Based purely off of the PHB as written, Chicken does seem to be right that disarming attacks basically states "if it's held in a hand, then it automatically is flung to the floor regardless of any other factors", however yeah that makes no logical sense, leads to a ton of weird consequences, and is 100% not RAI.
As for RAW, technically no because the SAC is considered RAW and the SAC adds the specific rule stating it does not work with shields or donned items in general.
Are we done yet with this thread? It seems like both sides don't have any more evidence and we'll starting to go around in circles. I don't think either of you are going to convivence the other any more.
You guys are being pretty awful right now, and I don’t really understand what the point is of a rule forum other than to... talk about rules. Get off my back. If you think your argument is correct, great for you! I happen to think mine is instead! Which of us is closing the day with more internet points? Hard to tell... but at least I’m spending my energies picking apart the PHB rather than other people. Chill out.
Yeah I agree we don't need to get the mods involved. Telling someone that they are a "real danger" infecting others is veering way too close to personal attacks for my liking.
Based purely off of the PHB as written, Chicken does seem to be right that disarming attacks basically states "if it's held in a hand, then it automatically is flung to the floor regardless of any other factors", however yeah that makes no logical sense, leads to a ton of weird consequences, and is 100% not RAI.
As for RAW, technically no because the SAC is considered RAW and the SAC adds the specific rule stating it does not work with shields or donned items in general.
Are we done yet with this thread? It seems like both sides don't have any more evidence and we'll starting to go around in circles. I don't think either of you are going to convivence the other any more.
You guys are being pretty awful right now, and I don’t really understand what the point is of a rule forum other than to... talk about rules. Get off my back. If you think your argument is correct, great for you! I happen to think mine is instead! Which of us is closing the day with more internet points? Hard to tell... but at least I’m spending my energies picking apart the PHB rather than other people. Chill out.
Yeah I agree we don't need to get the mods involved. Telling someone that they are a "real danger" infecting others is veering way too close to personal attacks for my liking.
This is a rules channel. It is for all intents and purposes RAW, where new players come with questions. If someone is giving them bad information on RAW, that can infect other games, as a new player takes that back to their table and says "But I read this in a RAW channel". Then the DM has to correct them, which leads to aggravation for all involved.
I completely agree there, bucklers are usually simply held, but larger shields absolutely need some strapping because of the weight, but always need a handle to be controlled. 5e did not differentiate types of shields, for simplicity and taking care of bounded accuracy, but bucklers are really specific and not that present in fantasy culture, so my take would be that most shields are indeed donned (put the strap on), and wielded (guided by the hand on the handle).
Bucklers are why they are called "swashbucklers" so they're pretty present in some fantasy genres.
The most straightforward way to put a buckler in D&D would be a shield that grants +1 AC, that can be "drawn," put away, or dropped with the same speed as a weapon. It would also weigh less. Perhaps it could be disarmed like a weapon, as well (not sure if that's realistic, but it's gameable).
I feel like those drawbacks (less AC, maybe disarmable) outweigh the game benefits (lighter, faster to draw etc), which is why the designers didn't consider it worth a stat line. Other systems with more melee detail can get away with it.
I completely agree there, bucklers are usually simply held, but larger shields absolutely need some strapping because of the weight, but always need a handle to be controlled. 5e did not differentiate types of shields, for simplicity and taking care of bounded accuracy, but bucklers are really specific and not that present in fantasy culture, so my take would be that most shields are indeed donned (put the strap on), and wielded (guided by the hand on the handle).
Bucklers are why they are called "swashbucklers" so they're pretty present in some fantasy genres.
It's very derivative as an etymology, honestly. And I honestly can't remember the last time someone actually wanted to use a buckler in D&D play, I think it was only because there was a 3e feature of a class which allowed some sort of advantageous buckler combination.
The most straightforward way to put a buckler in D&D would be a shield that grants +1 AC, that can be "drawn," put away, or dropped with the same speed as a weapon. It would also weigh less. Perhaps it could be disarmed like a weapon, as well (not sure if that's realistic, but it's gameable).
I feel like those drawbacks (less AC, maybe disarmable) outweigh the game benefits (lighter, faster to draw etc), which is why the designers didn't consider it worth a stat line. Other systems with more melee detail can get away with it.
I see nothing wrong with it, but the fact is that it has been missing from the rules from the beginning of 5e and nobody has complained much, mostly because people don't like to lose one point of AC for very small benefits. I therefore think that it was a good gamble from the designers that they could simplify the shields by removing the buckler (and the tower shield which gave good AC but had huge drawbacks) from the rules.
There is one powergamer at one of the tables I play that is currently suspended (thanks Covid) that cajoled the DM into allowing him to have a Buckler on one arm, providing +1 to the AC, while simultaneously allowing the player to operate a Long Bow. It is this kind of thing that drives me nuts, and why I refuse to cave on the vast majority of the rules.
