Post/Author/DateTime	Post
roonechr 06-30-05, 05:20 PM	I asked this question to customer support and although they were very helpful in providing an answer they admitted that in truth it was a judgment call and really up to the DM. Well, I'm the DM and I would really prefer to have an answer that reflected the intention of the designers. The question was: “Several of the special abilities of the Bladesinger prestige class in Complete Warrior (page 18) state ‘When wielding a longsword or rapier in one hand (and nothing in the other)…’ According to the PHB (p.124) a buckler is 'strapped to your forearm' leaving the hand free to cast spells or even to wield weapons. Does a Buckler count as being 'in' the hand for the purpose of the Bladesinger’s special abilities or can she use these abilities when wielding a buckler?” First, what do you guys think? Second, any chance of getting a designer to clarify this?
wonlee76 06-30-05, 05:42 PM	I've ruled that the operative word is "wield." As long as you're not wielding something in the other hand, then the bladesinger ability works fine. So a buckler does not interfere with this ability since its not being wielded.
striderII 06-30-05, 06:05 PM	Well, my thoughts on the subject are this. 1. The bladesinger cannot have anything in their off hand. Obviously, something like two weapon fighting is right out. A buckler (at least by D&D terminology, but that's a different matter), is not in the hand, but on the arm - as was already mentioned. 2. From this, we can presume that this off hand is needed to actually perform some sort of action for at least some of these abilities (say, spellcasting or whatever). 3. Hence we get to my ruling, which would be: so long as the character does not use the buckler for *anything* (including adding to their AC), it would not interfere with the abilities of the bladesinger class. Sorry if that seems a bit...odd or anything. Just wanted to share the thought process with you. strider
roonechr 06-30-05, 06:42 PM	StriderII, you are entitled to your opinion but I don't really understand how you come to that. One of the specific advantages of a buckler is that the hand can be used for spellcasting. This is stated in the FAQ: "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." Because a buckler allows the hand to be used for spellcasting or to wield a weapon I would lean towards letting the Bladesinger use it. However, I am not certain that is what was intended because the designers failed to say why the hand must be free to use those special abilities.
ssvegeta555 06-30-05, 07:00 PM	However, I am not certain that is what was intended because the designers failed to say why the hand must be free to use those special abilities. I've always wondered that myself.
striderII 06-30-05, 07:47 PM	StriderII, you are entitled to your opinion but I don't really understand how you come to that. One of the specific advantages of a buckler is that the hand can be used for spellcasting. This is stated in the FAQ: "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." Because a buckler allows the hand to be used for spellcasting or to wield a weapon I would lean towards letting the Bladesinger use it. However, I am not certain that is what was intended because the designers failed to say why the hand must be free to use those special abilities. Well, I'm one who is of the opinion that the rules are there when common sense fails. Common sense, to me, says that if my bladesinger is concentrating on using a buckler to defend himself (and, let me tell you, using a buckler is like using a parrying weapon, mostly, rather than a shield to stand behind), then his concentration is, well, concentrated too much on using his shield, and is therefore unable to do something else with it. If he wants to do something else, then he can't effectively concentrate on putting that buckler between himself and injury. That all being said, I must ask: you come here, ask for opinions, then essentially tell me that I'm wrong? If you'd already figured out an answer, what were you asking us for? I don't mean to be an ass in this particular case (although I don't promise that in general), but I'm honestly curious. strider
roonechr 06-30-05, 08:43 PM	Well, I'm one who is of the opinion that the rules are there when common sense fails. The issue is here is that there are no rules that answer this question. Common sense, to me, says that if my bladesinger is concentrating on using a buckler to defend himself (and, let me tell you, using a buckler is like using a parrying weapon, mostly, rather than a shield to stand behind), then his concentration is, well, concentrated too much on using his shield, and is therefore unable to do something else with it. If he wants to do something else, then he can't effectively concentrate on putting that buckler between himself and injury. Although I'm certain that you are confident in your assessment of how a buckler is used the rules do not support it. The rules allow you to use the hand for spellcasting and still retain the bonus to AC. This supports that idea that that whatever it is that the Bladesinger needs that hand for can be accomplished while wearing a buckler and benefiting from its AC bonus as well. Unfortunately this is inconclusive because we do not know what the Bladesinger needs the hand for and the rules do not explicitly state what "nothing in the other" hand means. must ask: you come here, ask for opinions, then essentially tell me that I'm wrong? If you'd already figured out an answer, what were you asking us for? I apologize for the manner in which I responded to your statements. That said, I posted here looking for a discussion of the question with input from other people experienced with the rules and I value arguments supported by examples from the rules as opposed to simply statements of opinion. edit - spelling
