Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Yranuis 02-17-05, 03:39 PM	Ok, I need some advice on a ruling here. The PHB says that to cast a spell with a somatic component, one must have his hand free. Then, on page 121, it says that with a light shield, one can still carry things in the shield hand. So, can a cleric cast when holding a shield and a weapon? Could he put the weapon in the shield-hand as a free action and cast with his now totally free hand? If page 121 is true, what's to stop a wizard from running around with a shield? I feel like I'm missing something very obvious here, but I can't put my finger on it. Any help from more experienced DMs is greatly appreciated. Yranuis
cwslyclgh 02-17-05, 03:52 PM	If page 121 is true, what's to stop a wizard from running around with a shield?the arcane spell failure chance. any time you have any item with ASF and you cast a spell with a somatic component you have to make the ASF roll, even if you have a free hand.
Ringrose 02-17-05, 04:10 PM	If you are using the shield you gain the arcane spell failure. You can ready or loose a shield as a move action or as part of one if your BAB is +1 or more. If loose (no AC bonus) then you would not have the Arcane spell failure. A light shield does alow you to hold items (but not use weapons) but I do not think you could use that hand for casting spells. As a move action or free action (just don't know) you could move a weapon to the light shield side to cast spells (its not specifically listed)...The best thing to do...would be to use a Shield Gauntlet from ROS...shield bonus and you can use that hand for Somatic or material Components...
tarkin 02-17-05, 04:12 PM	Clerics typically have to temporarily put their weapon in their shield hand. This is a free action. Wizards can use shields. they suffer the ASF.
Ringrose 02-17-05, 04:36 PM	Clerics typically have to temporarily put their weapon in their shield hand. This is a free action. Wizards can use shields. they suffer the ASF. Tarkin, do you have a Faq you could point too...on the free action to switch hands thinggie... :) Seems a bit much for a free action...switch out the weapon...cast a spell...and then switch it back as another free action...
taltamir 02-17-05, 04:51 PM	clerics are walking gods, the rules don't apply to them.
tarez 02-17-05, 05:47 PM	This was addressed in the erata. I cleric with a light shield can cast a spell with a S component by switching the weapon to their other hand. The erata said perhaps this should be a move action but pretty much leaves what type of action required to the DM. A cleric can not cast a spell that takes a S compoent with they have both a weapon drawn and a HEAVY shield because a heavy shield does not allow you to hold anything else in your free hand.
taltamir 02-17-05, 09:48 PM	they are still casting with only one hand without any penalty.
angryman 02-17-05, 10:03 PM	clerics are walking gods, the rules don't apply to them. Apparently Wizards thinks so! ;)
Yranuis 02-17-05, 10:40 PM	So it sounds like clerics may yet again prove their uber-ness. They can hold a light shield and potentially switch the weapon to the light shield hand as a free action then cast a spell? Well, that I won't allow unless official rules say specifically otherwise (as I said, they're uber enough already). Where is that errata saying they can switch the weapon hand? I'm very big on sticking to the official rules, so clear references are very appreciated (I HATE house rules). Thanks to all you more experienced DMs! Adam P.S. So, there is an arcane spell failure that doesn't apply at all to divine casting. I guess I have to explain it as the cleric simply having a simple prayer to say, but the wizard having to be a friggin' mime (?) when he casts. Thanks WOTC, appreciate the explanation there...
cwslyclgh 02-18-05, 01:27 AM	or how about try to expalin it as the cleric not neding to be as precise in his movements when spell casting... because his god will get the gist of it and respond anyway... while the wizard has to make sure that every thing is perfect because he is calling on the power of the cold uncarring universe itself. they are still casting with only one hand without any penalty anybody can cast with only 1 free hand with out penalty... a wizard can cast just fine holding a staff in one of his hands.
SamiPeikko 02-18-05, 07:14 AM	I remember in an old FAQ about 2 handed weapons that changing your grip from 2 hand (ready to use) to 1 hand (carry only) or back was estimated as a free action. Some rather new ruling, added to latest version of FAQ also adressed changing hands, were it was promised to be "not more than move equivalent", so free action, swift action or move equivalent as ruled by GM. For good way to bypass this debate in your gaming group I recommend Gauntlet of storing. Other solutions Improved unarmed strike (no GMW) and Quick draw feat/Heward's handy haversack (putting item away is still slow) are inferior. For my low level cleric I use several clubs as secondary weapon. You can throw them at enemy if you want to empty your hand. :) And for the mages I recommend mithral buckler as soon as you can comfortably afford it.
sollmn 02-18-05, 09:24 AM	Here is how I rule it. Since your shield hand is taking a weapon from an easy source, your weapon hand, it is like drawing a weapon. Drawing a weapon is either a move action (BAB+0) or merely part of a move action (BAB+1+). The same is thus true of switching a weapon from one hand to another. If you have Quickdraw, you can switch a weapon to either hand as a free hand. Now there is plenty of good reason for a cleric to get a small shield and quickdraw, but then he is loosing the extra shield bonus from a heavy shield and blew a feat. Might be worth it, but it certainly is a balancing trade-off.
Karl of Mystra 02-18-05, 10:14 AM	A cleric with a buckler and a weapon can cast spells using the hand of the arm in which he has the buckler? In fact, I don't understand why should anyone use a light shield. It provides the same AC bonus as a buckler and is far more cumbersome.... :confused:
Ringrose 02-18-05, 10:24 AM	A cleric with a buckler and a weapon can cast spells using the hand of the arm in which he has the buckler? In fact, I don't understand why should anyone use a light shield. It provides the same AC bonus as a buckler and is far more cumbersome.... :confused: I believe you could use it in that fashion...but I would consider you using a weapon in that hand...and you would lose any bonuses from that shield until your next turn... Buckler: This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. 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. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two 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. You can’t bash someone with a buckler.
Karl of Mystra 02-18-05, 10:53 AM	So you can do pretty the same with a small shield and with a bucker, with the difference that with the buckler you have the extra option of casting the spell with that hand, without having to drop or waste a move action switching the weapon hand, and losing the AC bonus. Plus, you can choose to wield your weapon two-handed (and gain 1.5x the strenght bonus to damage, and -1 to attacks). And you cannot shield-bash..... Oooooohh, such a great loss :weep:
sollmn 02-18-05, 11:08 AM	Sometimes you find a +2 Light Shield of Arrow Deflection, so you get rid of your +1 Buckler of nothing. Now, why anyone would make a magic Light Shield as opposed to a Buckler, I don't know.
