Darkwood buckler is a ... [Archive] - Wizards Community

Darkwood buckler is a ... [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Arvagor
01-09-06, 05:59 PM Buckler (per its name) or a light wooden shield (per the text in the DMG)?
primemover003
01-09-06, 06:33 PM A darkwood buckler is a buckler... just because it's made of wood does not make it a light shield made of wood.
SodaGuy
01-09-06, 06:36 PM I was like wtf at first but it seems to be a legitimate question.

This nonmagical light wooden shield is made out of darkwood. It has no enhancement bonus, but its construction material makes it lighter than a normal wooden shield. It weighs 2½ pounds and has no armor check penalty.

The FAQ probably holds the answer.
Vahenir
01-09-06, 06:47 PM Uhm.. I think you're being too literal. In this case it seems pretty clear by the use of the word "Buckler" in the name that it is a buckler. The flavour text simply describes it is light (which it would be) wooden (which it is) and a shield (which it is).

Here's an analogy for you.

Greatsword of Vermilii: This long magical sword...

This is descriptive and is not meant to indicate that the weapon is a magical longsword as per D&D stats for a longsword.

Not the best analogy, I know.. but I think it's apt enough.
Ogmug
01-09-06, 06:53 PM I think you need to look at the heirarchy of the words

shield
buckler
light wooden
light steel
heavy wooden
heavy steel
tower

Now a buckler could be described as a light wooden shield. It is a shield, it is light, and it is made of wood. This is not to be confused with the proper name: light wooden shield.

The following is true:
All bucklers are sheilds
All bucklers are small (in d&d)
All bucklers are wooden (in d&d)
But not all small wooden sheilds are bucklers.

This is similar to:
American
North America
Canadian
Quebecian
etc.

Or
American
Georgian
Southerner

A person from Atlanta could be described as an American southerner from georgia.

A person from Quebec could be considered Canadian, or American (not to be confused with a person from the states, and they wouldn't like it much )
mvincent
01-09-06, 08:51 PM I'm uncertain what Ogmug is trying to say, but anyway:

It appears that a darkwood buckler is not actually a buckler, but is indeed a "light wooden shield". The description of darkwood (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialMaterials.htm#darkwood) says:
"Items not normally made of wood or only partially of wood (such as a battleaxe or a mace) either cannot be made from darkwood or do not gain any special benefit from being made of darkwood."

While the buckler description (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm#buckler) says:
"This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm."

So a buckler actually can't be made from darkwood. It's title must be flavor text (similar to how a lion's shield is neither made from, nor belonging to, actual lions ; )

Additionally, even if you could make a buckler out of darkwood, the cost would be 215 gp. (it's listed cost is 205 gp, which is about the cost of a light wooden shield made of darkwood). Stat-wise, there is not too much difference between a light shield and a buckler anyways.
Ogmug
01-09-06, 09:15 PM I'm uncertain what Ogmug is trying to say, but anyway:

What I am trying to say is don't get so caught up in the way things are written. It is perfectly acceptable to go by it and say a darkwood buckler is really a small sheild, but the writings in the phb and such are very full of inconsistencies.

Take the "Buckler" for example. By D&D it is a small metal round shield.

however historically it is any small sheild typically worn on the forearm. Additionally, the use of the term "small wooden sheild" might be kind of misleading. It is called a buckler for a reason. It "buckles" to the forearm, and allows the use of two handed weapons without having to stow it.

In rebuttal:
A buckler is just a sheild. It is light (same weight as a light shield).It is a small sheild, and in this case it is made from "wood" (darkwood to be exact). So to call it a light wooden sheild is not too far from an accurate description.

Conclusion:
You do present very well reasoned logic, and as such, I can easily concede the point especially the part about costs (it obviously was intended to be treated like a light sheild.) The only caveat is that with a light sheild, you cannot weild weapons like bows, etc.
Arvagor
01-09-06, 09:33 PM Well, going by cost alone is never a good test for DMG items; many of them don't match what the cost "should" be based on the various DMG formulas for calculating magic item cost. Another good example being the mithral shirt -- the cost is "correct", but teh weight in the DMG is given as 10 lbs., when it should be 12.5 lbs. (mithral halves the weight of an item, and a chain shirt normally weighs 25 lbs.). Or try a wand of enlarge person -- why does it cost 750gp, when all other 1st-level wands cost 375gp?