Bucklers are why they are called "swashbucklers" so they're pretty present in some fantasy genres.
It's very derivative as an etymology, honestly. And I honestly can't remember the last time someone actually wanted to use a buckler in D&D play, I think it was only because there was a 3e feature of a class which allowed some sort of advantageous buckler combination.
3e's buckler rules were notorious. "This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm" and such. Basically the reason a whole generation of gamers don't know what a buckler is, and want to use it with a bow or longsword. ;) That said, I'm pretty sure AD&D had the exact same problem.
However, my point was just that broad fantasy genres (more broad than "D&D" perhaps), especially ones going for "renaissance fantasy" or "three musketeers" style things, may love bucklers.
Actually, there are interesting videos of more renaissance fighting with longsword and buckler used for punch parrying, but it's very specialised and it requires a huge amount of training to be efficient.
Indeed. The same can be found in some fechtbuchs. Though they're all (I think) using the longsword in a single hand.
I don't recall the problem in AD&D, because, you know, no feats and no powers for combos with it, so it was basically just -1 to AC compared to a standard shield...
I think the general issue came from the idea that a buckler is "buckled" to the forearm, thus leaving the hand free for using two-handed things. Just looked up the AD&D rules now, and they are similar to 3e: strapped to the arm, can use a crossbow or bow unhindered. (In 3e, you could also use the shield hand on any two-handed weapon.) My guess is that it's just from a lack of research / some naivety about the etymology.
(Archers did carry bucklers, sometimes, though hung on the belt next to a sword scabbard. So they could both be drawn when you drop the longbow...)
A donned shield cannot be dropped even you tried to. It has to be doffed with an action
The disarming attack does not clarify as you have all noticed. So instead consider: Disarming attack causes you to let go of what you are holding. Letting go of a shield does not unequip it. You must take an action to doff it. This is also why its good to cast heat metal on an enemy's shield.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Based purely off of the PHB as written, Chicken does seem to be right that disarming attacks basically states "if it's held in a hand, then it automatically is flung to the floor regardless of any other factors", however yeah that makes no logical sense, leads to a ton of weird consequences, and is 100% not RAI.
As for RAW, technically no because the SAC is considered RAW and the SAC adds the specific rule stating it does not work with shields or donned items in general.
Are we done yet with this thread? It seems like both sides don't have any more evidence and we'll starting to go around in circles. I don't think either of you are going to convivence the other any more.
Yeah I agree we don't need to get the mods involved. Telling someone that they are a "real danger" infecting others is veering way too close to personal attacks for my liking.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
This is a rules channel. It is for all intents and purposes RAW, where new players come with questions. If someone is giving them bad information on RAW, that can infect other games, as a new player takes that back to their table and says "But I read this in a RAW channel". Then the DM has to correct them, which leads to aggravation for all involved.
Bucklers are why they are called "swashbucklers" so they're pretty present in some fantasy genres.
The most straightforward way to put a buckler in D&D would be a shield that grants +1 AC, that can be "drawn," put away, or dropped with the same speed as a weapon. It would also weigh less. Perhaps it could be disarmed like a weapon, as well (not sure if that's realistic, but it's gameable).
I feel like those drawbacks (less AC, maybe disarmable) outweigh the game benefits (lighter, faster to draw etc), which is why the designers didn't consider it worth a stat line. Other systems with more melee detail can get away with it.
There is one powergamer at one of the tables I play that is currently suspended (thanks Covid) that cajoled the DM into allowing him to have a Buckler on one arm, providing +1 to the AC, while simultaneously allowing the player to operate a Long Bow. It is this kind of thing that drives me nuts, and why I refuse to cave on the vast majority of the rules.
3e's buckler rules were notorious. "This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm" and such. Basically the reason a whole generation of gamers don't know what a buckler is, and want to use it with a bow or longsword. ;) That said, I'm pretty sure AD&D had the exact same problem.
However, my point was just that broad fantasy genres (more broad than "D&D" perhaps), especially ones going for "renaissance fantasy" or "three musketeers" style things, may love bucklers.
I think the general issue came from the idea that a buckler is "buckled" to the forearm, thus leaving the hand free for using two-handed things. Just looked up the AD&D rules now, and they are similar to 3e: strapped to the arm, can use a crossbow or bow unhindered. (In 3e, you could also use the shield hand on any two-handed weapon.) My guess is that it's just from a lack of research / some naivety about the etymology.
(Archers did carry bucklers, sometimes, though hung on the belt next to a sword scabbard. So they could both be drawn when you drop the longbow...)
why overcomplicate it so.
A donned shield cannot be dropped even you tried to. It has to be doffed with an action
The disarming attack does not clarify as you have all noticed. So instead consider:
Disarming attack causes you to let go of what you are holding.
Letting go of a shield does not unequip it. You must take an action to doff it. This is also why its good to cast heat metal on an enemy's shield.