted declaring what type of hand is attached to the buckler arm so that it is clear what out of the above list is usable with bucklers.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
"[B]ucklers work because they don’t occupy the hand."
A buckler is strapped to your forearm. It's the first sentence in its description. I used to be on the side that claimed it still took up a "hand" regardless, but with the recent FAQ that's pretty much been settled.
Every single item you listed is available while wearing a Buckler.
Whoa whoa whoa!!!! Spell combat with a buckler? yes please.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you spell combat, buckler does not provide shield bonus.It is like using a weapon with it.
I know. But armor special ability still aplies, and they can be dirty cheap on a simple +1 shield. Magus have surplus money anyway past the first 10 levels. Most likely it's not gonna come into play sooner than that but anything that gives magus a boost past their peak and prevents them to fall off hard is a god thing. Doubly so if is a boost in defense intead of more offense.
"[B]ucklers work because they don’t occupy the hand."
A buckler is strapped to your forearm. It's the first sentence in its description. I used to be on the side that claimed it still took up a "hand" regardless, but with the recent FAQ that's pretty much been settled.
Every single item you listed is available while wearing a Buckler.
[sarcasm]
Oh no guys, that FAQ is only about slashing grace, even though anyone with half a brain can see they're stating a general fact. And Mark said we can't apply an FAQ outside the scope of the FAQ, so because I'm slavish in my adherence to the words not intent, bucklers only don't use a hand if you have the slashing grace feat.
[/sarcasm]
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All of this make me feel like nobody truly knows the english language
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All of this make me feel like nobody truly knows the english language
Grevunddv hrf chrfhh?
If occupying a hand, being held in the hand, carrying items, etc don't work the same way, they're just encouraging people to pedanticise over the rules like a chelaxian genie on a discount ring of two and a half wishes.
And there is more than enough of that as it is.
If they don't work the same way, they're just encouraging people to pedanticise over the rules like a chelaxian genie on a discount ring of two and a half wishes.
And there is more than enough of that as it is.
Pedanticism? The rule always was that the buckler's shield bonus goes away in the turn that arm's hand is used. It's as simple as that.
Anything else is just speculation, especially when the action associated with that hand is used but not the actual hand (kicking, boot blade, armor spikes...) that by default does not deactivates the buckler because it does not interact with the rules pertaining bucklers at any point.
It's rather apparent
Whoops.
Entry: I think you think i said something i didn't mean and replaced "they" with something a little clearer.
"[B]ucklers work because they don’t occupy the hand."
A buckler is strapped to your forearm. It's the first sentence in its description. I used to be on the side that claimed it still took up a "hand" regardless, but with the recent FAQ that's pretty much been settled.
Every single item you listed is available while wearing a Buckler.
[sarcasm]
Oh no guys, that FAQ is only about slashing grace, even though anyone with half a brain can see they're stating a general fact. And Mark said we can't apply an FAQ outside the scope of the FAQ, so because I'm slavish in my adherence to the words not intent, bucklers only don't use a hand if you have the slashing grace feat.
[/sarcasm]
No sarcasm needed. That's literally the stance I've been given about FAQ's. The exact quote from Mark. "A FAQ has the scope that the FAQ says it has". If there is a 'slavish in my adherence to the words not intent', it isn't ours for reading it the way the PDT has asked us to.
And to clarify your statement, 'bucklers only don't use a hand if you have the slashing grace feat'. At best, we only know that the hand isn't 'occupied' with a buckler. We don't know if that means the same thing as carried, used, free ect. So even if the FAQ meant that we can use it's working for bucklers universally, the different wording means it can't be used as a direct translation of other effects.
Mark's quote on Slashing Grace and Dervish Dance: "I did say that FAQs on Slashing Grace do not necessarily pertain to Dervish Dance in any way; it's a combination of the wording difference between the feats (Dervish Dance calls out shields, Slashing Grace doesn't, and it's possible to wear a shield on a hand without occupying that hand, such as a buckler) and what line the feats are in (Dervish Dance is not under our purview, so we can't make FAQs that pertain to it without consulting more people)."
If they don't work the same way, they're just encouraging people to pedanticise over the rules like a chelaxian genie on a discount ring of two and a half wishes.
And there is more than enough of that as it is.