striderII 06-30-05, 11:41 PM	The issue is here is that there are no rules that answer this question. Although I'm certain that you are confident in your assessment of how a buckler is used the rules do not support it. The rules allow you to use the hand for spellcasting and still retain the bonus to AC. This supports that idea that that whatever it is that the Bladesinger needs that hand for can be accomplished while wearing a buckler and benefiting from its AC bonus as well. Unfortunately this is inconclusive because we do not know what the Bladesinger needs the hand for and the rules do not explicitly state what "nothing in the other" hand means. I apologize for the manner in which I responded to your statements. That said, I posted here looking for a discussion of the question with input from other people experienced with the rules and I value arguments supported by examples from the rules as opposed to simply statements of opinion. edit - spelling Okay, now you've throughly confused me. There are (by your own statement) no rules to handle this situation, and yet, you want an answer with examples from the rules - despite the fact that there are no rules on the subject. Neatly circular, but entirely not helpful. That's why I said that when the rules fail (ie. there are no rules to adequately cover the situation), then common sense must prevail. First of all, my training with a buckler tells me two things. 1. The game designers really meant a target shield when they said buckler. Bucklers are held in the hand. This is a bit nitpicky on my part, because I'm sure historically that there was a bit of overlap in terminology, but I'll stick with this one for the sake of consistancy. Therefore, by this accepted assignment of terminology, a target shield (ala D&D buckler) is strapped to the forearm, but is used in the same relative manner as a buckler - i.e., it must be consciously moved to intercept or to bat away the attacking weapon, etc. This, I feel, constitutes a certain degree of concentration, which would obviously preclude any other action. Meaning, that if the bladesinger would want to claim the buckler's AC bonus (which, I need to check, but doesn't it only apply to one attack anyway, therefore supporting the "more of a parry object" stance I'm taking?), then they could not therefore perform any action that actually requires the use of their off hand (say, for the somatic component of a spell). If an action wouldn't obviously require the use of a hand....perhaps it's supposed to be for balance or something, I don't know. This is when a DM uses his common sense. Not everything is covered by the rules. 2. The rules, largely in regards to the weapons, don't make a damn bit of sense, at least from an IC standpoint. Even completely ignoring the obvious anachronisms that pop up (which are generally fine, because otherwise they may end up with a depressingly short list of weapons to use, on the whole), there are a lot of things that don't make sense. For instance, bucklers (real ones, not what D&D calls a buckler; see my definitions above) were definitely used to shield bash - specifically, in the face, usually to smash the opponent's nose, teeth, etc, in a duel. All I've been saying (and you've apparently agreed), is that the rules are unclear on this point. Therefore, as I've said (although I'm not sure you agree), you must extrapolate and use common sense. Not every answer is going to be found in a rulebook, or by a rule. Sometimes you just must rule what makes *sense*. By the by, what is the scenario in which you generated this question? Or was it just a general thought, by reading the book? strider
Moonflyer 07-01-05, 12:13 AM	Lets take the description of a buckler from the PHB then make an argument: This small 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 (weather 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. 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. Common sense rules on this one... if your hand is too busy performing the somatic component for a spell then the rule for fighting with an off-hand weapon would apply... no AC bonus from the buckler.
roonechr 07-01-05, 12:47 AM	Okay, now you've throughly confused me. There are (by your own statement) no rules to handle this situation, and yet, you want an answer with examples from the rules - despite the fact that there are no rules on the subject. Neatly circular, but entirely not helpful. There are no rules to answer the specific question. However, there are rules that govern similar situations that can be discussed. For example, I referenced the fact that the rules allow you to use your shield hand to perform the somatic components for a spell while wearing a buckler to support the idea that a Bladesinger could benefit from their special abilities while wearing a buckler. You cited only your opinion and "common sense". That's why I said that when the rules fail (ie. there are no rules to adequately cover the situation), then common sense must prevail. Actually what you said was "the rules are there when common sense fails" not the other way around, implying that common sense was more important then the rules. First of all, my training with a buckler tells me two things. I believe that this may be part of our disconnect. I need an answer that works within the framework of the rules as presented, not as you would like them to be based on your personal experience. You are welcome to change the rules for your own game but not for mine. The game designers really meant a target shield when they said buckler. This is irrelevant. For the purpose of this question a buckler is, as it is defined in the PHB, "strapped to your forearm". If you want to think of that as a "target shield" and what the game defines as a light shield as a "buckler" then fine. However, we need to use the official terminology when discussing rules or we will all become hopelessly confused. Introducing your opinions on the terminology does not help answer the question. This, I feel, constitutes a certain degree of concentration, which would obviously