Karl of Mystra 02-18-05, 11:35 AM	If at least you could do anything interesting better with a small shield than with a buckler, as for example..... I don't ..... maybe parry an attack..... but of course not: you have to have int 13+ and spend a feat to do that (and even then, with a penalty!!), it's just so difficult to grasp the idea of "keep this stuff between the weapon of the adversary and you :plotting: ".....
smrtgmp 02-18-05, 06:19 PM	I generally pick up a mithral buckler for my wizard as soon as I have the extra grand to spare. No ASF and no armor check penalty. Plus you can get it enchanted for a lot cheaper than the other defensive options available to a wizard. If your DM allow Dastanas you can end up with a decent AC.
Yranuis 02-18-05, 07:34 PM	What's a "Dastana"?
taltamir 02-18-05, 07:42 PM	or get a tiny metal disk straped to the back of your arm, about the size of a wristwatch. Enchant it with shield bonuses. It will have a base ASF of 0, a base AC bonus of 0, and a base armor penalty of 0. Even without shield profiecency it will not bother you since it has 0 armor penalty. Once enchanted it will work as a shield though, giving you protection without sacrificing anything (but money). I would call it a mage shield. It would be a shield made purely of force surrounding a tiny disk at the middle.
smrtgmp 02-18-05, 08:20 PM	What's a "Dastana"?They're in the arms and equipment guide. They're basically like fortified arm guards, but they only stack with light armor. You can enchant them, though, so they can end up providing a pretty decent AC bonus. They take up bracer slots, however. Bracers or Armor can provide slightly better protection over all, but at a much higher price.
taltamir 02-18-05, 11:54 PM	thats why i stand by my wristwatch theory.... doesnt take up any slots.
Emir 02-19-05, 07:49 AM	I'm quite sure that a Cleric with a Light Steel Shield could cast a spell with that hand, anyway. And a Wizard with a mithril buckler also has no problem with arcane spell failer, or with a Darkwood Wooden Shield.
taltamir 02-19-05, 07:13 PM	I'm quite sure that a Cleric with a Light Steel Shield could cast a spell with that hand, anyway. And a Wizard with a mithril buckler also has no problem with arcane spell failer, or with a Darkwood Wooden Shield. Actually by the raw it doesnt decrease ASF, only armor penalty... so while it will not affect sneaking or anything else, it will STILL have the same ASF...\ I tried that argument before and it did not go... Stupid if you ask me, but then again, ASF IS VERY stupid by its nature, so its applications should also be stupid.
okpokalypse 02-19-05, 10:35 PM	This was addressed in the erata. I cleric with a light shield can cast a spell with a S component by switching the weapon to their other hand. The erata said perhaps this should be a move action but pretty much leaves what type of action required to the DM. A cleric can not cast a spell that takes a S compoent with they have both a weapon drawn and a HEAVY shield because a heavy shield does not allow you to hold anything else in your free hand. Do you have a link to this? I've read all the errata and never seen anything like this. In many cases for a Cleric, the Material Component is a Divine Focus (DF) - which any smart cleric put on the pommel/head/haft of his weapon or shield - so that he's got a holy symbol held in some form. Somantic components also differ from Mage to Cleric. A Mage uses arcane symbology, material components and specific and precise movements to call forth their power. A Cleric is just channeling the power of his deity and directing it. He's not manipulating magic fields or anything like that, he's just a conductor for his God's will. It stands to reason much less is needed in terms of somantic and material components for a Cleric.
Lana "Silvertongue" 02-20-05, 12:16 AM	If you have the cash to spare as a spellcaster and need a shield, get any shield your proficient with and apply the dancing quality. Also take into consideration that having a shield in the ready (giving AC bonus) and having a shield available are differentiated in either the DMG or PHB [no sources in front of me] so the Cleric can say Buff his entire party before wading into battle, just shifting the shield into proper place is considered part of a move action (ie. drop the shield off your shoulder into your free hand as you move 20 feet then attack, just don't provoke attacks of oppertunity) after you achieve a +1 BAB, at least for the light shield and buckler.
smrtgmp 02-20-05, 04:19 AM	Actually by the raw it doesnt decrease ASF, only armor penalty... so while it will not affect sneaking or anything else, it will STILL have the same ASF...\Incorrect. Check page 284 of your 3.5 DMG. It says, and I quote, "Spell failure chances for armors and shields made from mithral are decreased by 10%..." Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
taltamir 02-20-05, 02:18 PM	if a cleric is just chanelling the energy of their deity how come clerics dont need to worship a deity? and how come they can chanell opposite energies? (ie, harm spells for good clerics). Its really simple, clerics chanell devine power without any effort or reprocussions, they supposedly serve gods, but they dont have to, they are walking gods.
whitelightsaber 02-20-05, 02:47 PM	As for the cleric and his sheild+weapon +casting uberness check out page 157 of races of stone they have an item in there called a sheild gauntlet that allows you to constantly have a free hand while casting a spell even for a large sheild. even carry spell components in it.
taltamir 02-20-05, 03:09 PM	i used as my main weapon in my last game a darkwood light crossbow (mere 2 pounds and only alittle over a foot long).. and i had tied its end to my belt... i would just drop it, and let it fall to my waist, a free action. Then I would combine my move action with a draw action to get out my melee weapon, then i would use my attack action to attack. You can use similiar rules to your advantage... get a tatoo or glove of storing and have it store your SHIELD instead of your weapon. That way you can always store the shield really quick to cast a spell, and then summon it back out afterwards... aslong as its a free action. I might be wrong about it and it might be a standard action in which case it would suck.
