| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
Many shields are strapped to your arm AND held in your hand. What's more, it takes two move actions to ready one (one to draw it out, and another to equip it).
Therefore, is it even possible to disarm somebody of their shield? Do they get a bonus against it for it being strapped to their arm?
I will say yes. This is because they do not feature the gauntlet clause "your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets".
They do not get a bonus for having it strapped to the arm unless that arm has a Locked Gauntlet on it that is hooked to the shield.
I'm sure we've all seen plenty of movies where the shield gets knocked out of the hero's hands.
You will also notice that removing a shield and dropping it is simply a single move action it is not strapped so tightly to the arm that it is immovable.
You will further note that even a weapon locked in by a locked gauntlet is still disarmable.
|
In 3.5, disarmed shield lost their bonus to AC until you had an action available (it was a free I believe) to reset the shield. You could not drop a shield because it would take a standard action to actually drop a shield and having a disarm manuver generate an action became kinda silly since that meant you could have a porter "disarm" your shield for you when you needed to switch to a bow or wanted to go two handed. So I would say the 3.5 ruling works just fine.
@coldnapalm
I don't know too much about 3.5, but in PF it is a move action to Ready a shield and a move action to drop a shield. IMO that is what goes along with being a shield carrier, you accept the AC benefits, you accept any extra clunkiness.
But, there is nothing in the Disarm text of Pathfinder that suggests it has adopted this rule you mention about knocking a shield away temporarily.
|
|
@coldnapalm
I don't know too much about 3.5, but in PF it is a move action to Ready a shield and a move action to drop a shield. IMO that is what goes along with being a shield carrier, you accept the AC benefits, you accept any extra clunkiness.
But, there is nothing in the Disarm text of Pathfinder that suggests it has adopted this rule you mention about knocking a shield away temporarily.
Even if it's a move, it is a generation of an action that is not free. Think of it this way...by raw, if you disarm a shield and you do have to drop it, you CAN'T because you, the holder of the shield has NO such action to do so. It is the funny hover when you get held while flying until you have a move action to fall thing. In anycase, if the rules are to work like this, then a shield user, when disarmed must on his turn spend a move to drop the shield or...since it's his action just go...nah I'd rather not and so the disarm doesn't do anything. Just like a held flyer who gains control before it's turn can go nah, I'd rather not fall. So really by RAW, one could argue that disarming the shield does nothing.
In anycase, if the rules are to work like this, then a shield user, when disarmed must on his turn spend a move to drop the shield or...since it's his action just go...nah I'd rather not and so the disarm doesn't do anything. Just like a held flyer who gains control before it's turn can go nah, I'd rather not fall. So really by RAW, one could argue that disarming the shield does nothing.
But you don't regain control... when you are disarmed of a weapon is not the equivalent of a character using a free action to drop a weapon. That never enters the equation. It doesn't matter if it takes a move or standard action, you just lose the weapon or item regardless of whether you want to or not. I think most people would rather not drop their weapons/shields/held items.
Based on your theory because a character cannot take a free action at the time of being disarmed (only immediate actions or readied actions take place outside of your turn) to drop the weapon legally they can say "nah" they'd rather not be disarmed.
I suspect this is not how things are meant to be interpreted.
|
CRB, page 199, under Disarm : " If your attack is successful, your target drops one item it is carrying of your choice (even if the item is wielded with two hands)."
Is the target carrying the shield ? If yes, then by RAW you can disarm it.
Note that even a weapon secured with a locked gauntlet can still be disarmed. It is just harder to do so.
CRB, page 199, under Disarm : " If your attack is successful, your target drops one item it is carrying of your choice (even if the item is wielded with two hands)."
Is the target carrying the shield ? If yes, then by RAW you can disarm it.
Note that even a weapon secured with a locked gauntlet can still be disarmed. It is just harder to do so.
Aren't shields usually strapped to the arm? It seems more like trying to "disarm" a bracer, which does not make much sense.
|
|
CRB, page 199, under Disarm : " If your attack is successful, your target drops one item it is carrying of your choice (even if the item is wielded with two hands)."
Is the target carrying the shield ? If yes, then by RAW you can disarm it.
If you wanna harp on that aspect...a shield isn't carried...it's strapped to your arm. Kinda like how full plate is strapped to you. So if strapped = carried, then full plate is carried and I can do a standard disarm check to make you drop your full plate (which would be awesome because that means paladins will no longer drown as their allies can just "disarm" them of their plate when they go overboard). Yeah this is stupid.
