Hi all, I have a halfling ranger who's an archer and uses a buckler. However my GM has a problem with it as he can't see why you would ever use a small shield rather than a buckler.
Basically if you don't use anything in your off hand then a buckler is as good as a small sheild but it gives you the option to use that hand if you wish. Apart from loosing the ability to shield bash, and the cost is there any disadvantage?
Shield Bash is pretty good for anyone with the shield feats. It's quite a bit to lose if you are going that path.
its the same as the mace / morningstar principle. Not everything needs to make sense :)
disagree. if something is a waste of space in the book, should be changed or removed.
Said this, this is NOT the case of buckler and shield.
The bashing IS relevant. Buckler is defensive, but light shield in the right hands is a light weapon wich adds +1 to AC.
The quickdraw one in APG adds more tactical flexibility to those proficent with it, BTW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nevertheless, I always wondered why the buckler wasn't +1 AC, small shield +2 AC, large shield +3 AC, and tower shield +4 AC.
Makes more sense if you ask me.
Nevertheless, I always wondered why the buckler wasn't +1 AC, small shield +2 AC, large shield +3 AC, and tower shield +4 AC.
Makes more sense if you ask me.
+50
some weapons/armor/shields make others obsolete, I mean come on, who wears a half plate! the only people who would wear one over a full plate is someone who found a magical one in a random dungeon!
|
Nevertheless, I always wondered why the buckler wasn't +1 AC, small shield +2 AC, large shield +3 AC, and tower shield +4 AC.
Makes more sense if you ask me.
+50
some weapons/armor/shields make others obsolete, I mean come on, who wears a half plate! the only people who would wear one over a full plate is someone who found a magical one in a random dungeon!
And I wonder why anyone would make magical half plate in the first place. The rules for armour, and indeed for equipment in general could stand be tightened, I agree.
@Ravingdork and Nemitri: agree, I find it annoying, and sign of lazy design.
@Ravingdork and Nemitri: agree, I find it annoying, and sign of lazy design.
I would not go as far as verbally slapping the designers and call them lazy, it wasn't perceived as a problem, thus not something that got fixed.
They made some small fix to armor that increased AC slightly already, adding another +1 for shield, might just be enough for a little too much extra defense.
I was not referring to Paizo, actually.
Is a legacy of 3.5 - there are so many things like that, it's impossible avoid them.
Addendum - my "Delenda Carthago"
Paizo is not immune to that, indeed.
There is something like that in APG. See how "too good to not take it" is Falcata and how Boomerang just sucks.
People answer? ROLEPLAYING!
People's Answer? ROLEPLAYING!
BLEH-ARGH!!! :P
People's Answer? ROLEPLAYING!BLEH-ARGH!!! :P
To be clear: I'm not despising RP. I just find annoying the classification of rules in munchkin or roleplayer stuff.
I want things diverse and interesting, without being too dumb good or dumb weak. Otherwise, I will just houserule 3.5, with no reason to buy Pathfinder.
Errors can happen, but please fix them.
Roleplaying is not directly related. EVERYTHING in the book is for roleplaying. But EVERYTHING must be a good rule (or an interesting flavour text).
Unless something has changed from 3.5, I recal that a buckler is only effective against 1 attack per round whereas a small shield is effective against all attacks.
edit: now that I look I no longer see that restriction. I wonder when it went away?
That was never a restriction.
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 don’t get the buckler’s AC bonus for the rest of the round.
You can’t bash someone with a buckler.
@Ravingdork and Nemitri: agree, I find it annoying, and sign of lazy design.I would not go as far as verbally slapping the designers and call them lazy, it wasn't perceived as a problem, thus not something that got fixed.
They made some small fix to armor that increased AC slightly already, adding another +1 for shield, might just be enough for a little too much extra defense.
offence so outweighs defence in PF, it wouldnt make much difference
they should also make a buckler useless against missile fire unless you have a feat
and on armour, there is only about 4 types ever worn, AFAICT
IME, "unless you have a feat" is an HORRIBLE way to "fix" things.
The number of feats PCs can choose is very limited, this lead to severe pidgeonholing.
Hi all, I have a halfling ranger who's an archer and uses a buckler. However my GM has a problem with it as he can't see why you would ever use a small shield rather than a buckler.
