Improved Buckler Defense [Archive] - Wizards Community

Improved Buckler Defense [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
siffx50
06-22-07, 05:32 PM As per Dragon issue 357 is the ruling for improved buckler defense in use with two handed weapons says No, but is this "Official LGCS" ?
bitznarf
06-22-07, 05:43 PM As per Dragon issue 357 is the ruling for improved buckler defense in use with two handed weapons says No, but is this "Official LGCS" ?
Dungeon/Dragon magazines have no bearing on LG at all. It is possible that whatever the Dragon magazine has to say about Improved Buckler Defense has also been said in a LG binding source, but I don't know one way or the other.
kenobi65
06-23-07, 12:14 PM Was it in Sage Advice? I think that most of the rulings in Sage Advice make their way into the D&D FAQ document, and *that* document is a binding LG rules document. So, if it makes it into the D&D FAQ, then it's an LG rule.
Timlagor
06-24-07, 02:56 PM Well if it does make it into LG the consequence isn't that you can't use a Buckler with a 2H weapon but that you don't need the Feat to do so.

The wording proscribing the use of the buckler with a weapon in the off hand is exactly the same as the wording in IBD..so either IBD works or it is unnecessary.
Dr.Cornelius
06-25-07, 02:41 AM Please post the text of the ruling - then this thread might make more sense.
Hariman
07-05-07, 12:50 AM The question was "Improved Buckler Defense only mentions using an off hand weapon. Does the feat apply when a character uses a two handed weapon?"

And the answer was "Not according to a strict reading of the feat description."

I, personally, think that IBD SHOULD apply. A two handed weapon does mean you have a weapon in your off hand. AND the buckler specifically states that it can be used with bows and crossbows and other two handed weapons.

Unfortunately, I think the only current recourse, as Dragon Magazine isn't LG binding, is to ask each DM and "expect table variation".
clannagh
07-05-07, 02:59 AM Well the penalty arises " ... if you use a weapon in your off hand ... "

But IBD gives it back "When you attack with a weapon in your off hand. "

Virtually the same wording so logically if that wording was used to apply the penalty the same wording should negate it .. I strongly suspect whoever wrote the clarification never really looked at the wording of the original penalty but is just applying RAW to the wording of the IBD feat.

Unfortunately LG uses RAW interpretations even when they tend, more often than not, to lead to coounter intuitive or stupid results. So yes ETV and expect that variation to nudge more towards saying "NO" now that the article has been released.
chesspiece
07-05-07, 08:32 AM 1) This doesn't apply to any of my characters.
2) I try to take LG's transient rules in stride with aplomb. ;)
3) I do a lot of the GMing locally and try to keep current with LG rules & changes. I then pass the information to the group.
4) IMO, I have a strong sense of fairness.

Even though it isn't 'official', I'm going to embrace this rule suggestion for our group the next time I'm GMing (Red Hand part 3). I'll allow the 2H fighters to use a bucker for AC without the IBD feat, but they'll suffer the -1 to hit penalty. I'll keep my eye out for changes and remind the Players that this rule might change again when it reaches the FAQ or in the future.
Hariman
07-05-07, 12:06 PM Well the penalty arises " ... if you use a weapon in your off hand ... "

But IBD gives it back "When you attack with a weapon in your off hand. "

Virtually the same wording so logically if that wording was used to apply the penalty the same wording should negate it .. I strongly suspect whoever wrote the clarification never really looked at the wording of the original penalty but is just applying RAW to the wording of the IBD feat.

Unfortunately LG uses RAW interpretations even when they tend, more often than not, to lead to coounter intuitive or stupid results. So yes ETV and expect that variation to nudge more towards saying "NO" now that the article has been released.

That is, unfortunately, true. A lot of stock is placed in the Sage's Advice.