okpokalypse 02-21-05, 01:04 AM	if a cleric is just chanelling the energy of their deity how come clerics dont need to worship a deity? and how come they can chanell opposite energies? (ie, harm spells for good clerics). Its really simple, clerics chanell devine power without any effort or reprocussions, they supposedly serve gods, but they dont have to, they are walking gods. I think whomever you DM is needs to keep Clerics in check. Allowing a Cleric full reign of all Domains without the need to follow a deity or need to adhere to a deity's codes/observances is not a failure of the game mechanics, but a failure of the DM to apply proper limits. Incidentally, I thought a Cleric had to decide if they channeled positive or negative energy and henceforth that's what they channeled? Good Clerics by nature are often forced to channel positive, while an evil Cleric will channel negative. Neutral-aligned Clerics are give a choice. In my campaign, in which I play a Good Cleric, I cannot cast any spells that directly channel negative energy (cause wounds, harm, etc) and I must give strict adherance to my Deity's required rituals or potentially lose my spells and turning abilities. Period. I won't argue you one thing though in saying that Mages in general in the d20 universe are gimped. I've made warrior templates that at similar levels have out-damaged any mage in one-to-one confrontations, and I've similarly created Clerics who do both excellent damage and have very good HP, AC and Saves. Mage's are good at crowd-control and large-area damage, but when it comes to fighting a single target they are quite lacking all-in-all. Although, one feat has made Mage's extremely powerful in light of that feat, and that is Arcane Disciple (p79 Complete Divine). As long as a Mage/Sorcerer worships a God with a healing domain, they gain all those spells into their class-lists. This can effectively make a Mage who can heal as well as any Cleric of the same level - which is rather powerful when you think about it. Then you take Spontaneous Healer (p84 Complete Divine), now those are spontaneous too! When you think about it, a Human mage could very well have both of these at 1st level if you've got the skill points in the right spots. So from level 1 you'd really never need a Cleric. With a Spectral Hand as a 2nd level spell, that Healing Mage at 3rd level never need be close to combat, as they can then heal at a 100+ ft Range, and have far superior versatility and damage capacity compared to that of the Cleric. The only thing they'd lack is turning undead. It's just not right.
Karl of Mystra 02-21-05, 04:22 AM	In my campaign, in which I play a Good Cleric, I cannot cast any spells that directly channel negative energy (cause wounds, harm, etc) and I must give strict adherance to my Deity's required rituals or potentially lose my spells and turning abilities. Period. :confused: So the evil guys in your campaign cannot use healing spells!!! Thats great!! Every bad guy that you would find woulb be at 50% of his (/her/ its) hit points !!! Good news for the good guys!!! :D No, seriously, lots of people had been talking about that. :rolleyes: It's simple: Casting a Harm/ Inflict whatever wounds/ Bestow Curse /whatever is NOT an evil act Casting a Heal/ Cure whatever wounds/ Remove Curse / is NOT a good act There is no "evil" descriptor in the description of the spell, thus you can cast them freely. The same with the "Doom" spell.
taltamir 02-21-05, 10:26 AM	and ther RAW specifically say that a cleric does not need to follow a deity. As such, its not a failing of any dm, but a failing of the RAW. I mean heck, clerics and druids are the only two classes with access to ALL epic seeds!
Karl of Mystra 02-21-05, 11:43 AM	Actually I have never heard of anybody playing a deityless (non ur-priest) cleric (In fact the very concept sounds quite contradictory, I can't help but wonder who had it, and how can you seriusly consider it :confused: ). And it's been some time since I last read the epic handbook, but wizards and sorcerers (well, maybe the sorcerers not) with enough ranks in Knowledge (Religion) got access to all the seeds. Here it is, in the SRD: "Spellcasters without at least 24 ranks in Knowledge (religion) or Knowledge (nature) may not use heal or life spell seeds." So in fact anybody with epic spellcasting (except the sorcerers) can use all the epic seeds (even the bards, palladins and rangers!!!) .
taltamir 02-21-05, 01:39 PM	1. well those seeds require a DEVINE FOCUS! Arcanists dont HAVE a devine focus. Thus they cannot cast them. 2. A cleric chooses if he channells positive or negative energy SPONTANOUSLY! doing so either heals or harmspeople and turns or rebukes undead... a cleric has access to all cleric spells regardless of which energy they use. 3. As for deityless clerics, read the PHB page 30: "Some clerics devote themselves not to god but to a cause or a source of devine power." -Now, while a source of devine power that is not a god might be many things, like nature, or some non mere forces (how do you worship non sentient forces? sounds more like manipulating and controlling... like a WIZARD, except they get all the cleric's powers, I am a cleric of magic!) -A cleric may devote itself to a cause... And not worship a god.... here is a "good" cause for an evil cleric of munchikinism: "pillaging, raping, and becomming stronger then anyone else".
Karl of Mystra 02-21-05, 02:10 PM	1. well those seeds require a DEVINE FOCUS! Arcanists dont HAVE a devine focus. Thus they cannot cast them. 1-What is a "devine focus"??? :confused: I am looking in the SRD and I cannot find anything about this, not even in the life and heal seeds. 2- Sure, but no one is discussing this. :rolleyes: Why did you wrote it down? I just don't get the point! 3- I know exactly what the "official" posture about the "godless clerics". But I still have never heard of anyone playing one, and given your reply, it seems that neither have you. My point is that that sentences just should not be there! A godless cleric makes as much sense as a pacifist fighter, a monk without martial arts, a bard who doesn't know how to play a instrument or sing, a druid who has never lived outside a city, a civilised barbarian, a sedentary ranger..... All these are character that could be but no one (or almost no one, it seems) is going to play them, because they simply make no sense. Mmmmm... :lightbulb now that I stop and think about it, some of these characters could be quite funny....
okpokalypse 02-21-05, 02:18 PM	2. A cleric chooses if he channells positive or negative energy SPONTANOUSLY! doing so either heals or harmspeople and turns or rebukes undead... a cleric has access to all cleric spells regardless of which energy they use. From pps 32-33 of the PHB: "Spontaneous Casting: A good cleric (or a neutral cleric of a good deity) can channel stored spell energy into healing spells that the cleric did not prepare ahead of time. The cleric can “lose” any prepared spell that is not a domain spell in order to cast any cure spell of the same spell level or lower (a cure spell is any spell with “cure” in its name). For example, a good cleric who has prepared command (a 1st-level spell) may lose command in order to cast cure light wounds (also a 1st-level spell). Clerics of good deities can cast cure spells in this way because they are especially proficient at wielding positive energy. An evil cleric (or a neutral cleric of an evil deity), on the other hand, can’t convert prepared spells to cure spells but can convert them to inflict spells (an inflict spell is one with “inflict” in its name). A cleric who is neither good nor evil and whose deity is neither good nor evil can convert spells to either cure spells or inflict spells (player’s choice), depending on whether the cleric is more proficient at wielding positive or negative energy. Once the player makes this choice, it cannot be reversed." So there ya go... You're either dictated or have to make a choice of what you can spontaneously cast and you're stuck with it. Period. And from page 30 of the PHB: "A cleric devoted to good and law, for example, may be on friendly terms with the clerics of lawful and good deities and may extol the virtues of a good and lawful life, but he is not a functionary in a church hierarchy." If he must be devoted to Good and Law - then he has to follow those tenets or lose his casting ability. He's bound by greater forces than even the Gods one could suppose - in that he gains his power directly from the force(s) of Good and Law within the world. Deviating from the belief structures of either could have devastating consequences to his abilities. I'm telling you man - it really sounds like you've got a DM who lets Clerics get away with anything... That's not the fault of the System at all. If anything, I think the system gave Mages a serious Leg-up on Clerics when they gave them all their healing abilities through 2 feats... That's kinda jacked up :).