Mark has said that we can't take the way Slashing Grace works and apply the same logic to dervish Dance. I agree on the pedantic part but that's a side effect of "A FAQ has the scope that the FAQ says it has".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mark has said that we can't take the way Slashing Grace works and apply the same logic to dervish Dance. I agree on the pedantic part but that's a side effect of "A FAQ has the scope that the FAQ says it has".
And I'm saying nope. I refuse to believe in Schrodinger's buckler that is both in the hand and not in the hand at the same time. My brain has had it up to here with contradictory pieces of pedanticism that make NO sense
Mark has said that we can't take the way Slashing Grace works and apply the same logic to dervish Dance. I agree on the pedantic part but that's a side effect of "A FAQ has the scope that the FAQ says it has".And I'm saying nope. I refuse to believe in Schrodinger's buckler that is both in the hand and not in the hand at the same time. My brain has had it up to here with contradictory pieces of pedanticism that make NO sense
LOL They made a specific word change in making it 'occupy' vs carry, held or any of the other words used. It seems they did that for a reason. If it doesn't, then why not use the same wording of other feats? Consistent wording would help to make a case for things working the same.
Now if you think that what Mark says is 'contradictory pieces of pedanticism that make NO sense', don't follow it. No one's forcing you too. It's just not the 'rule' we've been asked to follow for using the FAQ's and we ARE in the Rules Questions section.
The FAQ isn't even required. The first line in the Buckler description tells you all you need to know.
Its inclusion in the Slashing Grace FAQ only helps confirm that understanding.
For most of it, I'd agree. It's only things like Dervish Dance that make it fuzzy with the wording.
My main disagreement was with the Slashing Grace FAQ adding anything. 'Occupy' doesn't have to mean non-free, held, carried, wielded, ect. That's even ignoring that it isn't an FAQ on bucklers and they are out of it's scope.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mark has said that we can't take the way Slashing Grace works and apply the same logic to dervish Dance. I agree on the pedantic part but that's a side effect of "A FAQ has the scope that the FAQ says it has".And I'm saying nope. I refuse to believe in Schrodinger's buckler that is both in the hand and not in the hand at the same time. My brain has had it up to here with contradictory pieces of pedanticism that make NO sense
But you forget that Paizo does things like refer to unwritten RAW(sic) when they decide how they are deciding on rulings. Reason isn't a very reasonable thing to use here.
But you forget that Paizo does things like refer to unwritten RAW(sic) when they decide how they are deciding on rulings.
Quite the opposite. I'm not forgetting that I'm holding all of the rules to it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quite the opposite. I'm not forgetting that I'm holding all of the rules to it.
But you forget that Paizo does things like refer to unwritten RAW(sic) when they decide how they are deciding on rulings.
Are you holding them in your hands or your 'hands'? That's the question. ;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you holding them in your hands or your 'hands'? That's the question. ;)Quite the opposite. I'm not forgetting that I'm holding all of the rules to it.
But you forget that Paizo does things like refer to unwritten RAW(sic) when they decide how they are deciding on rulings.
Teeth.
Being a wolf bypasses the question.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wolf can even trip and have low int. Where's your excuse, Combat Expertise?
Are you holding them in your hands or your 'hands'? That's the question. ;)Quite the opposite. I'm not forgetting that I'm holding all of the rules to it.
But you forget that Paizo does things like refer to unwritten RAW(sic) when they decide how they are deciding on rulings.Teeth.
Being a wolf bypasses the question.
Just don't try to smack someone with your muzzle while holding them. Then your teeth would count as an unarmed strike which would count as a hand.
Wolf can even trip and have low int.
..HEY! Whats that supposed to mean? :)
|
|
This buckler business especially matters in PFS where ypu can have any number of GMs with slightly different ideas on what the rules should be and how they should operate. A clear FAQ that consolidates all of the relevant language used for free hands et al is necessary for characters who would like to utilize bucklers and the above character options.
Just don't try to smack someone with your muzzle while holding them. Then your teeth would count as an unarmed strike which would count as a hand.Are you holding them in your hands or your 'hands'? That's the question. ;)Quite the opposite. I'm not forgetting that I'm holding all of the rules to it.
But you forget that Paizo does things like refer to unwritten RAW(sic) when they decide how they are deciding on rulings.Teeth.
