|
| 36 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does strapping a buckler to your offhand arm count as carrying a weapon or a shield in your offhand? Strictly speaking, your hand is free (not holding a weapon or shield), but it's the definition of "carrying" that is throwing me off. While the weight and armor check penalty of a buckler can be mitigated with materials, I have to imagine that the intention of the feat was for you to have the arm available for use during your "dance" and I am unsure if having an extra weight strapped to your arm would affect you.
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Sounds to me like it's a no go. A buckler is a type of shield and regardless of having your hand free or not, it is being used by your off hand. In order to utilize it for anything you take penalties to attack (except if wielding a longbow) so I would say that you can't use the buckler with the dance.
I'm pretty sure that by having the buckler attached to your off-hand, you're using a shield. You're gaining a bonus to AC from wielding the buckler and this was not the intention of the design of the Dervish.
I'm pretty sure that by having the buckler attached to your off-hand, you're using a shield. You're gaining a bonus to AC from wielding the buckler and this was not the intention of the design of the Dervish.
+1: Agreed.
You might allow the wearing of the buckler but eliminate any armour bonus from the buckler while using Dervish abilities though. A buckler might be small enough to wear while dancing, but not enough to gain the benefits of the buckler while dancing.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
<rant>
The bias against swashbuckling feats and class abilities denying the use of off-hand weapons and bucklers may be valid from a rules balance standpoint, but not from a reality standpoint -- and I'm not even assuming cinematic reality. Simply put, a skilled fencer can accomplish almost any lunge, cut or parry as easily with a dagger or buckler in their off-hand as with nothing. This opinion is based on 15 years of SCA rapier combat.
</rant>
|
I'm speaking from pure RAW terms. The feat, a purely mechanical thing, says that if you are carrying a 'shield' in your off hand then you lose the benefits of the feat. The buckler is a shield. It's under shields. It's called a shield. It can get Shield Enhancements. It's a shield.
By RAW, the buckler, being a shield, would stop the feat from working. House rule it if you like. I'm just reading the rules. :)
|
|
My argument stems from the use of offhand, not whether it is a shield or not. While the hand is attached to the arm, they are not one in the same. That's like saying you can strap a buckler to your armor if you have armor spikes. They are an offhand weapon after all. How about strapping it to your forehead while wearing a Barbazu beard. It's an offhand weapon too.
With a buckler on your arm, your offhand is free and not being used to carry a shield. You just have something that affects what you can do with your offhand.
|
|
A buckler might be a unique type of shield in that you can also wield a weapon in the same off-hand (albeit at a penalty), but the shield is still being used in your off-hand.
Again, if you really want, just house rule it. I really don't see it allowed by RAW, but that's just the rules. Change em. :)
|
A buckler might be a unique type of shield in that you can also wield a weapon in the same off-hand (albeit at a penalty), but the shield is still being used in your off-hand.
Again, if you really want, just house rule it. I really don't see it allowed by RAW, but that's just the rules. Change em. :)
+1. It isn't about whether it's weightless or not; the rules are pretty clear about buckler being a *shield*. And that applies to using the 'Ring of Force Shield', too.
|
|
+1. It isn't about whether it's weightless or not; the rules are pretty clear about buckler being a *shield*. And that applies to using the 'Ring of Force Shield', too.A buckler might be a unique type of shield in that you can also wield a weapon in the same off-hand (albeit at a penalty), but the shield is still being used in your off-hand.
Again, if you really want, just house rule it. I really don't see it allowed by RAW, but that's just the rules. Change em. :)
The Ring bit I'm not completely decided on yet. "An iron band, this simple ring generates a shield-sized (and shield-shaped) wall of force that stays with the ring and can be wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield (+2 AC). This special creation has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance since it is weightless and encumbrance-free. It can be activated and deactivated at will as a free action."
I don't want to branch off on another discussion here though. I think the Ring is a GM call. In any case, a buckler is very clearly a shield, no argument there.
|
|
Any chance for an official response?Assumign you are talking about the dervish pretige class for another system (3.5) which is NOT open source... NO, I don't think you can get an offical response from Paizo, it would not be legal for them to as they can not legally incorporate another game system that is not open into their rules. You may be able to get an official response from WOTC on their boards.
As for Non-official responses, I agree with the other poster, that a buckler is counted as a shield and would not allow the dervish dance.
He's talking about the feat Dervish Dance, which was created by Paizo. Not the WotC Dervish.