okpokalypse 02-21-05, 02:20 PM	:confused: So the evil guys in your campaign cannot use healing spells!!! Thats great!! Every bad guy that you would find woulb be at 50% of his (/her/ its) hit points !!! Good news for the good guys!!! :D sorry about that - I actually phrased that badly.. I meant spontaneous casting - but it came out all garbled. That's what I get for posting that late :)
taltamir 02-21-05, 09:31 PM	a devine focus is an item all devine casters MUST have when casting any spell that requires a devine focus. Turning or rebuking undead is done by brandishing the devine focus (think a cross or an ankah or a star of david). Only devine casters can use one as a spell component. Spells that are shared by arcanists and devine casters usually have the following components: V, S, M/DF This means that an arcanist has to make gestures, speak, and permanently consume the material components, whichever they are. The devine caster on the other hand only has to pray, make gestures that are not really specific (armor and whatnot doesnt bother them), and brandishes their devine focus instead of paying the material cost! if it says F/DF, which a FEW do, then they replace regular focus with the devine focus.... Yet another thing they are superior on. As far as I can tell those are "costless" ingredients they are replacing though. Ones any mage is assumed to have if they have an ingredient pouch. Anyways, I woud like to point out that its not "my dm" that lets clerics get away with anything, I had more then one DM, and had tried my hand myself. And its all irrelevant, i am talking from pure RAW standpoint, and through judging as if from a DM's perspective. I have never met a DM that allowed a godless cleric... but that IS houseruling to nerf the most uber class of the game.
chonjurer 02-22-05, 03:56 AM	+5 mithral buckler is a wizard's best friend. No ASF, no armor check penalty (and thusly no penalty for being non-proficient) and +6 to AC.
Karl of Mystra 02-22-05, 04:28 AM	Err... If you mean the Holy symbol, I am almost sure that it is a "Divine focus", not a "Devine focus". "Devine" only exists in english as a 3928-people populated town in texas. And I haven't found even the slightest clue about that an epic spell will have to use one. And even if they had, even then I haven't found even the slightest clue about forbidding an arcane spellcaster from using a holy symbol, even with an arcane spell (Does it make sense? I am trying to say that a wizard can cast an epic arcane spell using a holy symbol, there is no reason to believe otherwise) Then, I have never read about any spell with a costly material component that in the divine version doesn't use that costly material component and instead uses the divine focus, and pretty the same for focuses. If you know of someone, please let me know. Oh, and don't forget that every holy symbol also cost something. And usually weights, while focuses do not.
taltamir 02-22-05, 10:31 AM	technically ALL epic seeds are based on an actual SPELL that a character can cast, this is SUPPOSED to cause a variation in the base DC for different classes casting the same seed, and prevent certain classes from using certain seeds. Also, it specifically says that healing spells can only use divine energies and not arcane ones. I recommend you reread the following: PHB section of wizards, clerics, druids, bards, and sorcerers. Epic book section about magic. Don't just read the seed descriptions, read the part where it explains how magic works and what can and cannot be done with it!
Heron_Marked_Blade 02-22-05, 11:32 AM	+5 mithral buckler is a wizard's best friend. No ASF, no armor check penalty (and thusly no penalty for being non-proficient) and +6 to AC. I prefer the Bracers of Armor +8 combined with a +5 heavy fortification mithral buckler of greater <elemental> resistance. Add as many +gp enhancements as you wish. +6 shield bonus to AC, 100% immunity to sneak attacks and critical hits, and DR 30 to an elemental damage type. Not too shabby, though expensive.
Karl of Mystra 02-22-05, 01:56 PM	technically ALL epic seeds are based on an actual SPELL that a character can cast I agree. , this is SUPPOSED to cause a variation in the base DC for different classes casting the same seed, and prevent certain classes from using certain seeds. :noway: As far as I can read in the SRD, all the epic spells and seeds have a FIXED DC to cast. And the only condition about using any seed is: "Spells containing the life or heal seed are typically only available to those with 24 or more ranks in Knowledge (religion) or Knowledge (nature)." Also, it specifically says that healing spells can only use divine energies and not arcane ones. I recommend you reread the following: PHB section of wizards, clerics, druids, bards, and sorcerers. Epic book section about magic. Don't just read the seed descriptions, read the part where it explains how magic works and what can and cannot be done with it! It seems that I am losing something here. It's been some time since I reviewed the Epic book for the last time, could you be more specific (pages, chapters or anything?). Even then, when I read it, I finished with the idea that wizards could heal and resurrect with epic spellcasting (provided that they had enough ranks in knowledge religion). And you are defending the thesis that if a class cannot cast a spell that provokes some effect, then there is no way of them to provide that effect, aren't you? (I mean, wizards can't cast healing spells, so there is no way of making them craft any kind of magical healing) Bracers of Armor +8 combined with a +5 heavy fortification mithral buckler of greater <elemental> resistance I don't think so. The bonus to AC provided by a shield only stacks with phisical armor, not with the armor spell / Bracers of defence / Etc. Sorry but your wizards seem to be losing some points of AC!!!
Heron_Marked_Blade 02-22-05, 02:03 PM	I don't think so. The bonus to AC provided by a shield only stacks with phisical armor, not with the armor spell / Bracers of defence / Etc. Sorry but your wizards seem to be losing some points of AC!!! The point is not to gain an AC bonus from the buckler. The point is to gain the special abilities of the buckler (i.e. heavy fortification, elemental resistance, etc.). However, the buckler must be enchanted with a +1 enhancement bonus before such abilities can be placed on it. So you're getting your AC bonus from the bracers, and then spending +1 enhancement bonus in order to benefit from +9-worth of special abilities. Makes sense to me.
Karl of Mystra 02-22-05, 02:29 PM	Oh, sure it does, but you don't need even a buckler for that. You can enchant a robe (or a T-shirt, or your underwear, if it is big enough!) that way, and you will have even more space for enchantements (simple clothes could be enchanted with +5 fortification, etc....). Taltamir idea of enchanting a small disc is much better than using a buckler: The disc can be worn below clothes and no one will even notice it, it doesn't weight and is cheaper! All this, of course, if you don't mind being called a Munching by everone (and me the first). A wizard with a buckler??? Come on!!! :rolleyes: That's as awful as the people who say that "the Craft staff feat is far better than the Craft wand", and then they make lots of them and go around carrying 20 staffs in their backpacks!!! I definitely propose eliminating the XP per combat and award the experience only for storytelling and history matters. That way we will take away all the munchkinism. Well, or at least the 95% of it.