preclude any other action. Meaning, that if the bladesinger would want to claim the buckler's AC bonus (which, I need to check, but doesn't it only apply to one attack anyway, therefore supporting the "more of a parry object" stance I'm taking?), then they could not therefore perform any action that actually requires the use of their off hand (say, for the somatic component of a spell). First, you are incorrect; the rules do not apply the AC bonus from a buckler to only one attack. Bucklers may have had this stipulation at some time in the past (2nd edition perhaps) but they definitely do not now. Second, the FAQ specifically states that your off hand can used for spellcasting when wearing a buckler and that you still benefit from the buckler's bonus to AC when doing so. The exact quote is in my initial response to you below and can be found on page 5 of the Offical FAQ (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/Main35FAQv06232005.zip). Because of these two facts your arguments here actually support the Bladesinger being able to use the bucker and still benefit from their special abilities (because a buckler actually applies its AC bonus to all attacks and does not interfere with the somatic components of spellcasting instead of the other way around). You may disagree with these rules but they are rules nonetheless. The rules, largely in regards to the weapons, don't make a damn bit of sense, at least from an IC standpoint. Even completely ignoring the obvious anachronisms that pop up (which are generally fine, because otherwise they may end up with a depressingly short list of weapons to use, on the whole), there are a lot of things that don't make sense. For instance, bucklers (real ones, not what D&D calls a buckler; see my definitions above) were definitely used to shield bash - specifically, in the face, usually to smash the opponent's nose, teeth, etc, in a duel. This is not relevant to the question and I hesitate to respond to it but here we are. It seems to me that if you just substitute "target shield" for "buckler" and "buckler" for "light shield" in the PHB then it would fit your interpretation of what these things were - a buckler is a small shield gripped with the hand that you bash with and a target shield is strapped to the forearm. Just change the names in your campaign if you don't like them. All I've been saying (and you've apparently agreed), is that the rules are unclear on this point. Therefore, as I've said (although I'm not sure you agree), you must extrapolate and use common sense. Not every answer is going to be found in a rulebook, or by a rule. Sometimes you just must rule what makes *sense*. The rules are unclear and so I believe that we should look to other similar situations and apply the rules found there. If that fails, then yes, common sense should be applied. You seem to disagree with the rules as written and insert your own opinions instead of looking to the rules. I will point out that when pressed you did find examples in the rules to use to support your opinion; Unfortunately both examples were based on what you thought the rules were and not what they actually were. By the by, what is the scenario in which you generated this question? Or was it just a general thought, by reading the book? The scenario is that I am creating an NPC Bladesinger for the campaign I run and am wondering whether they need to use the mage armor and shield spells or whether they can use elven chain and a buckler instead and focus on spells without somatic components until they get to 6th level and can ignore arcane spell failure with light armor. I didn't catch it when until I actually created a character and started buying equipment for them. I wanted to end by saying that I think that this thread may have taken on an ugly tone and I apologize for that. It is hard for me to get some things across in writing without sounding like a jerk (actually that happens with me in face to face conversation as well...). I respect your opinion; I just prefer to make decisions based on the rules as they exist if at all possible because it creates consistency for my players.
roonechr 07-01-05, 12:52 AM	Common sense rules on this one... if your hand is too busy performing the somatic component for a spell then the rule for fighting with an off-hand weapon would apply... no AC bonus from the buckler. Although applying the rule for attacking with a weapon to the somatic component for casting a spell might seem logical the Official FAQ shows it to be incorrect when it states clearly on page 5 that "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." So, actually, the rules rule on this one. Apparently somatic components do not require as much physical effort as attacking.
Maerdash 07-01-05, 01:12 AM	I could be wrong but It seems to me that the buckler's "special" rules are clearly noted as exceptions to the general rule that you can't wield a weapon and a shield in the same hand. This leads me to believe that while a buckler can be used in ways a light/heavy shield can't that those uses are the exception and that any other uses of the buckler should follow the general guidelines for shields.
roonechr 07-01-05, 01:27 AM	The question is whether or not the Bladesinger can use her special abilities that work only "When wielding a longsword or rapier in one hand (and nothing in the other)…". Is the buckler considered "wielded in the other hand" even though it leaves that hand free to wield weapons and cast spells?
Maerdash 07-01-05, 01:48 AM	While I'm personally inclined to say no, the rules don't really back me up that much and I tend to rule in favor of my players so I would go for it. My opinion is the best I can do in the abcense of a clear ruling.
Moonflyer 07-01-05, 02:05 AM	The answer is yes... the hand is free because the buckler is strapped to the forearm... nothing in the hand.
Dunelord 07-01-05, 02:16 AM	You can still two weapon fight if you have improved unarmed strike.