Aren't shields usually strapped to the arm? It seems more like trying to "disarm" a bracer, which does not make much sense.CRB, page 199, under Disarm : " If your attack is successful, your target drops one item it is carrying of your choice (even if the item is wielded with two hands)."
Is the target carrying the shield ? If yes, then by RAW you can disarm it.
Note that even a weapon secured with a locked gauntlet can still be disarmed. It is just harder to do so.
I believe The black raven is correct. By RAW you can disarm a shield, even if its strapped. A reasonable GM could house rule, that a shield that has a strap is similar to a locked guantlet and affords a shield wielder a "+10 bonus to your Combat Maneuver Defense to keep from being disarmed in combat". (NOTE: to use a locked gauntlet is a full-round action vs. a move action to strap a shield).
Something like this should be errata'd.
Now with your point about the Bracer, a Bracer is like a gauntlet and that its worn around your limb, in this case the forearm instead of the hand. Therefore a Bracer should be afforded the same resistance to a disarm attempt that a gauntlet has.
Could you disarm someone carrying fullplate in their hand? Yes.
Could you disarm somone wearing fullplate? No. (it's not in your hand).
Let's talk about the locked gauntlet more because that's where you'll see the validity of the argument. A locked gauntlet doesn't just strap an item, it chains it to you. An item that is locked in a gauntlet cannot be dropped. You must take a Full-Round Action to remove it and then use a free action to drop it. This is a harder action to perform than dropping a shield that is strapped to your arm, which is simply a move action.
Yet, a weapon that is locked in such a gauntlet can be disarmed through the Disarm Combat Maneuver - albeit it is harder than normal. If it is possible for you to disarm a person of an item that is chained to their hand, then diarming a shield is a piece of cake.
Aren't shield meant to be sundered, in the first place?
Could you disarm someone carrying fullplate in their hand? Yes.
I'm thinking you would use the Steal maneuver instead of Disarm because the item is not "wielded".
I'm thinking you would use the Steal maneuver instead of Disarm because the item is not "wielded".
Disarm is the right choice... you can't steal a held item. Disarm does not have to target a weapon, simply an item in hand.
Disarm:
If your attack is successful, your target drops one item it is carrying of your choice (even if the item is wielded with two hands). If your attack exceeds the CMD of the target by 10 or more, the target drops the items it is carrying in both hands (maximum two items if the target has more than two hands). If your attack fails by 10 or more, you drop the weapon that you were using to attempt the disarm. If you successfully disarm your opponent without using a weapon, you may automatically pick up the item dropped.
Steal:
You can attempt to take an item from a foe as a standard action. This maneuver can be used in melee to take any item that is neither held nor hidden in a bag or pack.
|
|
Could you disarm someone carrying fullplate in their hand? Yes.
Could you disarm somone wearing fullplate? No. (it's not in your hand).Let's talk about the locked gauntlet more because that's where you'll see the validity of the argument. A locked gauntlet doesn't just strap an item, it chains it to you. An item that is locked in a gauntlet cannot be dropped. You must take a Full-Round Action to remove it and then use a free action to drop it. This is a harder action to perform than dropping a shield that is strapped to your arm, which is simply a move action.
Yet, a weapon that is locked in such a gauntlet can be disarmed through the Disarm Combat Maneuver - albeit it is harder than normal. If it is possible for you to disarm a person of an item that is chained to their hand, then diarming a shield is a piece of cake.
Where do you see in hand? You are going for uber RAW to back up your point no? At no point does it say that disarm has to target something carried in hand...just carried. If strapped (because a shield IS strapped) = carried, then full plate (also strapped on) = carried and is perfectlt disarmable. A chain shirt is not strapped and as such not disarmable. Or you can agree with me that strapped != carried.
I'm thinking you would use the Steal maneuver instead of Disarm because the item is not "wielded".
Disarm is the right choice... you can't steal a held item. Disarm does not have to target a weapon, simply an item in hand.
Disarm:
If your attack is successful, your target drops one item it is carrying of your choice (even if the item is wielded with two hands). If your attack exceeds the CMD of the target by 10 or more, the target drops the items it is carrying in both hands (maximum two items if the target has more than two hands). If your attack fails by 10 or more, you drop the weapon that you were using to attempt the disarm. If you successfully disarm your opponent without using a weapon, you may automatically pick up the item dropped.Steal:
You can attempt to take an item from a foe as a standard action. This maneuver can be used in melee to take any item that is neither held nor hidden in a bag or pack.
