| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He doesn't WANT the pants. He just wants to see if he can steal them.
|
The game doesn't differentiate, but some shields are held in hand, while others are strapped on. Some are both. This is up to your GM.
Really, though, spending your action to reduce someone's AC by a little just isn't worth it. Either corncob the guy who has the shield, else run away. Don't waste time your time and effort messing with the shield, which just isn't very important. It won't help much, and could hurt a lot.
This seems like the answer is 'you could possibly do that, but it's difficult, dangerous, unlikely to work, and has very little payoff'.
Taking a shield away from a Shield Champion brawler seems like a viable option to me.
And in many cases it would be a +2 - +5 AC drop. That also seems like a viable option, especially at the cost of just one attack.
|
The only shield that isn't held in hand is a buckler. And it would still get the +5 to CMD for being strapped to the wielder, and the GM could still rule that it's considered loosely worn like most armor, and not subject to the steal maneuver. Not worth it, try tripping instead, it's a better maneuver since you get the -4 to AC for the target, and -4 to his attack as well, then if he stands up he takes an AoO. Also trip can be done instead of an attack in a full round attack, steal is a standard action.
|
|
Pilfering hand doesn't trip, Deighton ^^
It's only disarm/steal.
I'm sorry, is this exclusively for a pilfering hand build? Cause in that case trip doesn't work, but steal still isn't a great maneuver with shields. Pilfering Hand works better with scrolls, or wands. It's a great way to hinder casters. Doesn't work as good against martials.
The straps that hold a shield in place... are behind a shield. So while it's a Move action to undo them yourself, for a foe it's an impossibility (unless they get behind you, and Pathfinder doesn't have rules for facing).
The straps that hold a shield in place... are behind a shield. So while it's a Move action to undo them yourself, for a foe it's an impossibility (unless they get behind you, and Pathfinder doesn't have rules for facing).
No facing rules go both ways. Since there's no facing, merely being adjacent puts you in front of them/behind them/to the side/wherever you need to be.
To the OP, why couldn't you disarm a shield? Disarm works on any item carried or held in hand. Disarm makes no exception for items "strapped" or otherwise secured (you can still disarm a weapon secured by a weapon cord). Shields are held in hand, therefore they can be disarmed.
The game doesn't differentiate, but some shields are held in hand, while others are strapped on. Some are both. This is up to your GM.
Really, though, spending your action to reduce someone's AC by a little just isn't worth it. Either corncob the guy who has the shield, else run away. Don't waste time your time and effort messing with the shield, which just isn't very important. It won't help much, and could hurt a lot.
This seems like the answer is 'you could possibly do that, but it's difficult, dangerous, unlikely to work, and has very little payoff'.
A +1 Shield of Energy Resistance would be worth removing - cut their AC by 3, eliminate their energy resistance so your fire-centric blaster mage can lay into them. Seems like a a worthwhile debuff, particularly if you can do it as a disarm and thus is only one of your several attacks.
A better option would be to stun the enemy. Stunning Fist or Spells are your main option here, but Stun makes you drop anything in your hands, including shields.
I don't think so. Shields are worn, not held.
You could technically choose to Sunder straps first and Disarm shield in second attack. It would require two successful CMB checks, but seems logical in it's own way I guess.
This. This is just how I would adjudicate it.
Slightly unusual requests call for slightly unusual processes. This one is not unreasonable.
BBT: But, unlike most weapons, a shield is worn not held. Thus, there's a collision between "Weapons can be disarmed" and "Worn items cannot be disarmed". Expect variation on the winner.
As a GM I would probably say...do you mind just sundering instead so we don't have to go down this rabbit hole of rules?
Otherwise, I'd probably go down the road of forcing you to sunder the strap first (I would likely invoke some called shot rules here, to apply a penalty to hit that specific part of the shield. Likely at least a -5, possibly a -10. Afterall, the straps are on the back side of the shield, you have to get around the shield and hit the straps, which certainly shouldn't be easy). And then you attempt a disarm to pull it out of their hand. But that inventing a lot of house rules that don't exist to cover this situation.