The Abominable Darkling 07-01-05, 03:40 AM	.Well, I'm the DM and I would really prefer to have an answer that reflected the intention of the designers. The question was: “Several of the special abilities of the Bladesinger prestige class in Complete Warrior (page 18) state ‘When wielding a longsword or rapier in one hand (and nothing in the other)…’ First, what do you guys think? Second, any chance of getting a designer to clarify this? I think the design intent is clearly that the bladesinger give up the use of his off hand (for everything) in order to gain the use of his class features. If this were not so, a bluckler would be a plainly obvious choice for every bladesinger, and I'd have to wonder why the example bladesinger isn't using one. In addition, I don't think a -1 penalty to AC comes close to balancing the advantages of the class. I certainly wouldn't allow this in my game. As to your second question, it is rather unlikely that a designer will clarify this. You could try e-mailing the sage, but he is unlikely to answer.
roonechr 07-01-05, 12:36 PM	I think the design intent is clearly that the bladesinger give up the use of his off hand (for everything) in order to gain the use of his class features. I think that this may be the case as well. If this were not so, a bluckler would be a plainly obvious choice for every bladesinger, Although this was my initial impression as well there is actually a strong alternative in the shield spell which is readily available to a Bladesinger. The shield spell's +4 shield bonus to AC is equivalent to a 9,000 gp +3 buckler and has no arcane spell failure chance. Its only drawback is that it isn't permanent and casting the spell is subject to failure if you wear any armor until you reach 6th level as a Bladesinger. and I'd have to wonder why the example bladesinger isn't using one. The sample Bladesinger also chooses to wear no armor and relies on the mage armor spell instead. She is decidedly a Wizard first and a Fighter second with Wiz6/Ftr2 leading into Bladesinger and using powerful offensive spells like fireball and confusion while my character is a Fighter first and a Wizard second with Ftr5/Wiz1 going in and using his low level spells to augment his fighting capability and focusing on spells without somatic components. The sample Bladesinger is built to be something different that what I am building and a buckler makes less sense for her than for my character. In addition, I don't think a -1 penalty to AC comes close to balancing the advantages of the class. I certainly wouldn't allow this in my game. Well, you also give up the bonus feats you would have gotten as a fighter (including the very valuable fighter only feats) and half of the spellcasting levels you would have gotten as a Wizard (severely restricting your utility as a spellcaster). Compare this to the Eldritch Knight who only gives up one spellcasting level to get the good attack bonus. The Bladesinger is also highly restricted in her armor choices due to spell failure until she reaches 6th level (minimum character level 12th) and then she only ignores spell failure for light armor. I'm not saying that the Bladesinger isn’t an effective prestige class, but I do think is it is a fair one even if you let them use a buckler. As to your second question, it is rather unlikely that a designer will clarify this. You could try e-mailing the sage, but he is unlikely to answer. Yeah, I know :tantrum:
Vrykolas2k 07-01-05, 03:38 PM	The buckler straps to the fore-arm. Thus, there is nothing in the hand. Thus, the Bladesinger can use his/ her abilities.
striderII 07-01-05, 04:06 PM	There are no rules to answer the specific question. However, there are rules that govern similar situations that can be discussed. For example, I referenced the fact that the rules allow you to use your shield hand to perform the somatic components for a spell while wearing a buckler to support the idea that a Bladesinger could benefit from their special abilities while wearing a buckler. You cited only your opinion and "common sense". Well, when I don't have the rules in front of me (and, at no point in my responses to this post did I have the rules in front of me), I must rely on my own opinion and common sense (I have no idea why in the world you put that in quotation marks) to come up with a ruling. This is what I do in games I run as well, because I hate breaking the momentum of a game to look up a rule. Besides, in your original post, you asked "What do you guys think?" - implying, to me, that an opinion was wanted. Actually what you said was "the rules are there when common sense fails" not the other way around, implying that common sense was more important then the rules. I did say that, so I can see where your confusion lie. But, yes, I think common sense if more important than the rules, because not only do the rules not cover every possible situation (and they can't, either - the book would be the size of a building!), but in many cases, I feel that the rules are flat out *wrong*. This is irrelevant. For the purpose of this question a buckler is, as it is defined in the PHB, "strapped to your forearm". If you want to think of that as a "target shield" and what the game defines as a light shield as a "buckler" then fine. However, we need to use the official terminology when discussing rules or we will all become hopelessly confused. Introducing your opinions on the terminology does not help answer the question. I suppose it doesn't - it seemed slightly relevant at the time, but I can see how it might not be terribly helpful. It was a bit tangental. First, you are incorrect; the rules do not apply the AC bonus from a buckler to only one attack. Bucklers may have had this stipulation at some time in the past (2nd edition perhaps) but they definitely do not now. Second, the FAQ specifically states that your off hand can used for spellcasting when wearing a buckler and that you still benefit from the buckler's bonus to AC when doing so. The exact quote is in my initial response to you below and can be found on page 5 of the Offical FAQ. Because of these two facts your arguments here actually support the Bladesinger being able to use the bucker and still benefit from their special abilities (because a buckler actually applies its AC bonus to all attacks and does not interfere with the somatic components of spellcasting instead of the other way around). You may disagree with these rules but they are rules nonetheless. Fair enough - I misremembered the rules. In fact, I think that it must have come from 2nd Edition, but I'd have to check my books for that one, if I ever care to. As for still getting your AC bonus while spellcasting - I'm sorry, but that's possibly one of the poorest rules calls ever, in my opinion. I would love to hear an explanation from a designer that adequately explains why you can't get your bonus to AC when using a weapon, but you can while