Being a wolf bypasses the question.
'hand'! :P
If only wolves had a higher Int. Then you'd know! :pWolf can even trip and have low int...HEY! Whats that supposed to mean? :)
I'd be less concerned about the INT and more concerned about the earlier mention of teeth.
A lot of things require free hands, or empty hands, or hands that are carrying nothing. So what kind of hand is attached to the buckler arm? The ACG FAQ says bucklers don't "occupy" the hand, but we shouldn't use an entry on the Slashing Grace feat to be the end all be all on how bucklers work.
Some things that care about hands being free/empty/carrying nothing:
-carrying/using items like wands, potions, scrolls
-using feats such as Deflect Arrows, Snatch Arrows, Crane Wing, and Dervish Dance
-reloading certain ranged weapons
-class features such as Lay on Hands and Spell Combat
-archetypes such as Sword Saint and Free Hand Fighter
-and many more!So I'm requesting that a FAQ is posted declaring what type of hand is attached to the buckler arm so that it is clear what out of the above list is usable with bucklers.
Aside from a FAQ, it'd be case by case, and it may or may not hinge on if an ability relies on a shield being absent.
-Carrying/using wands/potions/scrolls? I'd say you CAN. Any attack or MANUAL skill roll at -1 (like weapons, so your wand of scorching ray is at -1), and lose the buckler's shield bonus if you're using the item.-Feats? Unless the feat itself says 'no shield', I'd permit it (at -1 if a roll's involved), plus loss of shield bonus. Part of me wants to call that hand 'not free', but mainly for game balance reasons.
-Reloading? It calls out bows and crossbows as OK. I don't know if anyone's said anything about musketing with a buckler; if pressed, I'd probably grant it.
-Class features? I've started thinking you'd just pass your weapon into your shield hand if you had a light or buckler to do this. But if pressed somehow ('OK, who hid the keys to my locked gauntlet?!'), I guess it'd be OK. Again, assuming the feature requires no shields. And you're OK with yet again losing your buckler's shield bonus.
-Archetypes? Way too individual.
-Many more? RUN AWAY THEY OUTNUMBER US!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aside from a FAQ, it'd be case by case, and it may or may not hinge on if an ability relies on a shield being absent.
aaand thats a problem. If they don't want to standardize the thing or the language around it we have to start this process over again every time we find a feat or they release a new one that uses this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
aaand thats a problem. If they don't want to standardize the thing or the language around it we have to start this process over again every time we find a feat or they release a new one that uses this.Aside from a FAQ, it'd be case by case, and it may or may not hinge on if an ability relies on a shield being absent.
We could use common sense to figure it out?
aaand thats a problem. If they don't want to standardize the thing or the language around it we have to start this process over again every time we find a feat or they release a new one that uses this.Aside from a FAQ, it'd be case by case, and it may or may not hinge on if an ability relies on a shield being absent.
We could use common sense to figure it out?
Is there going to be any common sense differentiation between a shield occupying a hand and held in it?
Does a buckler occupy wallstreet?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does a buckler occupy wallstreet?Metaphorical, or actual Wallstreet?
Would stock exchanges other than the one on Wallstreet count as Wallstreet for all intents and purposes? Or only some intents and purposes? Or does "Wallstreet" mean "Wallstreet" and not "Wallstreet and places kind of like Wallstreet"?
Would stock exchanges other than the one on Wallstreet count as Wallstreet for all intents and purposes? Or only some intents and purposes? Or does "Wallstreet" mean "Wallstreet" and not "Wallstreet and places kind of like Wallstreet"?Does a buckler occupy wallstreet?Metaphorical, or actual Wallstreet?
I'm starting to get the distinct impression that some people need to go to prison...
It was answered clear as day, a buckler does not use your hand. But it is still shield, so things that key off shield use are still affected as shield use is not keyed to hand use unless the individual shield description says so.
It was answered clear as day, a buckler does not use your hand. But it is still shield, so things that key off shield use are still affected as shield use is not keyed to hand use unless the individual shield description says so.
Now is that your hand or 'hand'? I've seen people say two weapon fighting with a sword and a kick prevents the passive use of a shield because shields use a 'hand' and that's used in TWF.
We've move FAR past the point in the game where there are simple "answered clear as day" questions when hands means different things depending on how you squint your eyes...