I stand corrected.
Where are people getting the idea that shields are strapped to the arm? At best, there is a leather strap/band that loosely fits around the forearm and helps keep the shield upright/positioned where it is needed while a handle/grip provide the actual control.
Reading the above posts, everyone here seems to think all shields come equipped with cargo straps or are bolted to the arm and are all but impossible to remove against the will of the carrier.
Shields were/are encumbering and heavy. Many times, a shield would only be kept in hand long enough to deflect one or two blows before being dropped to take advantage of an opening. Drop the shield = move faster = possible telling blow.
Bucklers are something of a different story, but you might as well argue for whether or not helmets count towards AC.
As for mechanics, yes a shield can be disarmed.
-Kurocyn
Where are people getting the idea that shields are strapped to the arm?
I like your conclusions, and we agree that shields can be disarmed. But this whole problem stems from the fact that the PF rules state you must strap a shield to your arm. You actually can't just equip or drop one (even a buckler) at will. Quickdraw Shields are the exception to the following rule(s).
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.
So a normal shield would be retrieved (carried), then readied (strapped on/worn/donned) which would be two move actions to get the AC bonus. If you decide to drop the shield you'll spend a move action to get rid of it.
Coldnapalm's view is that because a shield is classified as Armor and you have to "wear" it then it can't be Disarmed (as you can't disarm someone of a Breastplate), however a shield occupies your "hand slot" unlike body armors, thus allowing it to be the target of Disarm and it does not feature special rules for what occurs when a Disarm attempt is made (see gauntlet or locked gauntlet). Furthermore, worn shields are droppable (unlike body armors which can take several round to remove) so we must conclude that a shield is a valid target for Disarm.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it would be helpful in this discussion if we took a look at the description of 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.
So the buckler is strapped on but not held. So since it's not in your hand, you can't be "disarmed" of it. Meanwhile, people are saying that a shield (which is worn just like a buckler but held in addition to being strapped on) actually can be disarmed "because it's in your hand", according to people in this thread. So by this logic, it's actually the act of clenching your hand that separates the ability to disarm a shield from the inability to disarm a buckler.
I think the text is pretty clear. Shields are strapped on (which someone already cited) and disarm is for things held/carried. Grabbing my breastplate doesn't suddenly make it disarmable. You can't disarm a shield.
|
|
But a buckler, unlike a shield, is actually useful when it's only hanging by a strap. Because it's meant to be used that way. A shield hanging by its strap just weighs your arm down.
You most certainly can disarm a shield. Maybe not a PF buckler (which is more of a targ, but that's another discussion), but a shield is definitely held.
I think that since a shield can be held and strapped the ability for you to disarm it depends on whether it is strapped or not.
If don't want the shield taken secure it. If you want to get rid of it easily for some reason then don't strap it.
It seems to me that strapped is equivalent to worn, and you can't disarm worn items, only carried or held ones.
I am not making real life comparisons. I am just going by the game rules.
|
|
*sigh*
Look in the equipment section of the book. This was part of your training, and you should have read this on the way to becoming a 3rd-level gamer.
"You strap and shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand."
It's in the entry for both heavy shields and light shields, so this should be easy to find. This would seem to indicate that a shield must be strapped and held at the same time. So you're right to say that it's strapped, but you're not right to say that this means you don't hold it.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
*sigh*
Look in the equipment section of the book. This was part of your training, and you should have read this on the way to becoming a 3rd-level gamer."You strap and shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand."
It's in the entry for both heavy shields and light shields, so this should be easy to find. This would seem to indicate that a shield must be strapped and held at the same time. So you're right to say that it's strapped, but you're not right to say that this means you don't hold it.
Your snarkiness aside, yes, I was aware that you also grip it with your hand. I even said as much in my first post. I was focusing on the strapping because I had gotten the impression that you (and others) were missing/dismissing that part and treating shields as being solely held items. Apparently, however, the disagreement is whether the Disarm maneuver can make someone drop an item that is both held and strapped on, or just something that is only held. Would you agree in that assessment?
|
|
I agree that the disagreement is about that thing, yes. The disarm maneuver, however, clearly works on things that are held. If it's held, it's subject to a disarm.
Now it doesn't make sense for the thing to fall or fly off, barring extreme success on the disarm, because it's strapped on. Sure. That's fine. So a disarm doesn't work completely normally. But it still works.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I agree that the disagreement is about that thing, yes. The disarm maneuver, however, clearly works on things that are held. If it's held, it's subject to a disarm.