spellcasting. So, yes, I disagree with these rules most heartily. This is not relevant to the question and I hesitate to respond to it but here we are. It seems to me that if you just substitute "target shield" for "buckler" and "buckler" for "light shield" in the PHB then it would fit your interpretation of what these things were - a buckler is a small shield gripped with the hand that you bash with and a target shield is strapped to the forearm. Just change the names in your campaign if you don't like them. It is somewhat relevant in the terms of usage. Let me attempt to explain further, so you see where I'm coming from in this. A buckler (a real one, not what D&D calls a buckler), is a very light, small shield. Again, it is most often moved to deflect or bat away a weapon, rather than having a more stationary type of shield (although, no shield is ever kept stationary if the warrior in question wants to use it fully - except perhaps a tower shield). The buckler is actively moved almost like a second weapon more than a larger style of shield. A target (or what D&D calls a buckler), being strapped to the forearm, is used much in the same way, although I would feel that it's a bit clumsier at successfully accomplishing this, and, of course, it is unable to effectively bash, unless you forearm your opponent (which may be more of a grapple, by the rules, than otherwise). In any event, a good deal of concentration is required to have the shield in the correct position to deflect the attack (as shields this small mostly deflect attacks rather than absorb them at all). So, from the usage of the shield, it's clear to me that the bladesinger should not be able to get special abilities when using it to defend themselves, as the concentration required precludes doing anything else. The rules are unclear and so I believe that we should look to other similar situations and apply the rules found there. If that fails, then yes, common sense should be applied. You seem to disagree with the rules as written and insert your own opinions instead of looking to the rules. I will point out that when pressed you did find examples in the rules to use to support your opinion; Unfortunately both examples were based on what you thought the rules were and not what they actually were. Well, you seem to feel as though forming my own opinion instead of looking to the rules is a bad thing. I don't feel this is the case (as, in many cases, I think the rules are flat out wrong, and/or poorly done). This is simply a difference of style; if you are completely uninterested in my thoughts on this matter, and only want to use the rules and the rules only (regardless of whether or not the rules make any sense), then feel free to let me know, so I don't waste any more time on this thread. The scenario is that I am creating an NPC Bladesinger for the campaign I run and am wondering whether they need to use the mage armor and shield spells or whether they can use elven chain and a buckler instead and focus on spells without somatic components until they get to 6th level and can ignore arcane spell failure with light armor. I didn't catch it when until I actually created a character and started buying equipment for them. You've just provided yourself with an answer, then. By the rules as written, as you've provided (regardless of whether or not I think they're a load of dried donkey turds), if you can cast a spell while still getting the buckler's bonus to AC, and you're looking for the character to cast spells (which, if I remember correctly, at least some of the Bladesinger's abilities revolve around - Song of Celerity and Greater Song of Celerity stick out in my mind), then yes, the character can perform at least his or her spell-related special abilities while effectively using a buckler. It doesn't make any sense to me at all, but then, as you said, it's your campaign, so do what you want. Or, you could have followed the advise from customer service and just made a judgement call. Which begs the question - what do *you* think the ruling should be, and why? I wanted to end by saying that I think that this thread may have taken on an ugly tone and I apologize for that. It is hard for me to get some things across in writing without sounding like a jerk (actually that happens with me in face to face conversation as well...). I respect your opinion; I just prefer to make decisions based on the rules as they exist if at all possible because it creates consistency for my players. Don't worry about sounding like a jerk - I will, more than likely, sound like a jerk as well. It's a hobby of mine. Feel free to read my sig, and you might get an idea on this. Secondly, basing decisions on something other than the rules does not automatically create inconsistency. If you think otherwise, feel free, but I completely disagree. strider
roonechr 07-01-05, 05:07 PM	I appreciate your input, Strider. We obviously have differing opinions on making rulings, with me favoring the rules as written (even if I might disagree with the basis for them) and you preferring to use your own common sense. I will point out that I will (and do) make modifications to the rules as I see fit, I just try to keep it to minimum whenever possible. My primary reason for this is because I have been involved in campaigns with huge amounts of poorly balanced house rules. I found this to be frustrating as I could never know what to expect from the DM - his "common sense" was just whimsy as far as I was concerned. It seemed to me that he would find something he didn't like- usually something that worked well for players, and just nerf it until it was no longer useful (as an example he made the diameter of fireball dependent on a die roll - 1d6 x 5 feet). I will make one last point about the question at hand. The basis for your argument is that gaining a defensive advantage from using a buckler (what you would call a target shield) requires you to actively position it between yourself and incoming attacks. This is supported by real world usage of the item and the fact that by the rules you lose your AC bonus from a buckler when making an attack with that hand, presumably because it is no longer in a defensive position. However, it is refuted by the rule that says you can accomplish the somatic components for a spell while still retaining the AC bonus from the buckler. You believe this last rule to be faulty. I would respond to that by saying that perhaps the one element that cannot be observed in the real world expalins the apparent discrepency- we have no idea exactly what the somatic component for a spell entails. Perhaps it is merely a waggle of the finger or flick of the wrist and it is either simple enough or brief enough that it doesn't interfere with your ability to defend yourself using the buckler for the majority of the six second round but rather only provides a split second of opening to allow your opponents an attack of opportunity.
