bucklers bows and AC [Archive] - Wizards Community

bucklers bows and AC [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
clannagh
08-14-06, 11:08 PM Ok the good book says about bucklers:

"You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. "

The "without penalty" seems unqualified implying you get no penalties of ANY SORT using a buckler and bow together.

Now the tricky bit ... it also says (after talking about melee weapons) :

" In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you don’t get the buckler’s AC bonus for the rest of the round. "

sooo ... is the second bit only refering to the melee weapons (this is my interpretation) or should you regard shooting with a bow as "using a weapon in your offhand" and lose the buckler bonus to AC.
Moon-Lancer
08-14-06, 11:10 PM i think when it says offhand what they mean is, while attacking with your offhand using twf.

while logicaly you use your offhand fighting with a bow or greatsword, the term offhand in d&d tends to mean twf and all that baggage.
clannagh
08-14-06, 11:12 PM i think when it says offhand what they mean is, while attacking with your offhand using twf.

that is my interpretation .. when either twf or swinging a double handed weapon .. not picking up an arrow to shoot from your bow

i am just looking to see if other people agree on this one
Tarsam_di_Caela
08-15-06, 02:42 AM that is my interpretation .. when either twf or swinging a double handed weapon .. not picking up an arrow to shoot from your bow

i am just looking to see if other people agree on this one

I agree with Clannagh that the buckler AC bonus doesn't apply either when TWF or using a THW, but bows and crossbows (except the handcrossbow) are THW. So you loose the buckler AC bonus, while shooting with a bow / crossbow. You can't shoot with a bow/crossbow while wearing a light shield, and in the same way your buckler can not be used to increase your AC while shooting.

RAW appart, you should imagine when you are shooting, most of the time you are holding the bow with both arms, aiming at the target. So you can't use your off-hand in your defense.
Quention
08-15-06, 02:52 AM I have to disagree with your reading. As I read it (and of course, it's my interpretation against yours), any time you are making use of your off hand for something other than defense (TWF, Two handed weapons, holding a door, etc) you give up the buckler's bonus. It has the advantage of not hindering any of those actions otherwise, but using it for defense eliminates its ability to be used for anything else, including holding a bow, which uses 2 hands. I would, however, continue to give its bonus when wielding a hand crossbow (which is a 1 handed weapon) despite it taking 2 hands to reload. But that's the way I read it.
Moon-Lancer
08-15-06, 03:10 AM what they need is a chart quite frankly. the word offhand is too loose of a word.

anyone know how the rpga does it?
clannagh
08-15-06, 03:14 AM redundant message :)
clannagh
08-15-06, 03:15 AM also the

"You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. "

is very ambiguous .. it can be read as meaning AC penalty as well as attack
Quention
08-15-06, 03:31 AM Actually, I read that as the LEAST ambiguous part. You can "carry" it with no penalty. However, to "use" it brings in penalties. The RAW imply that you can keep your buckler on all the time and "turn it on" any round you're not using that hand for something else and then "turn it off" to not take penalties for having it on rounds you DO use that hand.
pres_man
08-15-06, 03:40 AM "You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. "
" In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you don’t get the buckler’s AC bonus for the rest of the round. "
Not getting a bonus does not make it a penalty. Taking a negative to your attack for example is a penalty.

So for a buckler user:
User fights with two weapons, takes a -1 penalty on off-hand attacks, no AC bonus from buckler.
User fights with a two-handed weapon, takes a -1 penalty on attacks, no AC bonus from buckler.
User fights with a (cross)bow, takes no penalty to attacks from buckler, no AC bonus from buckler (unless using crossbow one-handed).
cwslyclgh
08-15-06, 03:50 AM pres_man is correct I believe.
risner
08-15-06, 11:26 AM Ok the good book says about bucklers:

"You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. "

The "without penalty" seems unqualified implying you get no penalties of ANY SORT using a buckler and bow together.

The without penalty is the -1 when used offhand.

You still pay the non proficient penalty if applicable.
You still pay the AC penalty if you don't have Improved Buckler Defense.
You still pay ASF penalty if applicable.
You still pay any other penalties associated with using the buckler.