Basically if you don't use anything in your off hand then a buckler is as good as a small sheild but it gives you the option to use that hand if you wish. Apart from loosing the ability to shield bash, and the cost is there any disadvantage?
As others have pointed out, it's not so much about one being better than the other, as each having their own valuable purpose.
Shield bash builds can be surprisingly powerful, especially when combined with TWF and some of the shield feats from APG. They're great for martial builds. You can enchant a spiked shield for both boosts to AC and for attack bonuses as well. Your GM probably hasn't seen such a build in action to see how effective it is. And heck, even if someone hasn't heavily built a shield bash build--if they are disarmed of their weapon but proficient in shields, they can still be considered armed, and that can be very important in a tight situation.
Bucklers on the other hand are great for someone who wants the protection of a shield bonus but isn't planning to do any shield bashing -- it takes a lot of feats to make a good shield bashing build, and depending on what kind of character you're playing, you may want to be putting your feats toward something else. Your archer ranger is a good example--he's probably going to be hanging back and not entering melee--thus he doesn't need the ability to shield bash, but the shield bonus is handy. I think arcane spellcasters can also cast with a buckler without penalty (if they forfeit their shield bonus that round) so it's also useful for them (if they have shield proficiency at least), and that's something you can't do with a small shield. But you're never going to be considered armed with a buckler strapped to your arm--it's a purely defensive item.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Unless something has changed from 3.5, I recal that a buckler is only effective against 1 attack per round whereas a small shield is effective against all attacks.
edit: now that I look I no longer see that restriction. I wonder when it went away?
2e to 3E I believe.
You can't quickly throw a buckler at an enemy, à la Captain America, but you can a small shield. :p
They made some small fix to armor that increased AC slightly already, adding another +1 for shield, might just be enough for a little too much extra defense.
What.
|
People's Answer - ROLEPLAYING!
** spoiler omitted **
Actually, I have to confess to that being the reason I wouldn't use a Buckler - It is just to camp a shield to be mincing round with,just like a Fighter/Pally using one of those stupid tiny weapons for the extra crit range. It's a principle, though actually, come to think of it, it's not actually roleplay reasons I won't use it, just a pure vanity issue
disagree. if something is a waste of space in the book, should be changed or removed.
Said this, this is NOT the case of buckler and shield.
There's something additional that you do not seem to take into account: content (sometimes sub-optimal) is added to rulebooks and supporting books for the sake of completeness. Any given option may be modified with material published later (a buckler example: the rondolero archetype in Inner Sea Primer).
I honestly do not mind sub-optimal options like a boomerang, though I do dislike obviously superior options like the falcatta; thus play with modified rules for it in games I GM.
I honestly do not mind sub-optimal options like a boomerang, though I do dislike obviously superior options like the falcatta; thus play with modified rules for it in games I GM.
What about a cool, even if not powerful, returning boomerang (apparently illogic in a wolrd with flying lizards) and a d8, 19-20/x3 falcata BUT one hand only (like the rapier)?
So I can choose a not so powerful throwing weapon with something significantly cool, and a poweful weapon which is not a no-brainer for any build.
Too difficult?
Apart from losing the ability to shield bash, and the cost is there any disadvantage?
I think I've only ever used a light (wooden) shield when I'm playing a druid.
I honestly do not mind sub-optimal options like a boomerang, though I do dislike obviously superior options like the falcatta; thus play with modified rules for it in games I GM.
What about a cool, even if not powerful, returning boomerang (apparently illogic in a wolrd with flying lizards) and a d8, 19-20/x3 falcata BUT one hand only (like the rapier)?
So I can choose a not so powerful throwing weapon with something significantly cool, and a poweful weapon which is not a no-brainer for any build.
Too difficult?
Well, a combat/hunting boomerang really is a non-returning weapon in the real-world. Even if you were to try to use a "normal" boomerang, assuming you successfully hit a target (or accidentally anything else, like a wall) the trajectory would be interrupted and the boomerang would not be able to return to you.
What differentiates combat/hunting boomerang in the real-world from many other thrown weapons, is the accuracy over long distances; which is reflected in the stats: 30ft range increment.
The falcatta solution you propose is still very good - possibly still the go-to choice for many one-handed weapon wielders, though it would at least get to compete with the scimitar on nearly-even ground.