It was answered clear as day, a buckler does not use your hand. But it is still shield, so things that key off shield use are still affected as shield use is not keyed to hand use unless the individual shield description says so.Now is that your hand or 'hand'? I've seen people say two weapon fighting with a sword and a kick prevents the passive use of a shield because shields use a 'hand' and that's used in TWF.
We've move FAR past the point in the game where there are simple "answered clear as day" questions when hands means different things depending on how you squint your eyes...
I have seen people say that too, but since they are the people why try to say that BAB does not stack from different classes I give their viewpoint little credence. Besides, a shield only uses a "hand" if you attack with it.
I have seen people say that too, but since they are the people why try to say that BAB does not stack from different classes I give their viewpoint little credence. Besides, a shield only uses a "hand" if you attack with it.It was answered clear as day, a buckler does not use your hand. But it is still shield, so things that key off shield use are still affected as shield use is not keyed to hand use unless the individual shield description says so.Now is that your hand or 'hand'? I've seen people say two weapon fighting with a sword and a kick prevents the passive use of a shield because shields use a 'hand' and that's used in TWF.
We've move FAR past the point in the game where there are simple "answered clear as day" questions when hands means different things depending on how you squint your eyes...
Agreed. And bucklers are specifically said to disallow shield attacks, but allow normal attacks at -1 save for bows and crossbows. (Muskets get this benefit too?)
|
"Off hand" include all the arm when used as a game term, so you can't wear a buckler and use Dervish Dance.
The limit for Slashing Grace is "You do not gain this benefit while fighting with two weapons or using flurry of blows, or any time another hand is otherwise occupied." The buckler don't occupy a hand, so the feat work with a buckler.
Where is the "Off hand" defined to include all the arm?
|
|
Where is the "Off hand" defined to include all the arm?
"Off hand" is not defined anywhere, but there are a few examples of using your off hand blocking the use stuff on the whole arm.
So mine is an opinion. Not a clear rule.Clear rule? AFAIK nowhere is defined what is a off hand, not in the rules, FAQ or even developers comments.
|
|
Clear rule? AFAIK nowhere is defined what is a off hand, not in the rules, FAQ or even developers comments.
Nowhere in the rules is the word "the" defined. Does that mean we don't know what it means either?
Off hand means any hand which isn't your primary hand (or as Multiweapon Fighting puts it, "It [any creature] has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.") I'm right handed. My left hand is my off hand.
Hands are not arms. Wearing a buckler on your arm does not occupy the hand on that arm any more than wearing armor, bracers, armbands, or anything else on the arms, but not hands, would.
Bucklers have no impact on your ability to use your hands other than the -1 to attack.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm right handed. My left hand is my off hand.
Not for Pathfinder. You can switch your off hand as you wish (within the limit of the limbs that you can use to attack). It can be your right foot, your left hand or your left shoulder.
All could count as off hand if you are attacking with your right hand.Next round you can choose your left hand as your primary hand and use either of your feet or knees, your right hand or right shoulder as your "off hand".
It has nothing to do with you being right or left handed or your hands.
You can even choose to attack with your knee as your primary hand (if you have Improved Unarmed Strike) and use the armor spikes on your right shoulder as a off hand weapon.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Sorry, but I agree with BigNorseWolf here
"but bucklers work because they don’t occupy the hand"Yes, the FAQ only applies to Slashing Grace, but the statements regarding *other* portions of the rules there can and should be considered to be consistent. This is making a statement about bucklers, saying they don't occupy the off-hand.
t should be interpreted.
I also agree with BigNorseWolf and I think everyone is misinterpreting Mark's statement about not using FAQ out of context.
The best example that Mark is being used out of context is the Gang Up FAQ. People continually used the "don't use outside the context" to allow "Ranged Flanking" when the Gang Up FAQ said there is no such thing as an explanation to why Gang Up didn't work.
Hundreds of threads on Ranged Flanking later, we have a PDT response of to the effect of there is no ranged flanking period. No update to Gang Up. And a link to the Gang Up as an answer.
So rules statements outside the context, should be considered true. When a FAQ says "Bucklers work because they don’t occupy the hand" this isn't a ruling on Slashing Grace. This is a true statement that bucklers don't occupy the hand, so they don't change the answer for Slashing Grace.