Pres Man is correct.
Harliquinn
08-15-06, 12:59 PM pres_man is indeed correct. They also clarify what "wielding a weapon in your off hand" means in the rules:

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)
KmartKommando
08-15-06, 11:15 PM If you really want to get down to it, you actually hold a bow with your offhand and draw it with your main. Since I normally shoot right-handed with a bow, but I'm left-handed, I would be the only case I can think of where someone wouldn't be able to use a buckler and bow as they were designed for. :weep:
PoptartLord
08-16-06, 01:34 AM Just a correction to what risner said:

You still pay the AC penalty if you don't have Improved Buckler Defense.
That is not what IBD does at all. You always have to pay the armor check penalty while carrying a shield and using the effected skills (tumble, sleight of hand, etc.). What IBD does is let you keep the shield's bonus to armor class when you attack. So with it you could swing your greatsword around and keep that helpful shield bonus to AC, as opposed to losing it (see pres_man's entry above).
Orchomenos
08-18-06, 03:35 PM I've been playing an half-orc fighter for a while now, he's using a guisarme and buckler. The DM never questionned this combo, but she's far from being a rule-lawyer though. First time I read the buckler description, I understood the penalty applied only when using Two-Weapon Fighting.

Suppose you have a classical fighter with a longsword in one hand and an heavy shield in the off-hand. His AC is, let's say, 16. Now said fighter is flanked. Logically, he can't use his shield against both flankers, so his AC should be 14 against one and 16 against the second one. But he has same penalties against both. That's because a D&D fight is not a static thing, it's an active thing, the fighter is rotating on himself, and he quickly faces successively both flankers. It's the same reason why a 2'5" gnome threaten the same area than a 7'5" gnoll...

Now back to my half-orc fighter. He's not actively hidding behind his buckler, but when he fight, he still has a 2'x3' piece of wood or metal between himself and his foes. I think this protection should be enough to grant him a shield bonus to his AC, while paying a -1 penalty to attack rolls because of the encumbrance it provide.
Harliquinn
08-18-06, 04:21 PM Now back to my half-orc fighter. He's not actively hidding behind his buckler, but when he fight, he still has a 2'x3' piece of wood or metal between himself and his foes. I think this protection should be enough to grant him a shield bonus to his AC, while paying a -1 penalty to attack rolls because of the encumbrance it provide.

This isn't how it works by the RAW. However, if your DM doesn't have a problem with it, then that really is your main answer :)

That 2'x3' piece of wood (though I'll contend 2x3 is too large for a buckler) is moving around in plenty of ways that aren't conducive to providing any protection from attacks while you wield that weapon. That is why you lose the AC bonus when you use your off hand to attack (Either with fighting with two weapons or as part of holding a two-handed weapon - See above).
Obi-Wan Shinobi
08-18-06, 05:04 PM Suppose you have a classical fighter with a longsword in one hand and an heavy shield in the off-hand. His AC is, let's say, 16. Now said fighter is flanked. Logically, he can't use his shield against both flankers, so his AC should be 14 against one and 16 against the second one. But he has same penalties against both. That's because a D&D fight is not a static thing, it's an active thing, the fighter is rotating on himself, and he quickly faces successively both flankers. It's the same reason why a 2'5" gnome threaten the same area than a 7'5" gnoll...
actually, the fighter in this situation has an AC of 16 versus both opponents. flanking doesnt allow one of them to ignore his shield bonus to AC. they both gain a +2 to hit due to the flanking, but thats it. it is due to the fluidity of D&D combat, and him twisting to face both oppoents, that he keeps the same AC versus both opponents in this case.

Now back to my half-orc fighter. He's not actively hidding behind his buckler, but when he fight, he still has a 2'x3' piece of wood or metal between himself and his foes. I think this protection should be enough to grant him a shield bonus to his AC, while paying a -1 penalty to attack rolls because of the encumbrance it provide.
your DM is basically giving you Improved Buckler Defense for free then, if this is how he rules on this situation.
risner
08-18-06, 05:06 PM That is not what IBD does at all. You always have to pay the armor check penalty while carrying a shield and using the effected skills (tumble, sleight of hand, etc.). What IBD does is let you keep the shield's bonus to armor class when you attack. So with it you could swing your greatsword around and keep that helpful shield bonus to AC, as opposed to losing it (see pres_man's entry above).

What you said was exactly what I said. I never said anything about the Armour Check Penalty.
Nom
08-18-06, 07:23 PM Now back to my half-orc fighter. He's not actively hidding behind his buckler, but when he fight, he still has a 2'x3' piece of wood or metal between himself and his foes. I think this protection should be enough to grant him a shield bonus to his AC, while paying a -1 penalty to attack rolls because of the encumbrance it provide.The rules, while maybe clearly written, are well defined.