Heron_Marked_Blade 02-22-05, 02:50 PM	All this, of course, if you don't mind being called a Munching by everone (and me the first). A wizard with a buckler??? Come on!!! :rolleyes:Are you suggesting that the martial Wizard PrCs are munchkin PrCs? The Raumathari Battlemage, for example? The Bladesinger? :nonono: I'll pretend you didn't say this.... That's as awful as the people who say that "the Craft staff feat is far better than the Craft wand", and then they make lots of them and go around carrying 20 staffs in their backpacks!!!Don't you think spellcasters would realize that staves are far more efficient, in terms of what they put into them (gold, XP) versus what they get out (use their own caster level, higher level spells), than wands are? What's wrong with carrying multiple staves around? I hope you're not suggesting that Archers who use the Efficient Quiver to carry around lots of different types of arrows in order to defeat different types of DR, are munchkins. :nonono: I'll pretend you didn't say this.... I definitely propose eliminating the XP per combat and award the experience only for storytelling and history matters. That way we will take away all the munchkinism. Well, or at least the 95% of it. An interesting idea. You'll have to let me know how that goes. Incidentally, D&D is inherently a meta-game. Metagaming is required in order for the game to even proceed. Why? Because we aren't really 'elven sorcerers' or 'dwarven fighters'. We are human beings who live in the real world, and who make logical decisions in the context of what WE (not our characters) know about the game (the rules-driven set of mechanics we call 'D&D') in order to create the story (i.e. WE level up the characters, and WE determine what our characters do, and WE follow a set of rules that exist outside of the characters' world). So don't be too hasty to jump on effective decision-making and label it "munchkin." By that definition, creating a Wizard who won't die the first time he fights a goblin is "munchkin."
smrtgmp 02-22-05, 03:03 PM	I don't think so. The bonus to AC provided by a shield only stacks with phisical armor, not with the armor spell / Bracers of defence / Etc. Sorry but your wizards seem to be losing some points of AC!!!Where on earth are you getting this? The source of an armor bonus to AC is irrelevant. An armor bonus is an armor bonus is an armor bonus. It doesnt matter if it comes from mage armor, full plate, or bracers of armor. If what you are saying is true, than Mage Armor and Shield dont stack, which obviously isnt the case. Also, what the hell is so "Munchkinish" about a wizard with a buckler? Why wouldnt the most intelligent people on the planet do what they could to add to their meager physical defenses? If you were a wizard and had the option to provide yourself with better defense at a reasonable price, would you take it? Or would you say "I dont think so, it really doesnt fit the paradigm" and leave yourself more vulnerable to attack? If you went with the latter, you arent exactly playing your 18+int too well.
okpokalypse 02-22-05, 03:22 PM	Where on earth are you getting this? The source of an armor bonus to AC is irrelevant. An armor bonus is an armor bonus is an armor bonus. It doesnt matter if it comes from mage armor, full plate, or bracers of armor. If what you are saying is true, than Mage Armor and Shield dont stack, which obviously isnt the case. Agreed. There are certain groups of AC. AC Armor AC Shield Deflection AC Natural AC Dodge AC Luck AC Insight AC etc... With the exception of Dodge AC, you cannot stack AC effects of the SAME TYPE. In other Words, A Mithril Chain Shirt +4 Offers a total of +8 AC Armor. This cannot be stacked with Bracers AC 6. The higher single bonus of any one AC type takes precedence. If you were a Psion and used a Buckler +2 for 3 Pts of Shield AC, and then manifested a level-1 Force Screen (4 AC, Shield) - the effects do not stack, only the greater (in this case, the Force Screen) is used. The same is true for stat-enhancers. If you got a +2 Morale Bonus to Strength, then got a Bull's Strength (+4 Enhancement Bonus) and lastly got an Enlarge (+2 Size Bonus) - these would all stack as they're different types. However, a Ring of Strength +4 and a Bull's Strength Spell would not stack as they're both Enhancement Bonuses.
smrtgmp 02-22-05, 04:03 PM	Nicely summed up there okpokalypse. The main thing to remember is that different types of bonuses stack, regardless of the source.
chonjurer 02-22-05, 04:35 PM	The issue is that at one point the FAQ said that the armor bonuses from Mage Armor and shields don't stack. I'm not sure of the current FAQism as I haven't rooted through it for a while, but that was the last ruling I saw. [Edit] 3.0 FAQ, pg. 29 specifically states that shields and mage armor do not stack. The 3.5 FAQ doesn't say anything to the contrary (it doesn't mention the issue at all), so the rules still applies AFAIK.
smrtgmp 02-22-05, 04:52 PM	Thats a pretty lame interpretation of the rules on the part of whoever wrote the FAQ. It doesn't differentiate between different types of armor bonuses in the core rulebooks (at least not that I've seen) so thats what I will continue to go by. edit: Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't shields provide an armor bonus in 3.0? It just happened to stack with an armor bonus from a suit of armor. In 3.5 shields provide a shield bonus to AC, so IMO the FAQ would not apply. The 3.5 rules specifically state that different types of AC bonuses stack. There is no mention of an exception.
Ringrose 02-22-05, 04:56 PM	Actually in the 3.0 faq...it states that shields give an armor bonus... ...in 3.5 SRD it states that shields now give a shield bonus to AC...that older FAQ is outdated and no longer valid... ...a shield (or shield spell) will stack with mage armor or bracers of armor...