Back to my topic... A "true" darkwood buckler would cost 215gp, while a darkwood light shield would cost 203gp, so we can't go by cost. Yes, they are identical in terms of weight and the shield bonus they provide; but an important distinction between the two is that you can continue to use your shield arm for other things when using a buckler (firing a bow, wielding a weapon in the off-hand) which you cannot do with a light shield. (Such a distinction is important for at least 2 of my characters ;) )
Vahenir
01-09-06, 10:22 PM "This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm."

In my opinion this is just flavour. The 'basic' buckler in the PH is made of metal. It's a fine line, but it certainly doesn't -have- to be metal.

The 'Lion shield' thing is immaterial. Try something else -- if you got a magic weapon called the Warmonger's Greatsword -- would you expect it to be a magical scimitar?

I don't think the designer's are stupid enough to use 'Buckler' if they didn't mean 'buckler.'

And in response to the off-topic comment (I'm not doing any fancy blocks, if you don't want to read something that's off topic, don't read any further):

however historically it is any small sheild typically worn on the forearm

Historically a 'buckler' was held in the hand, not worn on the forearm.
Arvagor
01-09-06, 10:35 PM I don't think the designer's are stupid enough to use 'Buckler' if they didn't mean 'buckler.'Well, I'm not disagreeing; I see "buckler", a game term, and I assume "buckler", the thing defined that game term. However, it's not somethig that was ever errataed, nor addressed in the FAQ. What prompted me to ask, was the re-release of the HeroForge character builder -- not official, as far as being a WotC release or anything, but the developers chose to adopt the item's textual meaning, namely that it was a light wooden shield, so I thought I'd see if there was anything in this forums archives, official or not, that ever had been decided.

I, for one, will continue to use my darkwood buckler as a buckler, strapped to my arm until I hear otherwise from an "official" source. ;)

Historically a 'buckler' was held in the hand, not worn on the forearm.Correct; for a good example and historical illustrations, try http://www.thearma.org/essays/SwordandBuckler.htm, or http://www.thearma.org/essays/LeignitzerSandB.htm for examples...
mvincent
01-10-06, 01:49 AM a wand of enlarge person -- why does it cost 750gp, when all other 1st-level wands cost 375gp?All other 1st level wands actually cost 750 gp... a wand of enlarge is correctly priced.

I believe you were intending to refer to a potion of enlarge, which costs five times as much as it should. This is simply an accidental holdover from 3.0, when the enlarge potions were made at 5th level (i.e. caster level) so as to allow the maximum size increase. In 3.5 these potions a still made at 5th level (even though there is no need for it) and they should be viewed as lasting for 5 minutes as a result (or you could just fix the price to 50 gp).
Arvagor
01-10-06, 01:55 AM :doh: Sorry... yes, I meant the potion... :embarrass
mvincent
01-10-06, 02:20 AM In my opinion this is just flavour. The 'basic' buckler in the PH is made of metal. It's a fine line, but it certainly doesn't -have- to be metal.The same reasoning could be used to make a mithral tower shield. However that would be incorrect too (without access to the supplement that details metal tower shields, at least).

By RAW, you would need the ironwood spell to create a wooden buckler. Also note that there is a distinct difference between wooden and metal shields (weight, hardness, etc.). The metal counterpart to a light wooden shield weights more, which means that a wooden analogy of a D&D buckler (if available) would weight less.

I don't make the rules, I'm just relating them to the OP, who specifically asked about this. I gave a by-the-rules answer. You don't have to play by it, but the information is now available at least.

The 'Lion shield' thing is immaterial. Try something elseNotice that I had put a winking emoticon next to the lion shield statement, indicating that is was a wry comment that was not to be taken seriously. However, in D&D, titles can be misleading: a shatterspike is not a spike, a dimension door no longer involves a door, a ray cannot be reflected off of a reflecting shield, darkness isn't dark, etc. This is why we often rely on the actual descriptions for game mechanics.