While you are wearing that buckler, you take a -1 on any attack that involves the buckler arm. Assuming the buckler is on the off hand, this includes purely off hand attacks and two-handed attacks. Bows and crossbows are an exception.

If you use the buckler arm to make an attack (including bow or crossbow), you are no longer using it to wield the buckler for defense, and lose the buckler shield bonus for the rest of the round.

IRL, shields do require active use; they aren't just cover. And their AC bonus should be a lot larger than what D&D grants.
KmartKommando
08-18-06, 09:28 PM Actually, in D&D, shields are passive defense. They count when you're flat-footed. They count whether you are waving them around, or just standing there, with a dumb look on your face. Unless you just happen to wave it around at someone you want to hurt, apparently. :rolleyes:
FriendlyBiscuit
08-18-06, 09:55 PM IRL, shields do require active use; they aren't just cover. And their AC bonus should be a lot larger than what D&D grants.
Don't look at your shields bonus as "only one" or "only two". Look at it as 5% / 10% damage mitigation. Not only that, it's a bonus on top of the limits of your armor and your dex! This means that most characters who should be using shields (fighters/pallies/knights/etc from splatbooks) get the most benefit out of them.

If your AC is so low that your enemy hits you on a 2 or better, that means you have 5% damage reduction (from miss chance, not counting DR and other things). Adding a heavy shield only makes that 15% damage reduction (again, only from miss chance). You've only improved your survivability by 11.5% overall. Not much. The difference between 5% and 15% isn't going to make you shed tears of joy. On the other end, lets say your enemy has to roll an 18 or better to hit you. that's a 85% miss chance, and a +2 shield makes that 95%. That's a whopping 2/3 increase in survivability! So a shield can be pretty ****in nice... the more AC you have, the better.

And on top of that, it's yet another thing that can be enhanced. That armor special ability you wanted, but couldn't afford? Toss it on the shield! Or just jack both up to +5 for mondo-cheap (relative to other methods) AC.

Shields are ****in awesome. All spellcasters should have mithril bucklers, all martial types should have large shields (or improved buckler defense for dual-wield or two-handed). The only exception is skillful types who can't spend a feat on IBD... those types shouldn't be attacked much anyway. Generally attacks go toward the in-your-face martial guy, or the spellcaster's big shiny/scary spells.
Nephlite
08-18-06, 10:13 PM And on top of that, it's yet another thing that can be enhanced. That armor special ability you wanted, but couldn't afford? Toss it on the shield! Or just jack both up to +5 for mondo-cheap (relative to other methods) AC.

Shields are ****in awesome. All spellcasters should have mithril bucklers, all martial types should have large shields (or improved buckler defense for dual-wield or two-handed). The only exception is skillful types who can't spend a feat on IBD... those types shouldn't be attacked much anyway. Generally attacks go toward the in-your-face martial guy, or the spellcaster's big shiny/scary spells.
Why not an anijmated shield so you don't need a feat to keep shield bonus for 2 handed?
Rolof
08-19-06, 02:29 PM I've had my share of frustration with this question too, in
the end I ended up giving my buckler away to a new player
when the DM ruled that I couldn't receive the AC benefit in
combat when firing a bow. I even tried sending a query to
the Ask Wizards thing, but got no response. I suppose in a
way it does make sense logically, but it irks me that even if
a character is surprised, all they lose is dex bonus to AC, no
shield bonus is lost. Which implies that shield bonuses are
completely passive (by D&D rules, at least), yet apparently
you still can't keep it while firing a bow.

