| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
A medium character picks up a small character's light wooden shield. She is totally proficient with shields, except tower shields.
Does she have to take the-1 check penalty? I figure it's pretty much a buckler to the larger character. I can't really see how this would affect the larger character's ability to stealth, or to jump over chasms. To pick locks or pockets? Maybe, but no more than any character holding a shield in one hand, proficient or no.
While the shield might be the size of a buckler the way you hold a shield and how you strap a buckler to your arm are very different.
So unless you refit the straps to fit your larger arm, I would say you simply can't do it, for the same reason that you can't wear a small characters full plate: Because you don't fit inside.
Actually there is.
Shields are both Armor and Weapons, so let's look at that first.
Armor: There's no rules that you can wear other sized armor at all, because by common sense it's just not possible.
Weapons: Now shields are also weapons, so maybe it works there.
Light shield are Light weapons.
The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.
Which means a medium character can't wield a small character's light weapon, because that would reduce the weapon to something below light, which doesn't exist.
Third: Just as a small sized longsword for a medium character is still an inappropriately sized longsword, that now counts as a light weapon (with the -2 penalty) and not a medium shortsword (same stats, just no -2), a light shield will always be a light shield and will not turn into a buckler.
Actually there is.
Shields are both Armor and Weapons, so let's look at that first.Armor: There's no rules that you can wear other sized armor at all, because by common sense it's just not possible.
Weapons: Now shields are also weapons, so maybe it works there.
Light shield are Light weapons.
The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.Which means a medium character can't wield a small character's light weapon, because that would reduce the weapon to something below light, which doesn't exist.
Third: Just as a small sized longsword for a medium character is still an inappropriately sized longsword, that now counts as a light weapon (with the -2 penalty) and not a medium shortsword (same stats, just no -2), a light shield will always be a light shield and will not turn into a buckler.
Armor: There's no rule that says that you can wear inappropriately sized armor, and this is RAW? That's like saying that there are no rules for getting an NPC pregant, therefore all PC's are sterile.
Common sense: Not possible? My common sense tells me that I can pick up a shield designed for a four-year old and that it could deflect a sword swinging at me. Granted, my surface-area-to-shield ratio is smaller than the four-year old's. The tike can probably crouch behind it to hide from arrows to greater effect than I can. But then again I'm not crouching behind a buckler.
I've also almost certainly got a lot more upper body strength (small characters take what kind of modifier to strength?), so my chances of being hurt when the shield gets clobbered by a greataxe are probably less. Common sense, right? Wrong. Strength doesn't bolster AC, even with a shield; let's not infer so-called RAW calls based on RULES THAT AREN'T WRITTEN and call it "common sense".
Straps? I just won't put my arm through them; I'll hold it instead. I imagine a small-sized shield to have a little wooden handle instead of straps, anyway. YMMV. Anyway, if it's my PC's gear, can't I say that she's got a shield with a handle big enough for the hand of a Medium character?
My common sense turns a small-sized light shield into a buckler; the kind seen here.
Weapons: The rules give very specific penalties for using inappropriately sized weapons. I have various beefs with those rules, but this thread's about AC.
Now that you mention it, though, if a TWF ranger wants to pick up a small shield and use it to fight and bash, if he takes the appropriate "to-hit" penalty to bash with the 'lil shield, why can't he get the AC?
Should a Medium character get less of an AC bonus with a small shield? I would entertain the argument. But I think there should be a minimum; wrong-sized shield is still better than NO shield.
dotting
|
So this issue came up for a halfling in one of my games when we found a medium creature sized light shield, so I made a pretty basic set of house rules to cover the gaps for the RULES to use a shield that isn't your size. It's pretty logical (in my opinion) and follows the basic guides of how Pathfinder tends to build their rules.
Characters are not proficient with shields that are a larger size category than they are. If they equip one, they suffer the penalties (to attack and movement based skills for lack of proficiency.
Using a shield that is made for a smaller character reduces all the bonuses and check penalties by half (rounded down)(though it must be adjusted to fit you.)
Using a shield that is made for a creature larger doubles the bonuses and penalties (rounded down). Again this is with the minuses to hit and movement skills for lack of proficiency.
To map that out:
A human using a light steel shield-
(Medium size) Shield, light steel AC +1, Penalty -1, 6lbs
(Large size) Shield, light steel AC +2, Penalty -2, 12lbs, -2 Attack, -2 movement based skills
(Small size) Shield, light steel AC 0, Penalty 0, 3lbs
A halfling using a heavy steel shield-
(Medium size) Shield, heavy steel AC +4, Penalty -4, 15lbs, -4 attack, -4 movement based skills
(Small size) Shield, heavy steel AC +2, Penalty -2, 7lbs
|
I see how your houserules make sense, and I would accept them should my DM use them.
Unfortunately, they are houserules, and we have yet to find the RAW.
Also, as I said, this was discussed here as well.
There is no RAW to support your stance.
You are right .. there is no RAW for Inappropriately Sized Armor so you can not use such a kind of armor. Everything else is a houserule. You can not have a rule for everything.
For Inappropriately Sized Shields and Weapons there is RAW (if you accept shields as weapons).
It would seem there is no penalty to the AC gained from inappropriately sized shields.
Until there is RAW created for this, a 6th level Titan Mauler can wield a large-sized Heavy Shield, and have no penalties to attack rolls, or shield bonus to AC.
That's true, but if he wants to attack with it, he'd have to use it as a two-handed weapon. Jotungrip only applies if the weapon is appropriately sized.
Therefor Massive Weapons may eliminate the penalty to attack, but does nothing about the requirement to use two hands on it now.Large sized light shield on the other hand he could use... however that's same stats as a medium heavy shield then for him, so not sure what the point would be.
To be fair, the absence of a rule doesn't mean it is 'RAW' to allow it. The typical understanding of the rule book is it tells you what you can do, the exceptions are where the rules tell you that you can't do something. It is a collection of clauses pointing to which direction to go, and there are a few 'dead ends' where you can't. You cannot publish a playable game the other way around, listing everything you cannot do, because the 'book' would easily end up the size of an encyclopedia.
RAW wouldn't be that you can do it, the absence of the rules telling you that you can do it is RAW; there aren't rules telling you you can do it. The absence of a rule telling you you can't do it so it is possible, is more of a 'house rule' than not allowing it as the rules don't say it is possible (which the overwhelming majority of the time is what happens, as evidenced by the entire PFRPG line).
What it comes down to is Rule 0, unless you're talking organized play, in which case I'm fairly certain it'll be an "Um, I don't think so..."