Karl of Mystra 02-23-05, 04:46 AM	+5 mithral buckler is a wizard's best friend Are you suggesting that the martial Wizard PrCs are munchkin PrCs? The Raumathari Battlemage, for example? The Bladesinger? :nonono: I'll pretend you didn't say this.... As you can see, no one was speaking about martial wizards PrC. I have no problem with fighter/wizards carrying shields (They have been there from the 1st edition D&D elves , after all). But a pure wizard carrying a shield is just as ridiculous as dwarves using long or two-handed swords (Even after "The Hobbit", Mr. Tolkien: What were you thinking about??) Don't you think spellcasters would realize that staves are far more efficient, in terms of what they put into them (gold, XP) versus what they get out (use their own caster level, higher level spells), than wands are? What's wrong with carrying multiple staves around? I hope you're not suggesting that Archers who use the Efficient Quiver to carry around lots of different types of arrows in order to defeat different types of DR, are munchkins. :nonono: I'll pretend you didn't say this.... The problem with carrying multiple staves is that even when the rules allow it, it suppose carrying around lots of sticks with a lenght between 4 and 6 feet. HOW are you going to carry 20 of them? In your back? And you will detach them each time that you want to sit or crouch? You will look like carrying a lot of timber in your back!! Oh, sure, you can put them in a bag of holding or something similar, but that is like begging for someone to pick-pocket them :D !!!! Munchkin (noun), 1: (considered derogatory) A player who creates an extremely unbalanced and over-powered character by using ludicrous loopholes in the rules or by outright breaking them. 2: (considered derogatory) A player whose gaming style the user of the term disapproves of; often including, but not limited to, power gamers, min/maxers, Monty Haulers, hack’n slashers, metagamers, rules lawyers and/or twinks. 3: A young gamer. Etymology: Modern American, refers to a race of midgets in The Wizard of Oz. But the really surprising part of your post is this one : Incidentally, D&D is inherently a meta-game. Metagaming is required in order for the game to even proceed. Why? Because we aren't really 'elven sorcerers' or 'dwarven fighters'. We are human beings who live in the real world, and who make logical decisions in the context of what WE (not our characters) know about the game (the rules-driven set of mechanics we call 'D&D') in order to create the story (i.e. WE level up the characters, and WE determine what our characters do, and WE follow a set of rules that exist outside of the characters' world). WOW, you work in real life as an advocate or as a politician, don't you? And you are using the first technique in the "How to be a lawyer" book, in the "How to defend an point". First, you give an speech trying to say more or less what everyone thinks, and then: So don't be too hasty to jump on effective decision-making and label it "munchkin." By that definition, creating a Wizard who won't die the first time he fights a goblin is "munchkin." When you have everybody agreeing with you, you attack twisting my arguments, in the hope that the people will be so weak-willed that they will agree with you!!! I mean.... that was really interesting! :D You are trying to use psychology while posting in the forums!! Waw, I am really impressed! It's a pity that the D&D is so combat-based, with your political habilities you will make a superb roleplayer!! And you final conclusions are: You are saying that using "my definition" :confused: every roleplaying game (I mean, in every roleplaying game we are not playing ourselves) is "inherently a meta-game", blahblahblahblah, and thus: - I am wrong when I say that some options are ridiculous (When I use that word, I mean that those characters LOOK ridiculous), even when the rules allow them (Wizards with shields, Dwarves with 2-handed swords, etc....) -You are right because you say that I am totally wrong, and you are bold enough to even defend the munchkinism in D&D as a necessary part of it!!!! Well, really, I am impressed!
Heron_Marked_Blade 02-23-05, 09:17 AM	- I am wrong when I say that some options are ridiculous (When I use that word, I mean that those characters LOOK ridiculous), even when the rules allow them (Wizards with shields, Dwarves with 2-handed swords, etc....)Just because your preconception of what a Wizard "should look like" doesn't match the way some individuals play the Wizard class does NOT mean that they are "ridiculous." Not every wizard has to be the pointy-hat-wearing, absent-minded stereotype you might be thinking of, and for you to laugh at a different character concept is as "ridiculous" as if you were to say that all Fighters must wear heavy armor and carry a shield, and any other type of Fighter is "ridiculous." -You are right because you say that I am totally wrong, and you are bold enough to even defend the munchkinism in D&D as a necessary part of it!!!!Is it not? I haven't seen you prove me wrong yet. But feel free to do so. This is a public forum, a marketplace of ideas, and the give and take of dialogue is what makes [most of] us better people. Well, really, I am impressed! It's a gift. I don't talk about it much. :whatsthis
taltamir 02-23-05, 11:06 AM	my last wizard used the following weapon: Rauch (enunciated: RA-oo-‘ch’): Rauch is a masterwork longspear; its shaft is made of darkwood, and its head is made of steel and is coated with alchemical silver. The head weighs about one pound, and the shaft weighs 4 pounds. It was crafted to the exact specification of its owner, Sheifar, and it has a miniature version of his arcane mark physically etched on the each side of the head, as well as on the butt of the shaft. There is an actual invisible arcane mark spell cast upon each of the etchings, causing them to glow in the eyes of those with a penchant for magic. Sheifar has been meticulously carving arcane, obscure, and impressive symbols over the body of the shaft. Those carry no enchantments or magical powers, but are impressive to look at. The carvings don’t cover the whole of the shaft though. The arcane mark is carved at the butt of the shaft, after which there are 6 inches of smooth wood; at that point there is a circular band carved into the wood. There is another segment, more to the middle of the shaft, where an untouched segment of the shaft is separated by two similar circular bands. Everything in-between is covered in intricate carvings. The carvings are all very light, as to not unbalance the weapon. Important statistics: Base Weapon: Masterwork Longspear Damage: 1d8-1x3/20 Weight: 5 lbs Damage Type: piercing. Material: darkwood and alchemical silver (over steel) Base price: 405GP (5, spear + 300, MW + 80, darkwood + 20, alchemical silver) He also was a mute (he didnt get any bonuses to compensate, or any special feat selections to be proficient with the spear, instead he used his own feats.. first feat for getting silent spell). He didnt wear dresses like a wizard is "supposed to" either, he wore adventuring clothing... He was stronger then average and more hardy then average. On first look, he didnt look anything like a wizard, he was one though, a very cool one.
Karl of Mystra 02-23-05, 01:38 PM	Just because your preconception of what a Wizard "should look like" doesn't match the way some individuals play the Wizard class does NOT mean that they are "ridiculous." Not every wizard has to be the pointy-hat-wearing, absent-minded stereotype you might be thinking of, and for you to laugh at a different character concept is as "ridiculous" as if you were to say that all Fighters must wear heavy armor and carry a shield, and any other type of Fighter is "ridiculous." +5 mithral buckler is a wizard's best friend What you guys are nearly proposing is that EVERY wizard should get his own buckler!!!! The reason for my objection is that you are not basing the use of the Buckler in the character concept, but in the advantage that the character numerically gets! Taltamir's character is a good example of how to do things: First, he gets an idea and later use the rules to achieve it, not otherwise. A friend of mine has the idea of making a wizard who carries heavy armor: No problem, with the 3.0 (or 3.5) edition, he gets the still spell and everything is OK! And he gets a really original and cool character! I really liked that idea!! (How can this happen with my "preconception of what a Wizard "should look like""??? Or maybe it could be that this preconception doesn't exist??) But what reason do your "characters" have for carrying a buckler, besides "it gives a +whatever to AC"???? (My example of dwarves using longswords came from the AD&D, in which the longsword was the best one-handed weapon) But feel free to do so. This is a public forum, a marketplace of ideas, and the give and take of dialogue is what makes [most of] us better people. :weep: OOOOWWWWW How wonderful..... :D
Scarlet Knight 02-23-05, 02:28 PM	Not only does a cleric need to have one hand free to cast spells with a somatic component, he also needs to have a divine focus in his other hand to cast many of his spells! Most players and DMs don't worry about how many free hands clerics have, though, so in most groups the cleric character goes around with a mace in one hand, a large shield in another hand, a holy symbol in another hand, and another hand giving a big high five to Pelor!