The common arguement against buckler AC bonus/wielding
a bow is that the bow is in your hand, and must be aimed,
thus putting the buckler out of line to block attacks. Which
makes me ask then; why not put the buckler on the MAIN
hand, rather than the "off" hand...drawing arrows is a free
action, firing is your attack action, the rest of the round, all
but the exact initiative count you fire on, your main hand is
completely empty and free. *shrugs* That didn't go over,
either.
Nom
08-19-06, 08:43 PM but it irks me that even if
a character is surprised, all they lose is dex bonus to AC, no
shield bonus is lost. Which implies that shield bonuses are
completely passive (by D&D rules, at least), yet apparently
you still can't keep it while firing a bow.Not true. If you were completely passive, you'd be treated as helpless (Dex 0). You get some benefit of active defense when surprised, just not full benefit.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
clannagh 08-14-06, 11:08 PM	Ok the good book says about bucklers: "You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. " The "without penalty" seems unqualified implying you get no penalties of ANY SORT using a buckler and bow together. Now the tricky bit ... it also says (after talking about melee weapons) : " In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you don’t get the buckler’s AC bonus for the rest of the round. " sooo ... is the second bit only refering to the melee weapons (this is my interpretation) or should you regard shooting with a bow as "using a weapon in your offhand" and lose the buckler bonus to AC.
Moon-Lancer 08-14-06, 11:10 PM	i think when it says offhand what they mean is, while attacking with your offhand using twf. while logicaly you use your offhand fighting with a bow or greatsword, the term offhand in d&d tends to mean twf and all that baggage.
clannagh 08-14-06, 11:12 PM	i think when it says offhand what they mean is, while attacking with your offhand using twf. that is my interpretation .. when either twf or swinging a double handed weapon .. not picking up an arrow to shoot from your bow i am just looking to see if other people agree on this one
Tarsam_di_Caela 08-15-06, 02:42 AM	that is my interpretation .. when either twf or swinging a double handed weapon .. not picking up an arrow to shoot from your bow i am just looking to see if other people agree on this one I agree with Clannagh that the buckler AC bonus doesn't apply either when TWF or using a THW, but bows and crossbows (except the handcrossbow) are THW. So you loose the buckler AC bonus, while shooting with a bow / crossbow. You can't shoot with a bow/crossbow while wearing a light shield, and in the same way your buckler can not be used to increase your AC while shooting. RAW appart, you should imagine when you are shooting, most of the time you are holding the bow with both arms, aiming at the target. So you can't use your off-hand in your defense.
Quention 08-15-06, 02:52 AM	I have to disagree with your reading. As I read it (and of course, it's my interpretation against yours), any time you are making use of your off hand for something other than defense (TWF, Two handed weapons, holding a door, etc) you give up the buckler's bonus. It has the advantage of not hindering any of those actions otherwise, but using it for defense eliminates its ability to be used for anything else, including holding a bow, which uses 2 hands. I would, however, continue to give its bonus when wielding a hand crossbow (which is a 1 handed weapon) despite it taking 2 hands to reload. But that's the way I read it.
Moon-Lancer 08-15-06, 03:10 AM	what they need is a chart quite frankly. the word offhand is too loose of a word. anyone know how the rpga does it?
clannagh 08-15-06, 03:14 AM	redundant message :)
clannagh 08-15-06, 03:15 AM	also the "You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. " is very ambiguous .. it can be read as meaning AC penalty as well as attack
Quention 08-15-06, 03:31 AM	Actually, I read that as the LEAST ambiguous part. You can "carry" it with no penalty. However, to "use" it brings in penalties. The RAW imply that you can keep your buckler on all the time and "turn it on" any round you're not using that hand for something else and then "turn it off" to not take penalties for having it on rounds you DO use that hand.
pres_man 08-15-06, 03:40 AM	"You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. " " In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you don’t get the buckler’s AC bonus for the rest of the round. " Not getting a bonus does not make it a penalty. Taking a negative to your attack for example is a penalty. So for a buckler user: User fights with two weapons, takes a -1 penalty on off-hand attacks, no AC bonus from buckler. User fights with a two-handed weapon, takes a -1 penalty on attacks, no AC bonus from buckler. User fights with a (cross)bow, takes no penalty to attacks from buckler, no AC bonus from buckler (unless using crossbow one-handed).
cwslyclgh 08-15-06, 03:50 AM	pres_man is correct I believe.
