Would wearing a buckler give a -1 penalty to grapple attempts? It only mentions it gives a penalty when "wielding a weapon".
(I'd probably say it would, but I'm curious about other opinions.)
If someone tried wrestling with me, and he had something rigid attached to his arm, that would be the handle I would use to wrench that arm out of its socket.
Hello dislocated shoulder, goodbye shot at the MMA title.
So yeah, I think it should penalize grapple attempts.
It depends on how you are trying to grapple your opponents. Are you grabbing from behind so that the buckler is across their chest and in easy reach by them? And if you are, are you doing it so that the edge of the buckler is against their throat and maybe crushing their windpipe? Or are you face to face when grappling so that the buckler is out of the way against their back?
Would wearing a buckler give a -1 penalty to grapple attempts? It only mentions it gives a penalty when "wielding a weapon".
(I'd probably say it would, but I'm curious about other opinions.)
RAW, no, logic, yes. Blake's point is a very valid one (as it always is). Enevhar's is as well, but, Enevhar, you have to consider that a penalty on a d20 roll, which represents chance, is essentially an increase in chance happening. The -1 penalty would basically represent the one-in-five situation where the opponent IS using the buckler to his advantage in a grapple. Sometimes you'll win by ten points, so the -1 didn't matter. But sometimes you'll lose by just one, and the buckler did it. That's the random chance of the die roll, and what a small penalty basically represents.
Yes there should be a penalty but how much?
The Grapple RAW say -4 if you don't have 2 free hands but as Brogue The Rogue stated RAW for the buckler says -1.
I would make the penalty -2.
So, let's take a look at the RAW then:
About the only relevant thing I find is this:
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.
An unarmed character can't take attacks of opportunity (but see "Armed" Unarmed Attacks, below).
I bolded the juicy bit.
So this establishes that unarmed attacks are just like melee weapons except for provoking and taking attacks of opportunity. There were no other exceptions listed there.
Ergo, unarmed or wielding a weapon, your buckler causes a -1 to the attack roll because your unarmed attack is much like attacking with a melee weapon.
And then we have this:
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects.
So, is your buckler qualified under "other effects"?
I suppose someone could argue that a buckler is not an "effect", but I think that would be stretching it a bit too far. Me, I think that sentnce really means "Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls from any source" ("any source" being equivalent to "and other effects").
So, putting those two tidbits together, your buckler affects all attack rolls including unarmed attacks (so "wielding a weapon" is not a requirement to suffer the penalty because you are also weilding an unarmed attack), and all penalties to your attack rolls apply to CMB rolls.
The bad news is, you don't get to add the +1 AC on your CMD rolls because "Shield" bonus is not one of the listed bonus types. So when it comes to combat maneuvers, your buckler (or any other shield) is all penalty and no benefit.
(yes, larger shields are even worse, since humanoids must use two hands to grapple, but if your shield is larger than a buckler, you cannot use that arm for grappling, so you are forced to take the -4 penalty on CMB rolls).
I think the -1 is a bit too generous. You're trying to do something [grapple] with a round disc of steel strapped to your arm. It may be "small" but it wasn't designed for grappling.
You could go as far as a -4 as technically you don't have 2 free hands. One of them is being impeded by an amount by said disc of steel.
I hear the RAW but feel a -2 is fair.
I wasn't aware grapple was an attack roll, now (or ever, if it used to be that way in 3.5). I always thought it was a "grapple check." My mistake; sorry.
Yes there should be a penalty but how much?The Grapple RAW say -4 if you don't have 2 free hands but as Brogue The Rogue stated RAW for the buckler says -1.
I would make the penalty -2.
Grapple RAW don't say -4. They do say you need two hands free. Buckler specifically says it leaves your hand free, and that you can use it. I don't feel a -2 is really warranted.
"Larger shields are even worse"...I follow that logic, but the bit about not being able to grapple with anything other than a buckler has me perplexed. The rules clearly say that a light shield still leaves the hand on your shield arm free to carry things, although not wield a weapon. Wielding a weapon and gripping someone by the shirt or hair are not exactly the same thing...I think you should be able to grapple with a lt shield as well, but with perhaps a larger penalty (-2?).
Diving into the wrench your arm out of socket bit, neither a buckler nor a lt. shield are fixed in place unless you grip them. They can both spin around your arm and slide along it if left free to do so. The only way someone else could use the shield to wrench anything on your body would be to twist it (elbow over wrist) trying to pull your elbow away from your body. Since you are grappling and in very close quarters, where is a the space to do this? It isn't there unless the grappler (you) lets go...which is not the premise. Secondly, in order to do this, they'd need both hands (one holding each side of the shield) at which point they should suffer a huge penalty to their CMD while still grappled. If I were grappled, I would not attempt this for fear of having my own arm severely compromised or my own head smashed.
"Larger shields are even worse"...I follow that logic, but the bit about not being able to grapple with anything other than a buckler has me perplexed. The rules clearly say that a light shield still leaves the hand on your shield arm free to carry things, although not wield a weapon. Wielding a weapon and gripping someone by the shirt or hair are not exactly the same thing...I think you should be able to grapple with a lt shield as well, but with perhaps a larger penalty (-2?).
Diving into the wrench your arm out of socket bit, neither a buckler nor a lt. shield are fixed in place unless you grip them. They can both spin around your arm and slide along it if left free to do so. The only way someone else could use the shield to wrench anything on your body would be to twist it (elbow over wrist) trying to pull your elbow away from your body. Since you are grappling and in very close quarters, where is a the space to do this? It isn't there unless the grappler (you) lets go...which is not the premise. Secondly, in order to do this, they'd need both hands (one holding each side of the shield) at which point they should suffer a huge penalty to their CMD while still grappled. If I were grappled, I would not attempt this for fear of having my own arm severely compromised or my own head smashed.
Yep, so basically what we have is an interpretation of rules for an example that isn't actually covered specifically in the rules.
All we can do is look at the similar rules and make a judgement.
For me, if tumbling past a second foe adds +2 to the Acrobatics check; or if waving your arms around to distract an opponent grants a +2 to hit; I see no reason why a similar -2 penalty isn't also a fair ruling in this case.
The point is, there isn't an absolute answer to Hogarth's question, we're all just giving our opinions which may differ but are all nonetheless valid.
To me, it seems like a buckler is like all other shields *except in the following ways,* i.e. you can wield a bow or cross bow, and you can wield a two handed weapon with -1 penalty, a one handed weapon in your off hand takes a -1 penalty, you can't shield bash, etc. It doesn't say anything about combat maneuver checks, therefore I'd assume it works like other shields.
But that seems way too restrictive, right?