tarez 02-23-05, 03:20 PM	Do you have a link to this? I've read all the errata and never seen anything like this. In many cases for a Cleric, the Material Component is a Divine Focus (DF) - which any smart cleric put on the pommel/head/haft of his weapon or shield - so that he's got a holy symbol held in some form. Somantic components also differ from Mage to Cleric. A Mage uses arcane symbology, material components and specific and precise movements to call forth their power. A Cleric is just channeling the power of his deity and directing it. He's not manipulating magic fields or anything like that, he's just a conductor for his God's will. It stands to reason much less is needed in terms of somantic and material components for a Cleric. Sorry for the late reply..... the offical 3.5 FAQ page 4, top right hand side of the page. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a There is the link to the page :) My DM says that my cleric has to drop his morningstar to cast spells. Is he right? Yes and no. To cast a spell with a somatic (S) component, you must gesture freely with at least one hand. (Player’s Handbook, page 140) A cleric (or any caster, for that matter) who holds a weapon in one hand and wears a heavy shield on the other arm doesn’t have a hand free to cast a spell with a somatic component (which includes most spells in the game). To cast such a spell, the character must either drop or sheathe his weapon. Another simple option is for the cleric to carry a buckler or light shield instead of a heavy shield. The buckler leaves one hand free for spellcasting, and you don’t even lose the buckler’s shield bonus to AC when casting with that hand. The light shield doesn’t give you a free hand for spellcasting, but since you can hold an item in the same hand that holds the light shield, you could switch your weapon to that hand to free up a hand for spellcasting. (You can’t use the weapon while it’s held in the same hand as your shield, of course.) The rules don’t state what type of action is required to switch hands on a weapon, but it seems reasonable to assume that it’s the equivalent of drawing a weapon (a move action that doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity).
okpokalypse 02-23-05, 04:00 PM	That's pretty rough. Personally, I disagree with that - but if it's in the rules, it's in the rules. By the same token, I wonder how that messes with a Mage wielding a 2-handed weapon? Or what about those dual-wand wielders? Or Dagger/Wand Mages who like to have a Wand readied? When a Mage reads a scroll, does he have to put away all weapons, being he needs two hands? Does a Potion-Quaffing warrior need to sheathe his weapon (move action), ready a potion (move action) and only then drink the potion (standard action) to draw the weapon again (move action)? I dunno - for a game that likes to dummy-down the intracacies of combat as much as possible (see initiative as a perfect example) I think this kind of goes against the grain. The idea of forcing a mage to disarm to read a scroll, or for a cleric to drop a shield/weapon to channel his deity's power seems like it's getting a bit cumbersome all in all. And if you're telling me a Paladin needs to drop his Sword and/or Heavy Shield to call upon his Deity's power, then I'm just lost at the thought process that has occurred to come to that conclusion. If you want realism, bring back the 2.0 Combat & Tactics and Spells & Powers rules. Those were the most realistic, and incidentally, most cumbersome DnD combat system rules they've had.
okpokalypse 02-23-05, 04:01 PM	Not only does a cleric need to have one hand free to cast spells with a somatic component, he also needs to have a divine focus in his other hand to cast many of his spells! Most players and DMs don't worry about how many free hands clerics have, though, so in most groups the cleric character goes around with a mace in one hand, a large shield in another hand, a holy symbol in another hand, and another hand giving a big high five to Pelor! It's very easy to incorporate one's Holy Symbol into their Weapon and/or Shield. So counting a free hand for Holy Symbol is often not needed.
smrtgmp 02-23-05, 05:27 PM	@ Karl of Mystra Instead of belittling those who like to equip their wizards with bucklers, why dont you present a good reason they shouldn't use them. They are a cheap, efficient way to protect yourself. What wizard wouldnt want that? The paradigms and traditions of past editions have been all but cast aside, and you have no right to insult other players simply because they play the game in a different fashion than you. Furthermore, the quote you provided from the dictionary of termanology specifically states that the term munchkin is "concidered derogatory." That means that you are aware of the fact that it is an insult. Are you also aware that hurling around such remarks is a violation of the CoC? If not, I give you fair warning. Keep it up and I'll report you. It shouldn't be too hard to express your opoinion without being overly derisive. The problem with carrying multiple staves is that even when the rules allow it, it suppose carrying around lots of sticks with a lenght between 4 and 6 feet. HOW are you going to carry 20 of them? In your back? And you will detach them each time that you want to sit or crouch? You will look like carrying a lot of timber in your back!! Oh, sure, you can put them in a bag of holding or something similar, but that is like begging for someone to pick-pocket them !!!!Keep them in a Quiver of Ehlonna. As far as using sleight of hand to rob a bag of holding is concerned, good luck. First of all, you have no idea what is in the bag, which means you would have to rummage through it if you wanted to steal anything in particular. Have fun digging through a high level wizards possessions for multiple rounds. If thats not enough, the sleight of hand skill can be used to lift a small object from a personI wouldnt call a staff a small object, but maybe thats just me. Finally, any wizard powerful enough to have multiple staves will also have the resources to protect them. My 19th level Abjurer has all of his valuable possessions protected by Imprisonment traps. Have fun making that DC 35 Will save.
taltamir 02-23-05, 06:04 PM	mmm, but I pride myself on my leet munchikinism skills... which I dont practice in games heavy on roleplaying but enjoy brushing up on in games heavy on hack and slash.
Scarlet Knight 02-23-05, 09:21 PM	It's very easy to incorporate one's Holy Symbol into their Weapon and/or Shield. So counting a free hand for Holy Symbol is often not needed.True, but very often in my experience clerics don't even bother to incorporate their symbols onto their shields. A lot of DMs ignore or forget to enforce component rules, so cleric players just go around casting spells with no hands free and their divine focus stowed away in their backpacks.