I don't think the designer's are stupid enough to use 'Buckler' if they didn't mean 'buckler.'Then they would still have made a similar mistake when using the term "light wooden shield" (which is an equally specific piece of gear). Personally, I say let each player decide what type it is... either interpretation is justifiable.
Vahenir
01-10-06, 12:01 PM The same reasoning could be used to make a mithral tower shield.

Yes it could. Although, in all fairness, there is no magical item in the DMG which is called the Mithral Tower Shield and is described like... "this large metal shield.."

I don't make the rules, I'm just relating them to the OP, who specifically asked about this.

He asked if the item had been clarified or errata'd - which it hasn't.

Notice that I had put a winking emoticon next to the lion shield statement, indicating that is was a wry comment that was not to be taken seriously.

Believe me - I noticed. But I figured it was worth throwing in that the comment was less meaningful (however jovial) than the one I followed it with.

Then they would still have made a similar mistake when using the term "light wooden shield"

Not if you follow the very simple line of logic from my first post in this thread. A greatspear can be described as long and a spear without being a D&D longspear. A magical long sword can be described as being a sword and great (albiet in purpose or lineage) without being a magical greatsword..

At worst I'd say that the use of 'light wooden shield' altogether was an error in judgement. But that -is- just my opinion.

Personally, I say let each player decide what type it is... either interpretation is justifiable.

I can agree to that.
Cold Napalm
01-10-06, 08:15 PM I think using the term light wooden shield is more then an error in judgement when that phrase in particular has a very specific meaning in the game mechanics they set up. I typo, I can understand...but if that is the case, then it should have been in the errata easily enough...unless the QA department has gona on hietus again (gotta love the see page xx for more details).
pres_man
01-11-06, 12:42 AM Darkwood Buckler: This nonmagical light wooden shield is made out of darkwood. It has no enhancement bonus, but its construction material makes it lighter than a normal wooden shield. It weighs 2-1/2 pounds and has no armor check penalty.
No aura (nonmagical); Price 205 gp.
Darkwood Shield: This nonmagical heavy wooden shield is made out of darkwood. It has no enhancement bonus, but its construction material makes it lighter than a normal wooden shield.
It weighs 5 pounds and has no armor check penalty.
No aura (nonmagical); Price 257 gp.
Notice the wording is almost identical. Certainly noone is arguing that the phrase "heavy wooden shield" does not in fact refer to a heavy wooden shield as that described in the PHB. So why would you assume that the phrasing in the first one is just creative license and does not in fact refer to the type of shield known as a light wooden shield?
Vahenir
01-11-06, 01:30 AM So why would you assume that the phrasing in the first one is just creative license and does not in fact refer to the type of shield known as a light wooden shield?

Probably because of the use of the word "buckler" which also has an explicit meaning in D&D. As has already been said - both interpretations have equal merit.

Is it a buckler described as a light wooden shield, or a light wooden shield erroneously referred to as a 'buckler?' It's up to your interpretation. Mine is that it's a buckler, as per the rules for bucklers. Yours may be that it's a light wooden shield as per the rules for light shields. Both are equally valid and both are supported by the text.

The fact that a similar item is described clearly and without contradictions is immaterial.
pres_man
01-11-06, 02:11 AM The fact that a similar item is described clearly and without contradictions is immaterial.
I have to disagree that it is immaterial. Since the statement, as you say, can be interpreted as in either fashion, it is reasonable then to look for a similiar entry and try to interpret the meaning from that. The entry for a Darkwood Shield is basically identical to the entry for the Darkwood Buckler, and gives a clear indication of how the text should be interpreted. This can give us an indication of the Darkwood Buckler. It may be unconvincing for some, but I would not say it is immaterial.
Vahenir
01-11-06, 02:18 AM Since the statement, as you say, can be interpreted as in either fashion, it is reasonable then to look for a similiar entry and try to interpret the meaning from that.

No, it's not reasonable. It's, as I said, completely immaterial. The fact that one -similar- entry does not contradict itself does not have any relevance to the contradiction in a different, if similar, entry.

