Bucklers and Shield Spikes

[Flames of Chaos]

Was building a Rondalero fighter (buckler duelist) archetype fighter, and given how it does a lot with bucklers I was wondering if there's a feat or specific ability one could get that allows you to ignore the restriction on shield spikes regarding bucklers?

Thanks!

[avr]

The Gorum's armor spell might work and the upsetting shield style feat lets you shield bash with a buckler (but doesn't add an allowance for spikes on its own), but for the most part PF is incompatible with reality on this point.

[Cavall]

It is an issue more to do with enchanting something and modifying something that cant be a certain way, despite your character treating it that way.
I also can't think of a loophole. One may exist but not off the top of my head.

You could (assuming you wanted to expand the effort) combine 2 styles together to treat gauntlets like bucklers and bucklers like shields. This would have the benefit of enchanting gauntlets with no issue.

That's like... 8 levels of investment at least for a human fighter. Doesn't answer your question strictly with bucklers though

[Ferious Thune]

The Folding enhancement is the potential solution I’ve seen mentioned elsewhere. So you have a light shield with shield spikes that you can enhance as a weapon. You put Folding on it, and now it can fold to become a buckler. Expect table variation on whether your shield spikes and weapon enhancements continue to work from there.

[Cavall]

Hmm yeah I'd think at my table that wouldn't fly. I think the line about "the wearer of a folding shield can change the shield from its current form into a buckler, heavy shield, or tower shield" is what convinces me. Well aside from the loophole logic exploit I've never been a fan of obviously.

But since it seems to lose it's current form (a shield with spikes) to a different shield, I don't think the spikes would stick around for bucklers or tower shields. I personally don't think I'd use that same logic to deny a player a heavy shield with spikes, however. Mostly I think I'd just shut it down.

That being said its certainly a creative work around, if a little bit of an exploit.

I still wonder if there is a straight across the board rule that would allow the OP to get what they want without any table variation.