# Using Bucklers without proficiency



## Davek (Jun 19, 2003)

I have started noticing my players using bucklers without proficiency. All they do is get masterwork or better and the Armor Check penalty becomes 0, so in effect there is no penalty to using them without having proficiency.

Something seems wrong with this. Am I interpreting the rules wrong, or missing something?


----------



## Aaron2 (Jun 19, 2003)

Nope. That's the way it is. How do you have so many players without shield proficiency?


Aaron


----------



## Davek (Jun 19, 2003)

Rogues and Sorcerors.

I am thinking to institute a -1 minimum penalty for any non-proficiency. Does that sound reasonable?


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Jun 19, 2003)

Davek said:
			
		

> *Rogues and Sorcerors.
> 
> I am thinking to institute a -1 minimum penalty for any non-proficiency. Does that sound reasonable? *




Unreasonable?  No.  Unnecessary?  You bet.

Let it go.  There's no problem here.  Don't forget that 5% arcane spell failure chance for the sorcerers you mentioned, though.


----------



## nimisgod (Jun 19, 2003)

Don't forget the fact that they can't use somatic components with the hand w/ the buckler. Somatic components use at least one hand. So if they are carrying something with one hand and a buckler with the other, they can't use somatic components.

Add to that the aforementioned spell failure chance.


----------



## Davek (Jun 19, 2003)

It concerns me more with the rogues. If they have +1 Bucklers, that increases their AC by 2, with no penalties. Not bad considering they are not trained in it's use.


----------



## Destil (Jun 19, 2003)

nimisgod said:
			
		

> *Don't forget the fact that they can't use somatic components with the hand w/ the buckler. Somatic components use at least one hand. So if they are carrying something with one hand and a buckler with the other, they can't use somatic components.
> 
> Add to that the aforementioned spell failure chance. *



The buckler straps to the arm, though, unlike other shields. You could rule that they don't receve the AC bonus from the buckler during a round they use that hand to for somatic components (like a weapon attack), though that's a house rule...


----------



## nimisgod (Jun 19, 2003)

My comment about being unable to use somatic components with a buckler was based upon a Sage ruling (if that actually means anything). 

On a unrelated side note, I think some fencers actually grasp the buckler with the hand. Supposedly, its inferior to having a parrying dagger (because the dagger is useful in close range)



> *
> Can a spellcaster, arcane or divine, cast a spell requiring
> somatic or material components if he has a weapon in one
> hand and a buckler in the other? A small shield? A large
> ...


----------



## mmu1 (Jun 19, 2003)

nimisgod said:
			
		

> *Don't forget the fact that they can't use somatic components with the hand w/ the buckler. Somatic components use at least one hand. So if they are carrying something with one hand and a buckler with the other, they can't use somatic components.
> 
> Add to that the aforementioned spell failure chance. *




In any game I played in or DMed, Clerics routinely use spells with somatic and material components while juggling a large shield, a mace and/or a holy symbol.

Same story with Wizards/Sorcerers and Quarterstaffs or wands.

To enforce these rules the way you describe it is to make spellcasters a real pain in the ass to play...

Sage Advice nonwithstanding - the Sage has a long history of wrong rulings, as well as very bad ones, because of trying to give the shortest answer rather than the best answer...


----------



## DMauricio (Jun 20, 2003)

nimisgod said:
			
		

> *On a unrelated side note, I think some fencers actually grasp the buckler with the hand. Supposedly, its inferior to having a parrying dagger (because the dagger is useful in close range)
> 
> [/i] *




Actually, some historical fencing masters would have disagreed.
Mind you, that's for another forum.

Back on topic.

From the SRD:
----
Normal: A character who is using a shield with which he or she is not proficient suffers the shield?s armor check penalty on attack rolls and on all skill rolls that involve moving, including Ride. 
----

I'd take that to include concentration checks (but I suppose a masterwork version of a buckler would have a -0 penalty, so that would be a moot point)

So, in my games... no penalty for spending the extra money to buy a masterwork buckler (that causes a spell failure chance, anyway)


----------



## Particle_Man (Jun 20, 2003)

*Its not a bug, its a feature!*

I play a rogue that uses a masterwork buckler.  Some notes:

1) It does have weight, and that matters when you are trying to keep your encumbrance light.  (Oh, for a mithral masterwork buckler!)

2) Minor point, but you can't take any feats that require a proficiency in shield as a prerequisite.

Overall, it has not caused my rogue to outshine everyone, or indeed anyone (my rings of blinking and telekinesis, on the other hand...)  .  And it sort of fits with the character concept of rogue, IMHO(smallish weapons, smallish shield). Also, weren't thieves allowed to use bucklers in AD&D 1.5 (Unearthed Arcana)?  Or maybe my memory betrays me.

As for sorcerors using it, I think the first time a spell fizzles on them they would drop the buckler like a hot potato.  But if they want to take that risk, you might as well let them.


----------



## nimisgod (Jun 20, 2003)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> *
> 
> In any game I played in or DMed, Clerics routinely use spells with somatic and material components while juggling a large shield, a mace and/or a holy symbol.
> 
> ...




In all the games I play, I enforce these rules on PCs and NPCs. The cleric has to drop his weapon, the wizard, temporarily relinquish his two handed grip on the quarterstaff, etc.

Hey, clerics already get to cast spells in armor. Its not like they're losing that much. But its your game, not mine. 

Whether the ruling or wrong is not is subjective. Some people don't give a damn what the Sage says. Other people worship him as a gawd. I'm neither. but like I said *"If it means anything to you"*

-_-'

As for the fencing bit, some people don't seem to notice that I've put the words "some fencers" instead of "all fencers cuz I know you are all wrong". The history channel ain't the be all and end all, I know. I, myself, was thinking of using the buckler for shield punching or for arrow blocking. Okay... now that's out of topic...


----------



## daemonslye (Jun 20, 2003)

> Also, weren't thieves allowed to use bucklers in AD&D 1.5 (Unearthed Arcana)?




That was assassins in 1.0E - they could use shields.

~D


----------



## BeauNiddle (Jun 20, 2003)

nimisgod said:
			
		

> *
> 
> In all the games I play, I enforce these rules on PCs and NPCs. The cleric has to drop his weapon, the wizard, temporarily relinquish his two handed grip on the quarterstaff, etc.
> 
> ...




IIRC when using a small shield you can hold something in that hand but not use (manipulate it). As such I have my cleric pass his weapon to the shield hand (free action), cast the spell (standard), move the weapon back (free action), MA if desired.

It limits clerics to small shields (or bucklers) but that's not much of a price and it stops squabbles about whether they had drawn their weapon, where they dropped it, etc.


----------



## nimisgod (Jun 20, 2003)

Great solution there, BeauNiddle. 

I just remembered my friend's Spellsword doing the same, except that he used a buckler. He transferred his Gr. sword to his left hand to cast his spells then transferred it back.


----------



## Will (Jun 22, 2003)

Personally, I think clerics are powerful enough as is without limiting one of the (very few) limitations on their casting.

A buckler is perfect because, fine, you use that hand and pass on the AC benefit when casting a spell. And then next round, use it as a shield again.


----------