The Darkwood Shield is a heavy shield. If it were called the Darkwood Light Shield then it would have merit as an example - it establishes a pattern. It does not establish a pattern, however. It only proves that the Darkwood Shield entry does not contradict itself in any way. It does not function as evidence for anything else.
mvincent
01-11-06, 11:52 AM Also note: they could not have not have actually referred to a darkwood buckler as a "darkwood shield" because the name was already taken. It's possible that they decided that using the names "darkwood heavy shield" and "darkwood light shield" was too long (and not magic-y enough).

They sometimes do the same thing with specific swords names (i.e. not include the sword type in it's specific name: Sword of Life Stealing, Sword of the Planes, Sword of Subtlety). If there were say, two different types of life stealing swords, they would probably find an alternate name for one.
Arvagor
01-11-06, 12:11 PM Also note: they could not have not have actually referred to a darkwood buckler as a "darkwood shield" because the name was already taken. It's possible that they decided that using the names "darkwood heavy shield" and "darkwood light shield" was too long (and not magic-y enough).I don't buy that one, though... Especially since we have such verbose items as the Mithral Full Plate of Speed, or within the text of the Flame Tongue, the text goes to the trouble of calling it a +1 flaming burst longsword.

Other items? The text calls it a Masterwork Cold Iron Longsword because cold iron weapons are not necessarily masterwork; but a mithral shirt doesn't need the qualifier because all mithral items are automatically masterwork.

If a character built the shield from scratch what would he call it? A "darkwood light shield" or a "light darkwood shield" ("masterwork darkwood light wooden shield" is really redundant, and again). No, I unfortunately think this remains a case of poor choice of words (for both the darkwood buckler and the darkwood shield), that has no signs of being errataed of FAQed at this point... Thanks everyone for the points you raised, though...
pres_man
01-11-06, 03:21 PM There is also this information that may help you decide.
One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over
a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.
Now, the question is, is the name of an item more akin to the short description of a spell, or to the spell description? Is the description of the item more akin to the short description of a spell or to the spell description?
Vahenir
01-11-06, 03:40 PM Neither.