So you don't think there's any room for differentiation between "gripped" and "held"? (Keep in mind that the shield description says "gripped", and it was you who interpreted it as "held".) So I guess there now comes the point of "Does 'gripping' an item make it 'held'?". This one could get sticky, so I'm curious to hear your rationale.
Now it doesn't make sense for the thing to fall or fly off, barring extreme success on the disarm, because it's strapped on. Sure. That's fine. So a disarm doesn't work completely normally. But it still works.
Well, the disarm description does specifically say that the item is "dropped". At the point when you're saying that something "doesn't work completely normally", you're applying a houserule (one that I would personally be in favor of, actually), but not RAW. Since this is the Rules Questions board, you need to show where the text states or implies that the result of a successful disarm not only works on a "strapped on and gripped" item, but also works differently.
|
Your snarkiness aside, yes, I was aware that you also grip it with your hand. I even said as much in my first post. I was focusing on the strapping because I had gotten the impression that you (and others) were missing/dismissing that part and treating shields as being solely held items. Apparently, however, the disagreement is whether the Disarm maneuver can make someone drop an item that is both held and strapped on, or just something that is only held. Would you agree in that assessment?*sigh*
Look in the equipment section of the book. This was part of your training, and you should have read this on the way to becoming a 3rd-level gamer."You strap and shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand."
It's in the entry for both heavy shields and light shields, so this should be easy to find. This would seem to indicate that a shield must be strapped and held at the same time. So you're right to say that it's strapped, but you're not right to say that this means you don't hold it.
We know that the disarm maneuver can make you drop something strapped and held (see weapon in a locked gauntlet). I just want to know how a weapon in a locked gauntlet (can be disarmed but has a +10 CMD vs disarm due to gauntlet), is different then a shield (barring the buckler).
Strapped and held in hand?
shield = check
weapon in locked gauntlet = check
can attack with it?
shield = check (shield bash)
weapon in locked gauntlet = check
More then a free action to drop?
shield = move action
weapon in locked gauntlet = full-round action(!)
Can be disarmed?
shield = check(?) (nothing in RAW says you cannot)
weapon in locked gauntlet = check (with a +10 CMD)
Now that having been said. I believe that the shields should also have the +10 to CMD to disarm.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Happler - Your comparison of a shield to a locked gauntlet is not RAW, no matter how good of an idea it seems to be. You ask how the shield and locked gauntlet are different? They're different because the rules say so. Though it may not make sense to you (or to me, or to anyone else), this is - as I already pointed out - the Rules Questions board. We're not talking about what should be, but what is.
So with that in mind, the official rules explicitly describe the interaction between a locked gauntlet and the Disarm maneuver. They do not explicitly describe the interaction between shields and the Disarm maneuver. Therefore, only three things are possible:
1) Such interaction does not exist (i.e., you can't disarm a shield) and that's why it wasn't described.
2) Such interaction is completely normal (i.e., you disarm a shield exactly as you would anything else, with no modifiers and no different results than with a weapon, potion, briefcase, bloody head, etc).
3) Such interaction was accidentally omitted and has/needs eratta.
Any ideas pushing for an option that is not one of those three is a personalized houserule, no matter how good of a houserule it may be (I personally like the idea from earlier where it messes you up and you need to re-adjust your grip), and is therefore not appropriate for a Rules Questions post.
|
|
@Happler - Your comparison of a shield to a locked gauntlet is not RAW, no matter how good of an idea it seems to be. You ask how the shield and locked gauntlet are different? They're different because the rules say so. Though it may not make sense to you (or to me, or to anyone else), this is - as I already pointed out - the Rules Questions board. We're not talking about what should be, but what is.
So with that in mind, the official rules explicitly describe the interaction between a locked gauntlet and the Disarm maneuver. They do not explicitly describe the interaction between shields and the Disarm maneuver. Therefore, only three things are possible:
1) Such interaction does not exist (i.e., you can't disarm a shield) and that's why it wasn't described.
2) Such interaction is completely normal (i.e., you disarm a shield exactly as you would anything else, with no modifiers and no different results than with a weapon, potion, briefcase, bloody head, etc).
3) Such interaction was accidentally omitted and has/needs eratta.Any ideas pushing for an option that is not one of those three is a personalized houserule, no matter how good of a houserule it may be (I personally like the idea from earlier where it messes you up and you need to re-adjust your grip), and is therefore not appropriate for a Rules Questions post.