risner 08-15-06, 11:26 AM	Ok the good book says about bucklers: "You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. " The "without penalty" seems unqualified implying you get no penalties of ANY SORT using a buckler and bow together. The without penalty is the -1 when used offhand. You still pay the non proficient penalty if applicable. You still pay the AC penalty if you don't have Improved Buckler Defense. You still pay ASF penalty if applicable. You still pay any other penalties associated with using the buckler. Pres Man is correct.
Harliquinn 08-15-06, 12:59 PM	pres_man is indeed correct. They also clarify what "wielding a weapon in your off hand" means in the rules: 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)
KmartKommando 08-15-06, 11:15 PM	If you really want to get down to it, you actually hold a bow with your offhand and draw it with your main. Since I normally shoot right-handed with a bow, but I'm left-handed, I would be the only case I can think of where someone wouldn't be able to use a buckler and bow as they were designed for. :weep:
PoptartLord 08-16-06, 01:34 AM	Just a correction to what risner said: You still pay the AC penalty if you don't have Improved Buckler Defense. That is not what IBD does at all. You always have to pay the armor check penalty while carrying a shield and using the effected skills (tumble, sleight of hand, etc.). What IBD does is let you keep the shield's bonus to armor class when you attack. So with it you could swing your greatsword around and keep that helpful shield bonus to AC, as opposed to losing it (see pres_man's entry above).
Orchomenos 08-18-06, 03:35 PM	I've been playing an half-orc fighter for a while now, he's using a guisarme and buckler. The DM never questionned this combo, but she's far from being a rule-lawyer though. First time I read the buckler description, I understood the penalty applied only when using Two-Weapon Fighting. Suppose you have a classical fighter with a longsword in one hand and an heavy shield in the off-hand. His AC is, let's say, 16. Now said fighter is flanked. Logically, he can't use his shield against both flankers, so his AC should be 14 against one and 16 against the second one. But he has same penalties against both. That's because a D&D fight is not a static thing, it's an active thing, the fighter is rotating on himself, and he quickly faces successively both flankers. It's the same reason why a 2'5" gnome threaten the same area than a 7'5" gnoll... Now back to my half-orc fighter. He's not actively hidding behind his buckler, but when he fight, he still has a 2'x3' piece of wood or metal between himself and his foes. I think this protection should be enough to grant him a shield bonus to his AC, while paying a -1 penalty to attack rolls because of the encumbrance it provide.
Harliquinn 08-18-06, 04:21 PM	Now back to my half-orc fighter. He's not actively hidding behind his buckler, but when he fight, he still has a 2'x3' piece of wood or metal between himself and his foes. I think this protection should be enough to grant him a shield bonus to his AC, while paying a -1 penalty to attack rolls because of the encumbrance it provide. This isn't how it works by the RAW. However, if your DM doesn't have a problem with it, then that really is your main answer :) That 2'x3' piece of wood (though I'll contend 2x3 is too large for a buckler) is moving around in plenty of ways that aren't conducive to providing any protection from attacks while you wield that weapon. That is why you lose the AC bonus when you use your off hand to attack (Either with fighting with two weapons or as part of holding a two-handed weapon - See above).
Obi-Wan Shinobi 08-18-06, 05:04 PM	Suppose you have a classical fighter with a longsword in one hand and an heavy shield in the off-hand. His AC is, let's say, 16. Now said fighter is flanked. Logically, he can't use his shield against both flankers, so his AC should be 14 against one and 16 against the second one. But he has same penalties against both. That's because a D&D fight is not a static thing, it's an active thing, the fighter is rotating on himself, and he quickly faces successively both flankers. It's the same reason why a 2'5" gnome threaten the same area than a 7'5" gnoll... actually, the fighter in this situation has an AC of 16 versus both opponents. flanking doesnt allow one of them to ignore his shield bonus to AC. they both gain a +2 to hit due to the flanking, but thats it. it is due to the fluidity of D&D combat, and him twisting to face both oppoents, that he keeps the same AC versus both opponents in this case. Now back to my half-orc fighter. He's not actively hidding behind his buckler, but when he fight, he still has a 2'x3' piece of wood or metal between himself and his foes. I think this protection should be enough to grant him a shield bonus to his AC, while paying a -1 penalty to attack rolls because of the encumbrance it provide. your DM is basically giving you Improved Buckler Defense for free then, if this is how he rules on this situation.
risner 08-18-06, 05:06 PM	That is not what IBD does at all. You always have to pay the armor check penalty while carrying a shield and using the effected skills (tumble, sleight of hand, etc.). What IBD does is let you keep the shield's bonus to armor class when you attack. So with it you could swing your greatsword around and keep that helpful shield bonus to AC, as opposed to losing it (see pres_man's entry above). What you said was exactly what I said. I never said anything about the Armour Check Penalty.