In my opinion this would be functionally the equivalent of where a spell description contradicts itself. In which case, it becomes a matter of abjudication on the part of the DM. For example, you believe it's a light shield, I believe it's a buckler. And by the RAW.... we're both right until an official source clarifies.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Arvagor 01-09-06, 05:59 PM	Buckler (per its name) or a light wooden shield (per the text in the DMG)?
primemover003 01-09-06, 06:33 PM	A darkwood buckler is a buckler... just because it's made of wood does not make it a light shield made of wood.
SodaGuy 01-09-06, 06:36 PM	I was like wtf at first but it seems to be a legitimate question. This nonmagical light wooden shield is made out of darkwood. It has no enhancement bonus, but its construction material makes it lighter than a normal wooden shield. It weighs 2½ pounds and has no armor check penalty. The FAQ probably holds the answer.
Vahenir 01-09-06, 06:47 PM	Uhm.. I think you're being too literal. In this case it seems pretty clear by the use of the word "Buckler" in the name that it is a buckler. The flavour text simply describes it is light (which it would be) wooden (which it is) and a shield (which it is). Here's an analogy for you. Greatsword of Vermilii: This long magical sword... This is descriptive and is not meant to indicate that the weapon is a magical longsword as per D&D stats for a longsword. Not the best analogy, I know.. but I think it's apt enough.
Ogmug 01-09-06, 06:53 PM	I think you need to look at the heirarchy of the words shield buckler light wooden light steel heavy wooden heavy steel tower Now a buckler could be described as a light wooden shield. It is a shield, it is light, and it is made of wood. This is not to be confused with the proper name: light wooden shield. The following is true: All bucklers are sheilds All bucklers are small (in d&d) All bucklers are wooden (in d&d) But not all small wooden sheilds are bucklers. This is similar to: American North America Canadian Quebecian etc. Or American Georgian Southerner A person from Atlanta could be described as an American southerner from georgia. A person from Quebec could be considered Canadian, or American (not to be confused with a person from the states, and they wouldn't like it much )
mvincent 01-09-06, 08:51 PM	I'm uncertain what Ogmug is trying to say, but anyway: It appears that a darkwood buckler is not actually a buckler, but is indeed a "light wooden shield". The description of darkwood (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialMaterials.htm#darkwood) says: "Items not normally made of wood or only partially of wood (such as a battleaxe or a mace) either cannot be made from darkwood or do not gain any special benefit from being made of darkwood." While the buckler description (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm#buckler) says: "This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm." So a buckler actually can't be made from darkwood. It's title must be flavor text (similar to how a lion's shield is neither made from, nor belonging to, actual lions ; ) Additionally, even if you could make a buckler out of darkwood, the cost would be 215 gp. (it's listed cost is 205 gp, which is about the cost of a light wooden shield made of darkwood). Stat-wise, there is not too much difference between a light shield and a buckler anyways.
Ogmug 01-09-06, 09:15 PM	I'm uncertain what Ogmug is trying to say, but anyway: What I am trying to say is don't get so caught up in the way things are written. It is perfectly acceptable to go by it and say a darkwood buckler is really a small sheild, but the writings in the phb and such are very full of inconsistencies. Take the "Buckler" for example. By D&D it is a small metal round shield. however historically it is any small sheild typically worn on the forearm. Additionally, the use of the term "small wooden sheild" might be kind of misleading. It is called a buckler for a reason. It "buckles" to the forearm, and allows the use of two handed weapons without having to stow it. In rebuttal: A buckler is just a sheild. It is light (same weight as a light shield).It is a small sheild, and in this case it is made from "wood" (darkwood to be exact). So to call it a light wooden sheild is not too far from an accurate description. Conclusion: You do present very well reasoned logic, and as such, I can easily concede the point especially the part about costs (it obviously was intended to be treated like a light sheild.) The only caveat is that with a light sheild, you cannot weild weapons like bows, etc.
Arvagor 01-09-06, 09:33 PM	Well, going by cost alone is never a good test for DMG items; many of them don't match what the cost "should" be based on the various DMG formulas for calculating magic item cost. Another good example being the mithral shirt -- the cost is "correct", but teh weight in the DMG is given as 10 lbs., when it should be 12.5 lbs. (mithral halves the weight of an item, and a chain shirt normally weighs 25 lbs.). Or try a wand of enlarge person -- why does it cost 750gp, when all other 1st-level wands cost 375gp? Back to my topic... A "true" darkwood buckler would cost 215gp, while a darkwood light shield would cost 203gp, so we can't go by cost. Yes, they are identical in terms of weight and the shield bonus they provide; but an important distinction between the two is that you can continue to use your shield arm for other things when using a buckler (firing a bow, wielding a weapon in the off-hand) which you cannot do with a light shield. (Such a distinction is important for at least 2 of my characters ;) )