striderII 07-01-05, 05:35 PM	I appreciate your input, Strider. We obviously have differing opinions on making rulings, with me favoring the rules as written (even if I might disagree with the basis for them) and you preferring to use your own common sense. I will point out that I will (and do) make modifications to the rules as I see fit, I just try to keep it to minimum whenever possible. My primary reason for this is because I have been involved in campaigns with huge amounts of poorly balanced house rules. I found this to be frustrating as I could never know what to expect from the DM - his "common sense" was just whimsy as far as I was concerned. It seemed to me that he would find something he didn't like- usually something that worked well for players, and just nerf it until it was no longer useful (as an example he made the diameter of fireball dependent on a die roll - 1d6 x 5 feet). Ah, I see. Well, I think I made my position regarding the rules fairly clear, although allow me to completely diverge from the immediate thread topic to somewhat explain myself further. My feeling on the rules is that they are largely optional material - that is, they provide a solid basis to formulate other options and opinions from, unless the group/DM finds the rules to be faulty, at least in regards to their campaign, if not faulty in general. I also take a rather storytelling approach to running games (although not in that oft-mentioned gaming horror story style of the DM that has "his story" that is pre-ordained...I'm cool with the players modifying things in my plot due to PC actions, etc), so if the rules interfere with some sort of good, dramatic scene, then, simply put, the rules must go. My players generally know that just because something out of the ordinary happens for them, that it might not necessarily happen again (this only really applies to something outside of the rules, usual capabilities, etc, and never constitutes anything game-breaking), and they're cool with it. Also, that DM in your example sounds like an idiot. Fortunately for me, I am not generally incompetent. I will make one last point about the question at hand. The basis for your argument is that gaining a defensive advantage from using a buckler (what you would call a target shield) requires you to actively position it between yourself and incoming attacks. This is supported by real world usage of the item and the fact that by the rules you lose your AC bonus from a buckler when making an attack with that hand, presumably because it is no longer in a defensive position. However, it is refuted by the rule that says you can accomplish the somatic components for a spell while still retaining the AC bonus from the buckler. You believe this last rule to be faulty. I would respond to that by saying that perhaps the one element that cannot be observed in the real world expalins the apparent discrepency- we have no idea exactly what the somatic component for a spell entails. Perhaps it is merely a waggle of the finger or flick of the wrist and it is either simple enough or brief enough that it doesn't interfere with your ability to defend yourself using the buckler for the majority of the six second round but rather only provides a split second of opening to allow your opponents an attack of opportunity. Well, I can see where you're coming from there, and you have a fairly strong grasp of what I mean. You're right - we *don't* know precisely what the somatic component is, and it may be something miniscule. Here's the thing - does the buckler provide the AC bonus during that attack of opportunity? If so, then I think we can agree (by your description) that it should not - as it "provides a split second of opening". Therefore, what is the sense in the rule that you get to keep your AC bonus while spellcasting? You see - that's the thing I don't get, and something that contributes to my reasoning why the bladesinger should not get his abilities when actively using the buckler to defend. strider
roonechr 07-01-05, 06:22 PM	I also take a rather storytelling approach to running games (although not in that oft-mentioned gaming horror story style of the DM that has "his story" that is pre-ordained...I'm cool with the players modifying things in my plot due to PC actions, etc) I appreciate that. I am sure that you run a fine game that your players enjoy. However, such games are somewhat at the mercy of their storyteller. I do not doubt that your players feel like they are the center of the action inside of your plot but I am also certain that many DMs who run players through a plot on a rail don't think that's what they're doing. if the rules interfere with some sort of good, dramatic scene, then, simply put, the rules must go. I doubt the rules concerning the AC bonus from a buckler are likely to interfere with a dramatic scene. You may have other reasons for taking issue with them. Here's the thing - does the buckler provide the AC bonus during that attack of opportunity? If so, then I think we can agree (by your description) that it should not - as it "provides a split second of opening". Therefore, what is the sense in the rule that you get to keep your AC bonus while spellcasting? This occurred to me as I was writing that and I had a feeling you would bring it up. I agree that at the very least you should lose your AC bonus from the buckler against attacks of opportunity drawn while casting a spell using the hand that the buckler is strapped to for the somatic components. However, this is one of those things that is small enough that I wouldn’t complicate the rules with it. There are hundreds of situations that occur infrequently that could use more detailed rules but if we tried to implement them all the game would become even more difficult to run than it already is. Obviously the mechanics are intended to facilitate a fun game more than a realistic one. Therefore, what is the sense in the rule that you get to keep your AC bonus while spellcasting? Well, since casting a spell only draws attacks of opportunity during your turn then it could be reasoned that during other people's turns you are actively defending yourself including using the buckler. Consider that you are able to make attacks of opportunity during a round that you cast a spell to support the idea that casting the spell is only part of what you do during the round. Of course this leads to the discussion of how turn based combat doesn't really reflect the real world (which it obviously can't). You see - that's the thing I don't get, and something that contributes to my reasoning why the bladesinger should not get his abilities when actively using the buckler to defend. The question arises from the fact that the developers failed to either say what the hand was used for or detail what could or couldn't be done with it. If the hand must be used for balance or positioned according to a specific form in order to accommodate the special abilities then a buckler couldn’t be effectively used. If the hand is used for something akin to the somatic components of a spell, which by the rules can be done (for whatever reason) while using a buckler, then the Bladesinger should be able to use one.