I should have been more clear. From my view of the RAW, your option #2 is the correct view. It meets the requirements of being disarmed (aka, held in hand and does not state that it cannot be disarmed in the rules for the item).
Also, how is the shield (since it is listed in the weapons section), different then any other weapon? There is nothing that states that they are, other then the fact that the shield is also listed in the armor section.
Now, this is a situation where I believe that RAW should have more added to it for different results. And thus as a GM, I would house rule it similar to a weapon cord/locked gauntlet. a bonus vs disarm, and you cannot drop it, but it must be re-readied to use again.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I should have been more clear. From my view of the RAW, your option #2 is the correct view. It meets the requirements of being disarmed (aka, held in hand and does not state that it cannot be disarmed in the rules for the item).
There you go. And I can see where you're coming from with that, though I disagree - I don't think "gripping" (as per the shield description) automatically qualifies an item as "carried" (as per the disarm description), since you can carry something without gripping it and grip something without carrying it. The two are not synonymous, and so I see #1 as the appropriate application of the rules text.
Though I agree it would be nice if the CR spelled it out, and would personally be in favor of a houserule that added some interaction between shields and disarm.
EDIT: I see you did a ninja-edit on me. I don't recall saying that shields are not weapons, and the RAW of the disarm maneuver makes no specifications about interacting with weapons in particular:
Disarm
You can attempt to disarm your opponent in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Disarm feat, or a similar ability, attempting to disarm a foe provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. Attempting to disarm a foe while unarmed imposes a –4 penalty on the attack.If your attack is successful, your target drops one item it is carrying of your choice (even if the item is wielded with two hands). If your attack exceeds the CMD of the target by 10 or more, the target drops the items it is carrying in both hands (maximum two items if the target has more than two hands). If your attack fails by 10 or more, you drop the weapon that you were using to attempt the disarm. If you successfully disarm your opponent without using a weapon, you may automatically pick up the item dropped.
As you can see, the only use of the word "weapon" is in reference to whether or not the person performing the disarm is using a weapon. So trying to make or refute a distinction between weapons and shields seems like a moot point.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A thread about whether or not you hold a shield...
Wow.
Yeah. Everyone's just a bunch of raving dorks now, aren't they?
|
|
EDIT: I see you did a ninja-edit on me. I don't recall saying that shields are not weapons, and the RAW of the disarm maneuver makes no specifications about interacting with weapons in particular:
did not mean to ninja-edit on you there, sorry about that.
Just like you pointed out though, disarm does not make any mention of weapons, shields, wands, keys, potions, etc. It's only requirement is that it be held in 1 or more hands. Other then that, it treats everything equally.
Since you "grip" a shield with your hand, and the definition of grip is to seize or hold firmly, you are holding the shield in your hand. The important part (at least to me here), is that the RAW says nothing about how the strapping effects the disarm attempt.
that at least is how my logic on this goes.
That having been said, I think that this is a good candidate for a FAQ.
I want to build a monk of the empty hand, and the idea of grabbing someone's shield and beating them over the head with it is too much fun.
Here you go. A picture of the strapped shield.
Should you be able to disarm that with no penalties? Should you be able to disarm that at all?
Well my Dual Shield Wielding fighter would kick your monks booty buddy. Well assuming we could get past this rule of course. [sarcasm] Honestly I think I'm only going to use shields as weapons now that I found out they are the only weapon that cannot be disarmed. I personally think you can disarm armor though. Why the hell not. cut the chords and watch it drop off. Haven't any of you played ghouls and ghosts[/sarcasm] For realz tho. Shields that are weapons can be disarmed, because they are weapons. The tricky part is when i have my shield in a locked gauntlet and I want to take it off. Move and start full-round action right. Hmmm lots of fun rules tricks to play on my DM.....
|
|
For god sake people this thread couldn't be much sillier, of course you can disarm a shield, you have to use the hand to hold/wield/equip it to gain benefit from it and therefore you can disarm it. Saying otherwise because of any flavor text that implies "securing straps" is plain munchkinism. The crunch of it all says you can and I personally think trying to knock a shield out of someone grasp sounds like a mighty reasonable thing for a character to be able to at least TRY to do.
|
|
Here you go. A picture of the strapped shield.
Should you be able to disarm that with no penalties? Should you be able to disarm that at all?
Heck. Yes.
If one of you monkeys can figure out a way to grip a shield without holding it, then maybe you'll have something. Until then:
- Shields are held.
- Held things can be disarmed.