Vahenir 01-09-06, 10:22 PM	"This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm." In my opinion this is just flavour. The 'basic' buckler in the PH is made of metal. It's a fine line, but it certainly doesn't -have- to be metal. The 'Lion shield' thing is immaterial. Try something else -- if you got a magic weapon called the Warmonger's Greatsword -- would you expect it to be a magical scimitar? I don't think the designer's are stupid enough to use 'Buckler' if they didn't mean 'buckler.' And in response to the off-topic comment (I'm not doing any fancy blocks, if you don't want to read something that's off topic, don't read any further): however historically it is any small sheild typically worn on the forearm Historically a 'buckler' was held in the hand, not worn on the forearm.
Arvagor 01-09-06, 10:35 PM	I don't think the designer's are stupid enough to use 'Buckler' if they didn't mean 'buckler.'Well, I'm not disagreeing; I see "buckler", a game term, and I assume "buckler", the thing defined that game term. However, it's not somethig that was ever errataed, nor addressed in the FAQ. What prompted me to ask, was the re-release of the HeroForge character builder -- not official, as far as being a WotC release or anything, but the developers chose to adopt the item's textual meaning, namely that it was a light wooden shield, so I thought I'd see if there was anything in this forums archives, official or not, that ever had been decided. I, for one, will continue to use my darkwood buckler as a buckler, strapped to my arm until I hear otherwise from an "official" source. ;) Historically a 'buckler' was held in the hand, not worn on the forearm.Correct; for a good example and historical illustrations, try http://www.thearma.org/essays/SwordandBuckler.htm, or http://www.thearma.org/essays/LeignitzerSandB.htm for examples...
mvincent 01-10-06, 01:49 AM	a wand of enlarge person -- why does it cost 750gp, when all other 1st-level wands cost 375gp?All other 1st level wands actually cost 750 gp... a wand of enlarge is correctly priced. I believe you were intending to refer to a potion of enlarge, which costs five times as much as it should. This is simply an accidental holdover from 3.0, when the enlarge potions were made at 5th level (i.e. caster level) so as to allow the maximum size increase. In 3.5 these potions a still made at 5th level (even though there is no need for it) and they should be viewed as lasting for 5 minutes as a result (or you could just fix the price to 50 gp).
Arvagor 01-10-06, 01:55 AM	:doh: Sorry... yes, I meant the potion... :embarrass
mvincent 01-10-06, 02:20 AM	In my opinion this is just flavour. The 'basic' buckler in the PH is made of metal. It's a fine line, but it certainly doesn't -have- to be metal.The same reasoning could be used to make a mithral tower shield. However that would be incorrect too (without access to the supplement that details metal tower shields, at least). By RAW, you would need the ironwood spell to create a wooden buckler. Also note that there is a distinct difference between wooden and metal shields (weight, hardness, etc.). The metal counterpart to a light wooden shield weights more, which means that a wooden analogy of a D&D buckler (if available) would weight less. I don't make the rules, I'm just relating them to the OP, who specifically asked about this. I gave a by-the-rules answer. You don't have to play by it, but the information is now available at least. The 'Lion shield' thing is immaterial. Try something elseNotice that I had put a winking emoticon next to the lion shield statement, indicating that is was a wry comment that was not to be taken seriously. However, in D&D, titles can be misleading: a shatterspike is not a spike, a dimension door no longer involves a door, a ray cannot be reflected off of a reflecting shield, darkness isn't dark, etc. This is why we often rely on the actual descriptions for game mechanics. I don't think the designer's are stupid enough to use 'Buckler' if they didn't mean 'buckler.'Then they would still have made a similar mistake when using the term "light wooden shield" (which is an equally specific piece of gear). Personally, I say let each player decide what type it is... either interpretation is justifiable.
Vahenir 01-10-06, 12:01 PM	The same reasoning could be used to make a mithral tower shield. Yes it could. Although, in all fairness, there is no magical item in the DMG which is called the Mithral Tower Shield and is described like... "this large metal shield.." I don't make the rules, I'm just relating them to the OP, who specifically asked about this. He asked if the item had been clarified or errata'd - which it hasn't. Notice that I had put a winking emoticon next to the lion shield statement, indicating that is was a wry comment that was not to be taken seriously. Believe me - I noticed. But I figured it was worth throwing in that the comment was less meaningful (however jovial) than the one I followed it with. Then they would still have made a similar mistake when using the term "light wooden shield" Not if you follow the very simple line of logic from my first post in this thread. A greatspear can be described as long and a spear without being a D&D longspear. A magical long sword can be described as being a sword and great (albiet in purpose or lineage) without being a magical greatsword.. At worst I'd say that the use of 'light wooden shield' altogether was an error in judgement. But that -is- just my opinion. Personally, I say let each player decide what type it is... either interpretation is justifiable. I can agree to that.
Cold Napalm 01-10-06, 08:15 PM	I think using the term light wooden shield is more then an error in judgement when that phrase in particular has a very specific meaning in the game mechanics they set up. I typo, I can understand...but if that is the case, then it should have been in the errata easily enough...unless the QA department has gona on hietus again (gotta love the see page xx for more details).