This is an interesting question and I am going to have to discuss it with my GM. If taken from a RAW stance the answer should be that the buckler does not deny the benefit of the Dervish Dance. The reason for that is that "carrying" is the key word in the text. The text does not say that you cannot have an off handed weapon or shield only that you can't carry one. Dervish Dance also does not disallow carrying other items such as a wand. Then when you look at the buckler, it is a shield but it is strapped to the forearm and is not carried. In fact the whole point of the buckler is to provide a shield bonus without having to carry a shield thus allowing other items such as duel and two handed weapons, scrolls, or wands to be available without having to put away the shield and in many of those cases maintain the shield bonus.
With that said, I think this is a technicality that was not intended. The intent of the rule seems to be that you give up a shield bonus from normal equipment for the benefit of adding dex to damage.
The other ways to do this is to have a shield spell cast prior to the fight or as my dervish dancer has decided to seek out an item that keeps the spell on you continuously. You could also use a floating shield for this purpose. I don't have my book in front of me at the moment, but I don't think they got rid of that shield power.
|
|
In my opinion you're carrying the shield whether it is strapped to your wrist or held in your hand. Mechanically it is a shield and acts as such. Now I could potentially see, allowing one to voluntarily "not use" the shield to let use of the feat, and then "use" the shield which would negate the feat. But even that is skirting the rules and is not really RAW.
|
|
+1. It isn't about whether it's weightless or not; the rules are pretty clear about buckler being a *shield*. And that applies to using the 'Ring of Force Shield', too.A buckler might be a unique type of shield in that you can also wield a weapon in the same off-hand (albeit at a penalty), but the shield is still being used in your off-hand.
Again, if you really want, just house rule it. I really don't see it allowed by RAW, but that's just the rules. Change em. :)
The Ring bit I'm not completely decided on yet. "An iron band, this simple ring generates a shield-sized (and shield-shaped) wall of force that stays with the ring and can be wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield (+2 AC). This special creation has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance since it is weightless and encumbrance-free. It can be activated and deactivated at will as a free action."
I don't want to branch off on another discussion here though. I think the Ring is a GM call. In any case, a buckler is very clearly a shield, no argument there.
Hmmm... yes, the ring actually seems to be a borderline case. The shield is practically weightless, and yet it "can be wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield". To me that implies that the bonus is not "automatic", i.e. you still have to *wield* it as a shield to parry/block incoming attacks. That's my interpretation, anyway.
|
|
Hmmm... yes, the ring actually seems to be a borderline case. The shield is practically weightless, and yet it "can be wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield". To me that implies that the bonus is not "automatic", i.e. you still have to *wield* it as a shield to parry/block incoming attacks. That's my interpretation, anyway.
Actually I don't think it's borderline because of the weightlessness, I think it's borderline because of the free action to activate/deactivate. Technically couldn't you deactivate it, take your turn, then activate it? Your AoOs wouldn't get the bonus of the feat, but your main turn should...
|
|
:/ non-buckler shields are also strapped to your arm.
Basically, if your buckler is connected to an arm, that is the arm that's carrying it, wielding it, and whathaveyou regardless of what other things you can do with a buckler.
As far as the ring goes, it is wielded *and thus carries* as a shield :p
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Bumping this, as the issue has come up recently and I think this thread is from before we had the FAQ button.
I can see arguments both ways.
How specific was "carry" supposed to be?
What are the game balance implications?
So please, if you're reading this, either click the FAQ button on the OP or link a relevant clarification. (And please don't just re-hash what was already said a year and a half ago. That doesn't really help anything. Just FAQ it, please.)
Thanks!
It seems obvious to me that a buckler IS a shield, but it is strapped to your arm, not carried in your offhand, and thus should not interfere with the Dervish Dance feat which uses very clear and specific terminology.
Obviously, many others disagree with that assertion, however, so I clicked the FAQ in hopes of settling the issue and appeasing all.
|
The key wording in the Dervish Dance description is, "You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand." (emphasis mine)
The description of a buckler reads, "This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm." (again, emphasis mine)
Since Dervish Dance talks about what can be in your hand, and a buckler just straps to your arm without being in the hand, I'd say it's allowable by RAW.
But as a side note, the buckler description goes on to say, "In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn. You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm, but you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn."
While RAW doesn't specifically say it, it's pretty obvious that the RAI on this is that ANY use of the hand attached to the buckler arm is a distraction away from using the buckler to shield yourself. Thus, if you use that hand for anything, including presumably Dervish Dance, though I'm not sure what the role of that hand is in that feat, then you lose the AC benefit of the buckler for that round.