striderII 07-01-05, 06:27 PM	Fair enough, roonechr. Can we just agree that we have different styles that may or may not mesh in practice, but seem to definitely not mesh in the theatre of hypothetical discussion? :) One thing I want to point out/mention, however: The question arises from the fact that the developers failed to either say what the hand was used for or detail what could or couldn't be done with it. If the hand must be used for balance or positioned according to a specific form in order to accommodate the special abilities then a buckler couldn’t be effectively used. If the hand is used for something akin to the somatic components of a spell, which by the rules can be done (for whatever reason) while using a buckler, then the Bladesinger should be able to use one. I have no issue with a Bladesinger using a buckler - that's fine. My ruling, however, as I've stated, is that the Bladesinger can elect to either use the buckler (gaining the bonus to AC), or use his special abilities, giving him those options in combat. He cannot, however, do both in the same round, by my opinion/hypothetical ruling. You asked for thoughts/rulings, I provided mine, and why. You can take it or leave it - as you said, your game is your game, and my game is my game. We cool? :) strider
roonechr 07-01-05, 06:57 PM	We cool. :coolcthul
striderII 07-01-05, 07:53 PM	I actually have more information to debate, to be honest - not to drag this back out, beat a dead horse, or whatever other cliche you want to use. :) However, a few things became obvious as I thought about this issue more and more (and then, wonder of wonders, actually *read the damn rules* - although, you actually mentioned it earlier, and I didn't realize it at the time). The quote I have in mind is this (emphasis is mine; you'll see why in a minute): "When wielding a longsword or rapier in one hand (and nothing in the other)…" Now, here's the rub, as I see it. I would say that actually *wielding* a buckler would reflect in the character gaining the buckler's AC bonus, meaning that the character is putting the buckler in the way of incoming attacks (as I've described above). If the character is actively wielding the buckler, then he is obviously wielding something in his off-hand, therefore, he cannot use his abilities, although he gets his bonus to AC. While this is a bit of a semantics argument, I agree (discussing what they mean by *wielding*, which is why I suspect Customer Service told you in was a judgement call), this is how I would rule it. Also, I think this is a better-explaned (and supported by the rules, to at least some extent) reasoning on my ruling. However, it's possibly only clear to me, and perhaps I left something out. Let me know if this is the case, or if you have something to counterpoint it (yes, I'm aware that the FAQ or whatever says you can cast spells while keeping your buckler's AC bonus, but not only do I think that's a bunch of hooey, not all of the Bladesinger's special abilities in which this stipulation is given revolve around spellcasting - so I think we can rule that out, and use the rules that can cover *all* situations) strider
roonechr 07-01-05, 11:05 PM	Strider, Strider, Strider, here I thought you wanted to shut this down and I was even content to let you have the last word but you just had to drag it back out didn't you? ;) First off I want to say that I do see your point and I really wouldn't have asked if I had already made up my mind. Now it gets ugly. :D I have no issue with a Bladesinger using a buckler - that's fine. My ruling, however, as I've stated, is that the Bladesinger can elect to either use the buckler (gaining the bonus to AC), or use his special abilities, giving him those options in combat. He cannot, however, do both in the same round, by my opinion/hypothetical ruling. Yeah, I knew this and should have been more specific. When I said "use" I should have said "gain the AC benefit from." I will point out here that the "special abilities" I have been referring to do not necessarily constitute "options in combat", for example one of them is "gains a dodge bonus to armor class equal to her class level". "When wielding a longsword or rapier in one hand (and nothing in the other)…" Here where you emphasize wielding I would emphasize in. Certainly she could be said to be wielding the buckler, but she is not wielding it in the other hand. Rather it is strapped to her forearm and her hand is free to wield other weapons. I would say that actually *wielding* a buckler would reflect in the character gaining the buckler's AC bonus, meaning that the character is putting the buckler in the way of incoming attacks (as I've described above). This stems from your opinion of how a buckler is utilized in the real world, which is not supported by the rules. I could say that you equip a buckler rather than wield it as you would equip armor and wield a weapon. Of course I recognize that this is just semantics and could be argued all day (and night). Still, there is nothing in the rules that implies any action necessary to gain the AC bonus from a bucker; strapping it to your forearm is enough. Only when you take one specific actions (attacking) do you lose this benefit. I would argue that you gain the benefit until you do something that specifically negates it. yes, I'm aware that the FAQ or whatever says you can cast spells while keeping your buckler's AC bonus, but not only do I think that's a bunch of hooey, not all of the Bladesinger's special abilities in which this stipulation is given revolve around spellcasting - so I think we can rule that out, and use the rules that can cover *all* situations Well, here lies the root of the problem. Regardless of your personal feeling towards the rules they are still the rules and they state two things: 1. You cannot benefit from the AC bonus of a buckler while attacking with an off-hand weapon. 