Ringrose 02-23-05, 10:46 PM	Not only does a cleric need to have one hand free to cast spells with a somatic component, he also needs to have a divine focus in his other hand to cast many of his spells! You just need one hand free to cast spells...so switching your weapon to your shield hand (a move action) or using a buckler or Shield Gauntlet (RoS) with a weapon in the other hand are viable options... Since manipulating a material component (including a focus) is part of casting the spell, it's best to consider the hand that holds the material component or focus as "free" for purposes of completing a somatic component.
Scarlet Knight 02-23-05, 11:22 PM	Did not know that! Thank you.
taltamir 02-23-05, 11:30 PM	well.... is it allowed to do such a thing as incorporate the holy symbol to their shield? i mean if that is possible why not just TATTO the holy symbol on themselves and be done with it.... I would expect a cleric to have their holy symbol on ALL their equipment, but that it could not act as a devine focus unless is stands by itself.
Karl of Mystra 02-24-05, 02:50 PM	you are bold enough to even defend the munchkinism in D&D as a necessary part of it!!!! Is it not? the term munchkin is "concidered derogatory." (...)Are you also aware that hurling around such remarks is a violation of the CoC? mmm, but I pride myself on my leet munchikinism skills :confused: So munchkinism in an insult or not? Could you please agree on that? Well, when I call someone a munchking I do not do it with the intend of insulting, it is suposed to be more a reminder to that person, a "take care, you are going too far with the min/maxing". I don't think that someone could have any reason for beign offended by that. But no problem, from now onwards I will use the expression "Advantage player". So I say, "gamers who take decisions for their players basing themselves in the advantage provided by the rules instead of the role / looks / background of their characters are advantage players" :evillaugh Well, back to other questions: Most players and DMs don't worry about how many free hands clerics have, though, so in most groups the cleric character goes around with a mace in one hand, a large shield in another hand, a holy symbol in another hand, and another hand giving a big high five to Pelor! Absolutetly true: Sometimes I have found myself the only player in a team who worried about taking any kind of actions to get a free hand for casting spells!!! And even not beign a pure-caster, when there were some of them in the group!! I wonder how that messes with a Mage wielding a 2-handed weapon Well, wizards have been all the time wielding staffs (which are 2-handed weapons) and casting spells without problem... When a Mage reads a scroll, does he have to put away all weapons, being he needs two hands? Good question, I have no idea about how the rules manage this... Instead of belittling those who like to equip their wizards with bucklers, why dont you present a good reason they shouldn't use them. They are a cheap, efficient way to protect yourself. What wizard wouldnt want that? Any wizard who belives that his/her magic is poweful enough to protect them without having an object that they do not know how to use efficiently strapped to his/her forearm (which at lest weights 2.5 pounds) all the day, leaving the arm (and them) so tired (even more if you have a low constitution or strenght) that could make them unable to cast a spell that could be vital? And even more, casting a spell that duplicates the buckler shouldn't be so difficult (for example, "Shield") Yes, I know, the rules say that a 1st level wizard use the buckler as well as an epic fighter (no joking here, its true!!!), and that you can carry your shield all the day without tiring, I am sorry, but whatever decision that I make for a character includes trying to apply the common sense, the background and personality of the character and these kind of things that are not in the rules. I can't prevent it, for me its as important as the ruling, if you dislike it please just pay me no attention. Keep them in a Quiver of Ehlonna A Quiver of Ehlonna is made to keep arrow and javelins. I am afraid that staff is far bigger (and longer) than both of them. (At least, in my idea of a magic staff, which are the ones in "The Lord of the Rings" movies) any wizard powerful enough to have multiple staves will also have the resources to protect them Have you ever heard of dead-magic zones? There was where I lost my beloved and new Boots of Speed, (Surrendering because if I didn't do so the bad guys will kill the other players), even when I never made use of them :weep: . And we were using still the 3.0 haste :banghead:
smrtgmp 02-24-05, 03:28 PM	A Quiver of Ehlonna is made to keep arrow and javelins. I am afraid that staff is far bigger (and longer) than both of them. (At least, in my idea of a magic staff, which are the ones in "The Lord of the Rings" movies) Lets take a look at the item description, shall we? Efficient Quiver: This appears to be a typical arrow container capable of holding about twenty arrows. It has three distinct portions, each with a nondimensional space allowing it to store far more than would normally be possible. The first and smallest one can contain up to sixty objects of the same general size and shape as an arrow. The second slightly longer compartment holds up to eighteen objects of the same general size and shape as a javelin. The third and longest portion of the case contains as many as six objects of the same general size and shape as a bow (spears, staffs, or the like). Once the owner has filled it, the quiver can produce any item she wishes, as if from a regular quiver or scabbard. The efficient quiver weighs the same no matter what’s placed inside it. Note the bolded text above. Seems to me the quiver would work. Any wizard who belives that his/her magic is poweful enough to protect them without having an object that they do not know how to use efficiently strapped to his/her forearm (which at lest weights 2.5 pounds) all the day, leaving the arm (and them) so tired (even more if you have a low constitution or strenght) that could make them unable to cast a spell that could be vital? And even more, casting a spell that duplicates the buckler shouldn't be so difficult (for example, "Shield")So in other words wizards who are too arrogant to compensate for a glaring weakness. I dont think the 1 pound mithral buckler is going to weigh you down. The sleeve of your robe probably weighs more. Shield lasts for a few minutes at a time and can be dispelled. Your buckler isnt going anywhere (sundering aside). ...whatever decision that I make for a character includes trying to apply the common sense, the background and personality of the character and these kind of things that are not in the rules. I can't prevent it, for me its as important as the ruling, if you dislike it please just pay me no attention.So using a buckler goes against common sense? How so? What if the character concept I have for my wizard is someone who is practical to a fault, who attempts to prepare for every situation imaginable, who weighs each decision carefully before commiting to an action? Why wouldn't he have a buckler? Wizards are, by there very nature, planners. Everything about the class requires forethought (which is why its one of my favorites). That being the case, what happens if you are attacked and you've already used up your spells for the day (a very real possibility for a low-mid level wizo)? In that case, you will be glad you have that sliver of metal inbetween you and your enemy. It might just save your life. Have you ever heard of dead-magic zones? Ever heard of Dues ex Machina? Dead-magic zones are rare at best, and are most likely used by the DM as a plot device. Not exactly a compelling argument. But since you brought them up, they are acutally a very good reason to carry a buckler. Your mithral buckler (which only weighs 1 lb, BTW, not the 2.5 you said) will work just fine when your magic doesnt.