That's how I read it anyway. It would be nice to get an official Paizo response.
Edit: Ninja'ed by Ravingdork, who seems to agree with me. But also clicked FAQ on this one.
|
But as a side note, the buckler description goes on to say, "In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn. You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm, but you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn."
While RAW doesn't specifically say it, it's pretty obvious that the RAI on this is that ANY use of the hand attached to the buckler arm is a distraction away from using the buckler to shield yourself.
That goes for any shield; it has nothing to do with bucklers in particular.
Note that nothing in the text of Dervish Dance precludes you from wearing a buckler on the arm holding the scimitar, and you would not receive its AC bonus (and eat a -1 attack penalty) either when swinging the weapon.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The bias against swashbuckling feats and class abilities denying the use of off-hand weapons and bucklers may be valid from a rules balance standpoint, but not from a reality standpoint -- and I'm not even assuming cinematic reality. Simply put, a skilled fencer can accomplish almost any lunge, cut or parry as easily with a dagger or buckler in their off-hand as with nothing. This opinion is based on 15 years of SCA rapier combat.
<nod>
It's ironic that the western stylized notion of a desert dervish who danced with swords in reality never really existed (i.e., the "whirling dervishes" whirled, but not while fighting), whereas the concept is perfectly embodied by Wudong techniques involving the Chinese jian straight-sword. Watching the video, while the forms are now highly stylized, the economy and fluidity of motion are apparent; while not a curved blade, the jian as an analog to the Dervish Dance scimitar is uncanny: it is not an intrinsically light weapon -- it's a big, long, one-handed sword barely any smaller or lighter than a katana, and with room on the hilt for two hands -- but with the right instruction, its ability to be finessed is obvious. Various d20 RPG feats and maneuvers, such as feinting and Dazzling Display, are obviously apparent.
It's a shame that Ultimate Combat focused almost exclusively on Japanese equipment with only a passing glance at Chinese. A jian sword, IMO, would be a d6/18-20x2,PorS one-handed exotic monk sword with the Blocking and Distracting properties, and which can be finessed and is applicable to Dervish Dance by one proficient in its use.
Just get a nice weapon with agile and you can have any shield adn your dex to damage.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Apparently some people missed this:
So please, if you're reading this, either click the FAQ button on the OP or link a relevant clarification. (And please don't just re-hash what was already said a year and a half ago. That doesn't really help anything. Just FAQ it, please.)
My group (and I agree) ruled that if you're using the Dervish Dance feat, you're actively using that arm (empty hand) in order to make your dance. By extension, it means you're using that arm in order to gain its benefit, so you're not effectively using the arm to defend yourself with the buckler strapped onto it.
You could houserule it's okay to carry a light object in the empty hand as long as it doesn't get used to do anything while making Dervish Dance attacks (e.g. it will bestow no benefit whatsoever until your next turn).
RAW - Questionable, at beat.
RAI - Definitely "no."
A shield is a shield, which dervish dance specifically says you cannot be "carrying in your off hand." It's the "off hand" part of this that is being twisted. While not PERFECTLY worded, it's pretty clear to me.
So, what if you were wearing the buckler on the same arm you were wielding your scimitar with?
Does the buckler have to go on the "off" hand?
That's what I thought. I was submitting a character to a recruitment thread and this came up. The GM's take is that the RAI is that Dervish Dance doesn't work if you are wielding a shield of any kind, anywhere.
Here's the GM's argument in case anyone was curious.
Most "empty hand" options are balanced on the presumption that you're not getting a shield bonus in addition. The buckler's ability to be used with a weapon in hand breaks that balance presumption if you try to exploit it, so bucklers on primary hands in order to avoid triggering "and nothing in your off-hand" clauses don't fly with me. It's worth noting, though, that the exploit is based on a pretty iffy rules interpretation in the first place: RAW, the text says "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)," which means you can't use it on your primary hand regardless. (I've considered, when the topic was broached before, allowing it - but forcing the application of off-hand weapon penalties, which basically means a -8 penalty to a one-handed weapon or a -6 to a light weapon.)
So, uh, thanks for bumping this topic right before I made a new one on the same topic.
I wasn't sure, obviously, but my suggestion/guess was going to be that it be allowed to be used with the buckler on the off-arm, but you don't get any AC benefit from it on turns where you dance (i.e. most of them).
That said, I have no idea about the ring of force shield. The spell shield should work, though, right?