BUT, strictly speaking of RAW, the PHB buckler entry doesn't specifically state that you lose the shield bonus to AC for wielding a two handed weapon with a buckler. It only mentions wielding a weapon in your off hand.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
siffx50 06-22-07, 05:32 PM	As per Dragon issue 357 is the ruling for improved buckler defense in use with two handed weapons says No, but is this "Official LGCS" ?
bitznarf 06-22-07, 05:43 PM	As per Dragon issue 357 is the ruling for improved buckler defense in use with two handed weapons says No, but is this "Official LGCS" ? Dungeon/Dragon magazines have no bearing on LG at all. It is possible that whatever the Dragon magazine has to say about Improved Buckler Defense has also been said in a LG binding source, but I don't know one way or the other.
kenobi65 06-23-07, 12:14 PM	Was it in Sage Advice? I think that most of the rulings in Sage Advice make their way into the D&D FAQ document, and that document is a binding LG rules document. So, if it makes it into the D&D FAQ, then it's an LG rule.
Timlagor 06-24-07, 02:56 PM	Well if it does make it into LG the consequence isn't that you can't use a Buckler with a 2H weapon but that you don't need the Feat to do so. The wording proscribing the use of the buckler with a weapon in the off hand is exactly the same as the wording in IBD..so either IBD works or it is unnecessary.
Dr.Cornelius 06-25-07, 02:41 AM	Please post the text of the ruling - then this thread might make more sense.
Hariman 07-05-07, 12:50 AM	The question was "Improved Buckler Defense only mentions using an off hand weapon. Does the feat apply when a character uses a two handed weapon?" And the answer was "Not according to a strict reading of the feat description." I, personally, think that IBD SHOULD apply. A two handed weapon does mean you have a weapon in your off hand. AND the buckler specifically states that it can be used with bows and crossbows and other two handed weapons. Unfortunately, I think the only current recourse, as Dragon Magazine isn't LG binding, is to ask each DM and "expect table variation".
clannagh 07-05-07, 02:59 AM	Well the penalty arises " ... if you use a weapon in your off hand ... " But IBD gives it back "When you attack with a weapon in your off hand. " Virtually the same wording so logically if that wording was used to apply the penalty the same wording should negate it .. I strongly suspect whoever wrote the clarification never really looked at the wording of the original penalty but is just applying RAW to the wording of the IBD feat. Unfortunately LG uses RAW interpretations even when they tend, more often than not, to lead to coounter intuitive or stupid results. So yes ETV and expect that variation to nudge more towards saying "NO" now that the article has been released.
chesspiece 07-05-07, 08:32 AM	1) This doesn't apply to any of my characters. 2) I try to take LG's transient rules in stride with aplomb. ;) 3) I do a lot of the GMing locally and try to keep current with LG rules & changes. I then pass the information to the group. 4) IMO, I have a strong sense of fairness. Even though it isn't 'official', I'm going to embrace this rule suggestion for our group the next time I'm GMing (Red Hand part 3). I'll allow the 2H fighters to use a bucker for AC without the IBD feat, but they'll suffer the -1 to hit penalty. I'll keep my eye out for changes and remind the Players that this rule might change again when it reaches the FAQ or in the future.
Hariman 07-05-07, 12:06 PM	Well the penalty arises " ... if you use a weapon in your off hand ... " But IBD gives it back "When you attack with a weapon in your off hand. " Virtually the same wording so logically if that wording was used to apply the penalty the same wording should negate it .. I strongly suspect whoever wrote the clarification never really looked at the wording of the original penalty but is just applying RAW to the wording of the IBD feat. Unfortunately LG uses RAW interpretations even when they tend, more often than not, to lead to coounter intuitive or stupid results. So yes ETV and expect that variation to nudge more towards saying "NO" now that the article has been released. That is, unfortunately, true. A lot of stock is placed in the Sage's Advice. BUT, strictly speaking of RAW, the PHB buckler entry doesn't specifically state that you lose the shield bonus to AC for wielding a two handed weapon with a buckler. It only mentions wielding a weapon in your off hand.