But if they are worn, they fall in a specific case of the stealing maneuver : Items fastened to a foe (such as cloaks, sheathed weapons, or pouches) are more difficult to take, and give the opponent a +5 bonus (or greater) to his CMD.
Don't they ?
Yes, but some items literally can't be taken. Clothes and armor which are worn for instance. I would personally put a shield in this category because it is commonly strapped around the forearm, with a hand grip held in the hand as well. Bucklers would not have a strap, but everything else should.
The problem is that a shield is both held in hand and worn (with the strap).
Edit: The game description of a buckler differs from the historical use (as I understand it) of a buckler. Bucklers were solely held in hand and not strapped and all being small, and use in combination with rapiers. Bucklers as described in the game are small and strapped to the forearm.
You can't disarm a shield (assuming it's equipped, rather than simply carrying it around like a deli tray).
Sure you can. Lets see.... you'll need +11 BAB, the feats Called Shot and Greater Called Shot... and a +2 Speed Great Axe...
Perform a Called Shot Full Attack using the +2 Speed Great Axe - aimed right to the shoulder joint of the shield carrying arm.I think 4 Blows to he shoulder joint should be enough to deliver a debilitating blow and (depending on the target's Fort Save) either sever the arm from the body or at least make it unusable for 2d6 minutes...
Not only have you disarmed the shield... you have dis-ARM-ed the enemy (and 1d6 STR & DEX damage to stumpy isn't too shabby either).
^^ If I had you as a GM, Claxon, the whole point would be moot as I wouldn't even try to sunder. Don't forget the spell doesn't allow it.
Everything's about disarm and steal maneuvers ^^But it's probably what we would do, use a +10 bonus to CMD.
Unfortunately the rules aren't about making all things possible, simply understanding what is possible. Or, in the event of lack of rules, to create something reasonable based on interpretation.
Based on Jiggy's post a shield cannot be disarmed. I believe it would fall under the category of closely worn, not just fastened (as you hold it in your hand). And much as you can't steal a weapon held in someone's hand, you cannot steal someone's shield either.
Basically, I think the summary is a shield in use (not just on a characters back or something) can neither be disarmed or stolen. Which leaves sundering as the only method of removal. I would still probably be generous and say that if you sunder the strap, you can disarm if afterwards.
|
You can't disarm a shield (assuming it's equipped, rather than simply carrying it around like a deli tray).
Once again, proof that Devs don't understand the real world usage of a shield.
I get that as a game, design is more important than realism, but this is one of those areas, like crossbows, that the game is just completely wrong.
But still, it's enough for me to treat it that way for PFS RAW purposes.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can't disarm a shield (assuming it's equipped, rather than simply carrying it around like a deli tray).Once again, proof that Devs don't understand the real world usage of a shield.
I get that as a game, design is more important than realism
You claim to "get" that sometimes design trumps realism, yet when faced with such an event, you take it as "proof" that the designers don't understand the relevant piece of realism, rather than that they simply chose to design against it.
That's... interesting.
|
|
I think they choose to not change the wording of previous editions of the game, and handwave that all shields are strapped, bucklers are not held in hand, and crossbows are worse than bows, when none of those things are true in real life.
I admit I choose poorly in my post that assumed they don't understand how they work. But claiming the game is simulationist when several key mundane elements are unrealistic is frustrating to say the least.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
crossbows are worse than bowsIn fact, the assumption crossbows are worse than bows is true, as the base for d&d bows was the english longbow, which tended to overpower even french crossbows.
Well - to be historically accurate - each shot should do as much damage as a high strength composite longbow, especially at close range. However, it should then only be able to be fired every 3-4 rounds. (A single shot every 6 seconds is about right for a longbow.)
Sometimes realism gives way to game viability.
Though actually - it could be cool if the extra strength damage (max of their own strength - perhaps a point or two higher with a crank) added rounds required to load it. It wouldn't be a good archer weapon, but it might be worth it for the melee fighter to carry a crossbow in hand to use for the first round of combat, and then drop it to draw their primary weapon.
The main advantage of the crossbow which made it a gamechanger historically was its ease of handing out to conscripts. They show that by making it a simple weapon.