In games I have had we have ruled that you cannot use a buckler, the reason is much simpler for "us" (my group) than whether it uses your hand or not, we find that it was simply mis-worded and should have been worded more like the abilities from the "Duelist" Prestige Class, given that Dervish Dance is allowing you to use the scimitar for the "Duelist" class and its features
Canny Defense (Ex)
When wearing light or no armor and not using a shield, a duelist adds 1 point of Intelligence bonus (if any) per duelist class level to her Dexterity bonus to modify Armor Class while wielding a melee weapon. If a duelist is caught flat-footed or otherwise denied her Dexterity bonus, she also loses this bonus.
I like this wording better since it doesn't say "wield" or "carry" it simply says "not using a shield", to "us" (my group) that means gaining a benefit from any shield
Most of the class features from "Duelist" say the same thing
Anyways that's my group's opinion, hope it helps
EDIT: Guess I should add one in that actually mentions the weapon so...
Precise Strike (Ex)
A duelist gains the ability to strike precisely with a light or one-handed piercing weapon, adding her duelist level to her damage roll.
When making a precise strike, a duelist cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand or use a shield. A duelist's precise strike only works against living creatures with discernible anatomies. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is also immune to a precise strike, and any item or ability that protects a creature from critical hits also protects a creature from a precise strike.
Again, how about Force Shield, or the Shield spell? Do they count as using a shield?
FAQ'ed, although it seems unnecessary. The intent is clearly that you cannot use a shield of any kind while using dervish dance. I wish they'd used the same wording as with Precise Strike, as noted in the post by Drakkiel.
Isn't it enough to be able to use Crane Style, people? Sheesh.
|
|
So, what if you were wearing the buckler on the same arm you were wielding your scimitar with?
Does the buckler have to go on the "off" hand?
1) You will benefit from the feat, but suffer the usual problems with attacking with the Buckler arm.
2) No, you can wear a Buckler on any arm.
3) If you are attacking with that arm you don't get a AC benefit from the buckler.
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 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 lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn. You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm, but you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn. You can't make a shield bash with a buckler.
The description assume you are using the bucker on your off hand, but it is clear that if you use the bucker for the AC you can't use that hand/arm for attacking/casting spells.
Now, I'm really not sure where to fall on the rules as the exist, but I personally want to be able to use the buckler with these one handed fighters. It's perfect for flavor and style. The dashing swashbuckler with a rapier/saber in one hand a buckler on his arm. It just works.
But, mechanically, I'm not sure it's a good thing. You get these bonuses for sacrificing a shield, but to be able to bypass it for a few extra GP is silly.
Again, how about Force Shield, or the Shield spell? Do they count as using a shield?
Let's quickly examine both of these.
Shield
School abjuration [force]; Level sorcerer/wizard 1
Target you
Duration 1 min./level (D)
Shield creates an invisible shield of force that hovers in front of you. It negates magic missile attacks directed at you. The disk also provides a +4 shield bonus to AC. This bonus applies against incorporeal touch attacks, since it is a force effect. The shield has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance.
Spells that provide shield bonuses are not automatically shields themselves. My Kensai Magus uses Dervish Dance and the shield spell all the time. The key is that while the name of the spell is "shield", it does not require that you hold it and simply "provides a +4 shield bonus to AC." There should be no problem with using the shield spell while utilizing Dervish Dance.
Ring of Force Shield
Aura moderate evocation; CL 9th; Slot ring; Price 8,500 gp; Weight —
An iron band, this simple ring generates a shield-sized (and shield-shaped) wall of force that stays with the ring and can be wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield (+2 AC). This special creation has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance since it is weightless and encumbrance-free. It can be activated and deactivated at will as a free action.
Force Ring, on the other hand specifically says that it "can be wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield" - this wording means that you must actually hold it in your hand. While you MAY be able to argue that it's not a real shield since it's "weightless and encumbrance-free", you're getting back to the whole "wielding" wording.
RAI, I'd have to say no on this one. RAW, who the heck knows...
Hate to reopen a thread that has already been answered in the FAQ, but I must have weak Search-Fu tonight. I cannot find the FAQ answer anywhere. Can someone point me to it please, =)
|
|
Hate to reopen a thread that has already been answered in the FAQ, but I must have weak Search-Fu tonight. I cannot find the FAQ answer anywhere. Can someone point me to it please, =)
That's a good question. The feat's from the Quadira splatbook which, like all splatbooks, has no FAQ page. There's nothing on the CRB page, either (that I can find). While I don't think the question dignifies a response, I'm also not finding the response indicated.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So where is this FAQ?