2. You can benefit from the AC bonus provided by a buckler when using your off-hand to perform the somatic components of a spell. Because of these two facts I think that the logical answer to my question is dependent upon whether whatever it is that the Bladesinger needs the off hand for to gain the benefit of her special abilities is more like attacking or more like casting a spell. Unfortunately, we do not know the answer to that question because the book doesn’t say, the designers aren't sharing, and we don’t have any Bladesingers in the real world. I appreciate your input. I still don't know how I will rule. Because I usually rule to benefit players on calls that could go either way and letting the Bladesinger use a buckler doesn't exactly provide an overpowering ability I will probably allow it for a player so I'll probably allow it for the NPC.
striderII 07-02-05, 01:48 PM	Strider, Strider, Strider, here I thought you wanted to shut this down and I was even content to let you have the last word but you just had to drag it back out didn't you? First off I want to say that I do see your point and I really wouldn't have asked if I had already made up my mind. Now it gets ugly. Well, I decided to actually look up the rules, so that I had an actual firmer base for my decision. As far as it getting ugly now...read below. :rant: This stems from your opinion of how a buckler is utilized in the real world, which is not supported by the rules. I could say that you equip a buckler rather than wield it as you would equip armor and wield a weapon. Then the rules are completely and utterly stupid. Do you really mean to say that you *don't* move a buckler to intercept an incoming weapon? By your logic, as described, the buckler is a static object. By simple damn logic, the buckler *must* move to intercept an attack to utilize its AC bonus, unless your opponent is actively aiming for it, which is a sunder attempt, not a regular attack - and so is outside of this discussion. Still, there is nothing in the rules that implies any action necessary to gain the AC bonus from a bucker; strapping it to your forearm is enough. Only when you take one specific actions (attacking) do you lose this benefit. I would argue that you gain the benefit until you do something that specifically negates it. Well, if you think that you don't need to *do* anything to get an AC bonus from a shield, then you have already made up your mind on this ruling, even though you continue to say you haven't. If you want to argue that you gain the benefit until you do something that specifically negates it, then fine, go ahead. If all you're going to do is sit there and refute the advice that you specifically asked for, then why didn't you just grow a set in the first place and, y'know, actually be a DM? That's what a DM does - makes decisions. Everything in your posts leans towards one particular decision, and pretty much has, since you started refuting. Why the hell did you waste everyone's time? I tried to be polite and explain my point, from a simple common sense point of view, but you want to rules-lawyer everything. Goddess forfend that anyone have an opinion not supported by the rules, huh? This is BS, and I'm done wasting my time with you or this thread. ******** strider
roonechr 07-02-05, 02:26 PM	I thought we were having a friendly discussion. I guess I was wrong. Your juvenile personal attacks are demeaning to me as well as to you. Since you have stated your preference to discontinue this discussion I will not respond to your most recent statements. I will only say that I do see both sides of this and the reason that it may appear to you that I support one side is because you support the other. Honestly, had you argued for the buckler I would have made a case against it. It just happens that those who chimed in for the buckler didn't really make an salient points to respond to. I questioned your stance because I wanted to give you an opportunity to convince me that you are right.
striderII 07-02-05, 03:01 PM	I thought we were having a friendly discussion. I guess I was wrong. Your juvenile personal attacks are demeaning to me as well as to you. Since you have stated your preference to discontinue this discussion I will not respond to your most recent statements. I will only say that I do see both sides of this and the reason that it may appear to you that I support one side is because you support the other. Honestly, had you argued for the buckler I would have made a case against it. It just happens that those who chimed in for the buckler didn't really make an salient points to respond to. I questioned your stance because I wanted to give you an opportunity to convince me that you are right. So this was all some sort of "I found something I can play devil's advocate to all day" sort of thing? Stupid and pointless. As far as my "juvenile personal attacks" - I'm sorry, but I get rather annoyed when I feel my time has been entirely wasted. I provided a good deal of reason why I was right - you just didn't accept them, because you seemingly want *everything* to go by the rules. So run your campaign whichever way you want - I'm done having my time wasted. strider