Nom 08-18-06, 07:23 PM	Now back to my half-orc fighter. He's not actively hidding behind his buckler, but when he fight, he still has a 2'x3' piece of wood or metal between himself and his foes. I think this protection should be enough to grant him a shield bonus to his AC, while paying a -1 penalty to attack rolls because of the encumbrance it provide.The rules, while maybe clearly written, are well defined. While you are wearing that buckler, you take a -1 on any attack that involves the buckler arm. Assuming the buckler is on the off hand, this includes purely off hand attacks and two-handed attacks. Bows and crossbows are an exception. If you use the buckler arm to make an attack (including bow or crossbow), you are no longer using it to wield the buckler for defense, and lose the buckler shield bonus for the rest of the round. IRL, shields do require active use; they aren't just cover. And their AC bonus should be a lot larger than what D&D grants.
KmartKommando 08-18-06, 09:28 PM	Actually, in D&D, shields are passive defense. They count when you're flat-footed. They count whether you are waving them around, or just standing there, with a dumb look on your face. Unless you just happen to wave it around at someone you want to hurt, apparently. :rolleyes:
FriendlyBiscuit 08-18-06, 09:55 PM	IRL, shields do require active use; they aren't just cover. And their AC bonus should be a lot larger than what D&D grants. Don't look at your shields bonus as "only one" or "only two". Look at it as 5% / 10% damage mitigation. Not only that, it's a bonus on top of the limits of your armor and your dex! This means that most characters who should be using shields (fighters/pallies/knights/etc from splatbooks) get the most benefit out of them. If your AC is so low that your enemy hits you on a 2 or better, that means you have 5% damage reduction (from miss chance, not counting DR and other things). Adding a heavy shield only makes that 15% damage reduction (again, only from miss chance). You've only improved your survivability by 11.5% overall. Not much. The difference between 5% and 15% isn't going to make you shed tears of joy. On the other end, lets say your enemy has to roll an 18 or better to hit you. that's a 85% miss chance, and a +2 shield makes that 95%. That's a whopping 2/3 increase in survivability! So a shield can be pretty **in nice... the more AC you have, the better. And on top of that, it's yet another thing that can be enhanced. That armor special ability you wanted, but couldn't afford? Toss it on the shield! Or just jack both up to +5 for mondo-cheap (relative to other methods) AC. Shields are **in awesome. All spellcasters should have mithril bucklers, all martial types should have large shields (or improved buckler defense for dual-wield or two-handed). The only exception is skillful types who can't spend a feat on IBD... those types shouldn't be attacked much anyway. Generally attacks go toward the in-your-face martial guy, or the spellcaster's big shiny/scary spells.
Nephlite 08-18-06, 10:13 PM	And on top of that, it's yet another thing that can be enhanced. That armor special ability you wanted, but couldn't afford? Toss it on the shield! Or just jack both up to +5 for mondo-cheap (relative to other methods) AC. Shields are ****in awesome. All spellcasters should have mithril bucklers, all martial types should have large shields (or improved buckler defense for dual-wield or two-handed). The only exception is skillful types who can't spend a feat on IBD... those types shouldn't be attacked much anyway. Generally attacks go toward the in-your-face martial guy, or the spellcaster's big shiny/scary spells. Why not an anijmated shield so you don't need a feat to keep shield bonus for 2 handed?
Rolof 08-19-06, 02:29 PM	I've had my share of frustration with this question too, in the end I ended up giving my buckler away to a new player when the DM ruled that I couldn't receive the AC benefit in combat when firing a bow. I even tried sending a query to the Ask Wizards thing, but got no response. I suppose in a way it does make sense logically, but it irks me that even if a character is surprised, all they lose is dex bonus to AC, no shield bonus is lost. Which implies that shield bonuses are completely passive (by D&D rules, at least), yet apparently you still can't keep it while firing a bow. The common arguement against buckler AC bonus/wielding a bow is that the bow is in your hand, and must be aimed, thus putting the buckler out of line to block attacks. Which makes me ask then; why not put the buckler on the MAIN hand, rather than the "off" hand...drawing arrows is a free action, firing is your attack action, the rest of the round, all but the exact initiative count you fire on, your main hand is completely empty and free. shrugs That didn't go over, either.
Nom 08-19-06, 08:43 PM	but it irks me that even if a character is surprised, all they lose is dex bonus to AC, no shield bonus is lost. Which implies that shield bonuses are completely passive (by D&D rules, at least), yet apparently you still can't keep it while firing a bow.Not true. If you were completely passive, you'd be treated as helpless (Dex 0). You get some benefit of active defense when surprised, just not full benefit.