pres_man 01-11-06, 12:42 AM	Darkwood Buckler: This nonmagical light wooden shield is made out of darkwood. It has no enhancement bonus, but its construction material makes it lighter than a normal wooden shield. It weighs 2-1/2 pounds and has no armor check penalty. No aura (nonmagical); Price 205 gp. Darkwood Shield: This nonmagical heavy wooden shield is made out of darkwood. It has no enhancement bonus, but its construction material makes it lighter than a normal wooden shield. It weighs 5 pounds and has no armor check penalty. No aura (nonmagical); Price 257 gp. Notice the wording is almost identical. Certainly noone is arguing that the phrase "heavy wooden shield" does not in fact refer to a heavy wooden shield as that described in the PHB. So why would you assume that the phrasing in the first one is just creative license and does not in fact refer to the type of shield known as a light wooden shield?
Vahenir 01-11-06, 01:30 AM	So why would you assume that the phrasing in the first one is just creative license and does not in fact refer to the type of shield known as a light wooden shield? Probably because of the use of the word "buckler" which also has an explicit meaning in D&D. As has already been said - both interpretations have equal merit. Is it a buckler described as a light wooden shield, or a light wooden shield erroneously referred to as a 'buckler?' It's up to your interpretation. Mine is that it's a buckler, as per the rules for bucklers. Yours may be that it's a light wooden shield as per the rules for light shields. Both are equally valid and both are supported by the text. The fact that a similar item is described clearly and without contradictions is immaterial.
pres_man 01-11-06, 02:11 AM	The fact that a similar item is described clearly and without contradictions is immaterial. I have to disagree that it is immaterial. Since the statement, as you say, can be interpreted as in either fashion, it is reasonable then to look for a similiar entry and try to interpret the meaning from that. The entry for a Darkwood Shield is basically identical to the entry for the Darkwood Buckler, and gives a clear indication of how the text should be interpreted. This can give us an indication of the Darkwood Buckler. It may be unconvincing for some, but I would not say it is immaterial.
Vahenir 01-11-06, 02:18 AM	Since the statement, as you say, can be interpreted as in either fashion, it is reasonable then to look for a similiar entry and try to interpret the meaning from that. No, it's not reasonable. It's, as I said, completely immaterial. The fact that one -similar- entry does not contradict itself does not have any relevance to the contradiction in a different, if similar, entry. The Darkwood Shield is a heavy shield. If it were called the Darkwood Light Shield then it would have merit as an example - it establishes a pattern. It does not establish a pattern, however. It only proves that the Darkwood Shield entry does not contradict itself in any way. It does not function as evidence for anything else.
mvincent 01-11-06, 11:52 AM	Also note: they could not have not have actually referred to a darkwood buckler as a "darkwood shield" because the name was already taken. It's possible that they decided that using the names "darkwood heavy shield" and "darkwood light shield" was too long (and not magic-y enough). They sometimes do the same thing with specific swords names (i.e. not include the sword type in it's specific name: Sword of Life Stealing, Sword of the Planes, Sword of Subtlety). If there were say, two different types of life stealing swords, they would probably find an alternate name for one.
Arvagor 01-11-06, 12:11 PM	Also note: they could not have not have actually referred to a darkwood buckler as a "darkwood shield" because the name was already taken. It's possible that they decided that using the names "darkwood heavy shield" and "darkwood light shield" was too long (and not magic-y enough).I don't buy that one, though... Especially since we have such verbose items as the Mithral Full Plate of Speed, or within the text of the Flame Tongue, the text goes to the trouble of calling it a +1 flaming burst longsword. Other items? The text calls it a Masterwork Cold Iron Longsword because cold iron weapons are not necessarily masterwork; but a mithral shirt doesn't need the qualifier because all mithral items are automatically masterwork. If a character built the shield from scratch what would he call it? A "darkwood light shield" or a "light darkwood shield" ("masterwork darkwood light wooden shield" is really redundant, and again). No, I unfortunately think this remains a case of poor choice of words (for both the darkwood buckler and the darkwood shield), that has no signs of being errataed of FAQed at this point... Thanks everyone for the points you raised, though...
pres_man 01-11-06, 03:21 PM	There is also this information that may help you decide. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees. Now, the question is, is the name of an item more akin to the short description of a spell, or to the spell description? Is the description of the item more akin to the short description of a spell or to the spell description?
Vahenir 01-11-06, 03:40 PM	Neither. In my opinion this would be functionally the equivalent of where a spell description contradicts itself. In which case, it becomes a matter of abjudication on the part of the DM. For example, you believe it's a light shield, I believe it's a buckler. And by the RAW.... we're both right until an official source clarifies.