- Shields are weapons.
- Weapons can be disarmed.
If you want to house rule that it doesn't work normally on account of the strap, that's cool. But they do not have a RAW exception to the disarm rule, so they're subject to it.
the fact that some are arguing you *cannot* disarm a shield (which is held by piddly straps to your hand), but you *can* disarm an item chained to your hand with a locked gauntlet is just preposterous. I agree with you Lyrax.
+2¢
The idea that you are attempting to argue that gripping something is different than holding something is also odd. Why would anyone chose to hold something if they can simply grip it and be immune to disarm?
GM: The Watchman tries to disarm your spear.
Player: I grip my spear!
GM: I bet you do!
@happler
I could see a house rule or rules update that adds a strapped bonus to prevent a shield from being disarmed (+5 is reasonable, not +10). But, the fact is that these items can still be disarmed, which you have said.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It's clear that no one's going to budge without the word of a developer or something, but I would like to point out a couple of things to perhaps improve some people's argumentation/reasoning skills for future rules discussions. First up:
Shields that are weapons can be disarmed, because they are weapons.
- Shields are weapons.
- Weapons can be disarmed.
Although some other points for your case are good, this line of reasoning is invalid. The rules make no specifications of "weapons can be disarmed" - being a weapon does not, by RAW, make something disarmable. Being carried makes something disarmable, not being a certain type of item. The "weapons can be disarmed" premise is something you've accidentally invented - it's not actually present in the rules. Thus, an argument relying on said premise is invalid.
Next up:
Why would anyone chose to hold something if they can simply grip it and be immune to disarm?
No one made this argument. To imply so by arguing against it is to set up a straw man by putting words in people's mouths.
So far, the actual valid arguments presented are these:
• A shield is gripped. A gripped item is carried. A carried item can be disarmed. Therefore, a shield can be disarmed.
• A shield is gripped. A gripped item is not inherently carried. An item must be carried to be disarmed. Therefore, a shield cannot be disarmed.
As you can see when it's simplified like this, the crux of the matter is whether or not gripping an item that is otherwise secured in place will qualify it as being "carried". Since that gets into semantics, we'll basically need a "word of god" type answer to resolve it (outside of houserules, which I think everyone in this thread agrees should go toward being able to disarm a shield).
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.
Being PCs, and therefore fated to win?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Link Provided for ya JiggykolaryutI don't know what that is.
Thanks. Figured it was something like that.
So now that rational discourse has been replaced by insinuations that I am less than human, I guess the only remaining option is for as many people as possible to mark the OP as an FAQ candidate.
|
|
*facepalm*
No, that's not the only remaining option. See, I argue like a bralani, and we typically have a lot more fun.
If you like, you can show the world where the "shield exception clause" to disarm is. I probably won't respect it if you do, and I don't think one exists anyways, but I'm sure somebody here will look at that and agree with you. After all, everything not forbidden by the rules is permitted.
OR we can talk about why, in an ideal game, shields should not be immune to disarms. In PF, shields are weapons. Fighters of the sword-and-board variety frequently take feats that improve their effectiveness as weapons, and they can be very powerful.
Disarm, on the other hand, is only useful against opponents who are holding things. It's not much use against most dragons, aberrations, oozes, animals... or anything else that doesn't use weapons. When it is useful, you still need to have a CMB that could possibly overcome the enemy, so it usually doesn't come up much vs. giants. It is perhaps the most limited of all combat maneuvers because of this.
Disarm does not need to be made less powerful. Shields do not need to be made more powerful.
Why on earth would we waste the dev's time with an issue so straightforward? What possible reason could they have for ruling that shields are immune to disarms?
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.
So far, the actual valid arguments presented are these:[valid argument omitted]
• A shield is gripped. A gripped item is not inherently carried. An item must be carried to be disarmed. Therefore, a shield cannot be disarmed.
See my earlier response.
Why would anyone chose to hold something if they can simply grip it and be immune to disarm?
No one made this argument. To imply so by arguing against it is to set up a straw man by putting words in people's mouths.
I only point out what you're saying. "Gripping" is some mystically strong bond between your hand and an item that goes beyond the lowly "carry". It's good that it has never been seen or referenced before in the rules text.. can you really blame the PF writers for grabbing a thesaurus?
Also, someone said something earlier about a contrary ruling indicating that shields were the only weapon you can't disarm. False. Armor spikes.
Please... please don't give him anymore ammunition to draw on... but yes.. armor spikes and gauntlets...