Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Darth Skippy 05-07-07, 03:58 AM	Does Improved Buckler Defense apply when wielding a two-handed weapon, allowing the buckler's AC bonus to be retained? Thanks, -DS
Iswald 05-07-07, 08:56 AM	Yes. But, you may find some judges who disagree.
thorinXXX 05-07-07, 12:05 PM	According to a strict reading of the rules, no you do not get the buckler's AC bonus. The feat only mentions 2 weapon fighting. Some people assume that the obvious intent is to allow you to use the buckler no matter how you use your off-hand.
jstorrie 05-07-07, 04:01 PM	According to a strict reading of the rules, yes, you do get the buckler's AC bonus. Read the rules text for the feat, and apply your situation (attacking with a two-handed weapon): When you attack... Check, you are attacking. ...with a weapon in the off-hand... What's in your off-hand? Your greatsword/guisarme/whatever. Check, you have a weapon in your off-hand. ...you may (get the benefits of this feat.) While the summary text describing the feat specifies off-hand weapons, the rules text does allow two-handed ones. While you may find some judges who disagree, you won't find many.
Samwise 05-07-07, 09:18 PM	...with a weapon in the off-hand... What's in your off-hand? Your greatsword/guisarme/whatever. Check, you have a weapon in your off-hand. Well that's where the issue would arise. No, you don't have a weapon in your off-hand. You have a weapon in both hands. You only have an off-hand when you have two separate things, two weapons, a weapon and a shield, and such, in each hand. The only general exception to that seems to be double weapons. I haven't checked for specific supporting text.
copper_wyrmling 05-07-07, 09:45 PM	The argument for getting the buckler bonus is actually better than that. The only line in the PHB that indicates you sometimes lose the buckler's AC bonus is, "If you use a weapon in your off hand, you don't get the buckler's AC bonus for the rest of the round".* The wording of Improved Buckler Defence is: "When you attack with a weapon in your off hand, you may still apply your buckler's shield bonus to your armor class." Both use the "weapon in your off hand" wording. Thus, I think it's unambiguous that IBD allows you to apply the shield bonus to AC in any circumstances where it would normally be denied. The ambiguity is actually in whether you can NORMALLY use a buckler and a two-handed weapon and keep the AC bonus (without needing the feat)... *This comes after a sentence saying that "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 because of the extra weight on your arm".
Samwise 05-07-07, 10:11 PM	Actually, reading it, I'd look at the PHB text for Buckler and point to: 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 because of the extra weight on your arm. (italics mine) That looks like a pretty bizarre wording, and doesn't seem to really agree with the general wording of either one-handed and two-handed weapons in the weapon section, or with the glossary entry for off-hand. Still, it does suggest that you are "wielding" the two-handed weapon in your off hand. Hmmm . . .
gomeztoo 05-08-07, 12:33 AM	That's why I never bothered with bucklers and took an animated shield instead...
thorinXXX 05-08-07, 03:15 PM	I am pretty sure that IBD was meant to allow the use of the buckler with both 2 weapons and 2 handed weapons, but I dislike intent arguements. I would allow it, but would not argue if a judge ruled against it.
mlund 05-08-07, 03:25 PM	When you put the PHB wording right next to the Complete Warrior wording it is bold-faced obvious that Improved Buckler Defense works with a Two-handed Weapon. Standard Rule: "you use a weapon in your off hand, you don’t get the buckler’s AC bonus for the rest of the round." Feat Ability: "you attack with a weapon in your off hand, you may still apply your buckler's shield bonus to your armor class." They address the same circumstance, with the Standard Rule for bucklers saying you lose the AC bonus and the Feat Ability Text negating that clause explicitly. - Marty Lund
Swiftbrook 05-09-07, 04:50 PM	So, do you think IBD works with bows as well? -Swiftbrook
Iswald 05-09-07, 10:34 PM	So, do you think IBD works with bows as well? It's not entirely clear to me that you would need the feat when using a bow. You can use a buckler 'without penalty' with a bow. Does that refer only to the penalty to hit? Or, does that include the penalty to AC too?
chesspiece 05-10-07, 10:36 AM	You can use a buckler 'without penalty' with a bow. Does that refer only to the penalty to hit? Or, does that include the penalty to AC too? Correction: You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. Which IMHO doesn't imply that you are using the buckler at that time. Also, 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. 'In any case' makes it pretty clear to me that you lose the AC bonus if you use a 2-h missile weapon (note that crossbows can be fired with 1 hand). But this situation still seems to fall into the IBD rules. So I'd allow bucker AC for archers that have IBD.
TWG_Prometheus 05-10-07, 11:13 AM	You never take a penalty for carrying a shield around on your back, aside from the possibility of going into the next burden category. I think we can assume that use of a bow doesn't make a shield weightless, though. You're making the sentence meaningless. There's no penalty for using a buckler with a bow. It's goofy, but it's pretty clear.
chesspiece 05-11-07, 08:35 AM	You can use a bow / crossbow without penalty when you have a buckler on your arm. So no -1. Unlike 2H / offhand weapons. In any case, you don't get the buckler AC bonus if you use that hand with a weapon. This includes bows since they require 2 hands to fire. Why wouldn't "in any case" apply? Seems to me that the intent for this clause is 'in all cases'. IBD provides an explicit exception to a rule that is otherwise absolute.