Real world monks don't fly and age, AFAIK. Still, the class can fly and /or become ageless because is based on legends and on an "ideal", "fairy tale" monk we can say.
In the same way, in a game with flying lizards, an IDEAL boomerang could go further (30ft) and come back if misses. I see this "poetic licence" as reasonable.. and, you know, can justify a little bit more the feat for EWP. And have a cool effect withou game breaking.
"My" (is not an idea of mine) falcata would be the best 1H slashing weapon. But not the best 2H. And since 2H fighting is advantaged, could even close the gaps a little bit more. Wanna switch 1H-2H? Bastard Sword. You know, diversity.
The fact that axes and "straight" swords, bastard included, are plain bad is another issue completely, sadly.
The Buckler and the Light Shield have different uses. Buckler is a purely defensive item, that doesn't interfere with archery. Light Shield is bashable and works well with TWFing.
Personally, I'd be sad if the Light Shield went away.
Sub-question: Paizo, will there be a Monkey Grip feat equivalent coming anytime soon?
If Paizo made everything perfectly balanced strawman strawman strawman
I said a completely different thing D:
Balance is utopic. you cannot reach it, unless you play chess (and white always starts first! And queens are OP! :P).
Another thing is avoid or at least adjust stuff too OP or which is a waste of space on the book. Because, you know, this lowers the quality of the book and mzkes me less likely to buy future books.
Diverse choice makes te gamworld interesting. You can optimize with few good options. making a diverse and interesting gameworld is another thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sub-question: Paizo, will there be a Monkey Grip feat equivalent coming anytime soon?
-infinity
Death to Monkey Grip
Sub-question: Paizo, will there be a Monkey Grip feat equivalent coming anytime soon?-infinity
Death to Monkey Grip
The Iconic Barbie could so use Monkey Grip (and initially did, yeah?)
On the subject of Light Shields (and Heavy ones as well), I like the addition of a Shield Spike, but I dislike the Piercing-type damage. Could a shield be reinforced with a "boss", that does bludgeoning damage instead? That would be cool.
OP: Current version of antagonize
Waste of space: current, POST ERRATA version of Cockatrice Strike.
@Ravingdork and Nemitri: agree, I find it annoying, and sign of lazy design.
It's not lazy design but more keeping things that existing in the past to appease those who would cry foul if Half-plate and morning stars disappeared. So while most will just ignore those types of equipment for few lines in a book it's there for people want 1/2 plate for example.
If Paizo made everything perfectly balanced, people would complain that its unrealistic and too uniform. If they print some options that are bad and some that are good people complain about it being unbalanced. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Very astute. I have absolutely no interest in a game wherein a 20th level Wizard isn't objectively more powerful than a 20th level Fighter. If I wanted that I'd play Exalted... but I know there are people who categorically disagree with me, and enjoy the game as much as I do. Its one of the reasons I still play RPGs in person; because while you start with the rules we all have in common, you can adjust them to fit your preferences.
Keeping everything on par would mean destroy magic as is - which is bad, see what happened in other versions of the game.
But.. there is a middle ground. and this middle ground can always be refined. Otherwise, why a lot of core spells have been nerfed in the 3.5-PF switch?
@voska: I already said it - I was pointing out 3.5 design (in the spoiler, indeed, I pointed out PF examples).
Thanks everyone for your replies, I didn't mean to start a debate on the balance of shields but I enjoyed it none the less.
One thing that now occurs to me is the cost issue. It's not really that important to PCs, but for your average farmer or goblin the difference between a light wooden shield (3gp) and a buckler (15gp) is huge. So the game does need to include items that are generally inferior even if the PCs don't use them to remain realistic (or at least to retain verisimilitude).
Unless something has changed from 3.5, I recal that a buckler is only effective against 1 attack per round whereas a small shield is effective against all attacks.
edit: now that I look I no longer see that restriction. I wonder when it went away?
That was in a previous edition of the game (1st / 2nd Ed AD&D iirc).
Unless something has changed from 3.5, I recal that a buckler is only effective against 1 attack per round whereas a small shield is effective against all attacks.
edit: now that I look I no longer see that restriction. I wonder when it went away?
That was in a previous edition (1st / 2nd edition AD&D iirc).