A question about the defensive benefits of bucklers which are described as follows 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.
If one is fighting with a two-handed weapon while wearing a buckler, would you get non-AC bonus benefits such as any fortification with which the buckler has been enchanted? The answer would seem to be "yes," but I couldn't confirm this with a search of the Rules Forum, and I'd like to be sure.
I think by the rules you get no benefit from the shield if your use that hand for a weapon. So if you had a +5 Heavy Fortification buckler and you attacked with your greatsword - that buckler would become a 50 000gp paperweight for that turn (which also gives you a -1 to hit).
I might have missed some specifics somewhere, but that's the general rule.
So, folks' sense is that
"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."
should actually be read as
"In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler’s AC bonus AND ANY OTHER DEFENSIVE BENEFITS until your next turn. You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm, but you lose the buckler’s AC bonus AND ANY OTHER DEFENSIVE BENEFITS until your next turn. You can’t make a shield bash with a buckler."
If this is the consensus on this item, I'm fine, but it does seem to read something into the description that's not strictly there.
Aren't most of the enchantments on a shield 'use activated' ? That is, you must actively use the shield as a shield for them to function ?
There are some magic effects that function when a shield is worn or carried, but they generally call themselves out as such.
That Archive of Nethys link does not actually say that it must simply be worn. Do you have another reference ?
That Archive of Nethys link does not actually say that it must simply be worn. Do you have another reference ?
The Archives of Nethys entry states ...
"This suit of armor or shield produces a magical force that protects vital areas of the WEARER (emphasis mine) more effectively. When a critical hit or sneak attack is scored on the WEARER (again emphasis mine), there is a chance that the critical hit or sneak attack is negated and damage is instead rolled normally. The chance is 25% for light fortification, 50% for moderate fortification, and 75% for heavy fortification."
I don't see anything other than "wearing" which is needed in order to get the benefit of fortification, unless I'm missing something.
Semantically, I believe they use 'wearer' in the statement to implicate the armor as the noun. Unless there is something, some where else that states shield benefits still occur when simply upon a person.
You could quibble or argue as you like about what that means; but at my table, it wouldn't fly to simply have the buckler strapped to the arm in a non-used fashion to still receive the benefits.
Otherwise, you could strap 2 other bucklers over your thighs, or hang them on cords around your neck for some other passive boost.
Do as you wish at your own table.
Oh, I'm totally fine with not getting benefits such as fortification from a buckler while at the same timing wielding a two-handed weapon. I asked the question here genuinely not knowing the answer and looking for folks' thoughts.
I was just pointing out that such an interpretation (which again, I'm fine with) doesn't fit well with the actual language describing either bucklers or fortification.
This is an example of one the things that could be cleaned up by Paizo instead of wasting time on the mess which is the apparently upcoming PF2e.
Armor is worn, shields are equipped.
Page 458 (third printing) "A character has to...interpose a shield to deflect a blow in combat …".
Armor is worn, shields are equipped.
Page 458 (third printing) "A character has to...interpose a shield to deflect a blow in combat …".
Ah, it took me a second to realize that this comes from the "Use Activated" section of the rules which does make sense. Cool.
Cool cool
Do three cools = one groovy?