The Inconsistent Rulings & Pricings of Darkwood Bucklers.

[Sleek]

As most people know, by the RAW, you cannot have a 3.5 rules-legal Darkwood Buckler.  Yes, the SRD/DMG has an entry for a Darkwood Buckler, but the description text is for a light wooden shield, not a buckler .... and the price isn't accurate either.  For some odd reason, that never ever got changed in the decade+ existence of 3.5.  And yes, 3.5 bucklers is a "small metal shield" and Darkwood has this proviso - "Items not normally made of wood or only partially of wood (such as a battleaxe or a mace) either cannot be made from darkwood or do not gain any special benefit from being made of darkwood."

Why am I making a fuss over this?  Well, the MinMax Forums folks and their predecessors, the BG Forum folks seem to advocate the use and tweaked optimization of Darkwood Bucklers quite a bit.  I actually don't have an issue houseruling bucklers to be made from Darkwood.  However, if you Google Image "wood buckler", there's a not wooden buckler made from 100% wood anywhere to be found. 

Pathfinder didn't fix the issue either after all those years of unaddressed errors.  They just copied the 3.5 negligent ruling for Darkwood Bucklers verbatim.  Although from what I hear, there's a PF supplement called Game Mastery Guide that does address the discrepancy/problem.  I just don't have access to that book. 

Darkwood Bucklers, especially when given the Feycraft or Githcraft template (from DMG2) are extremely awesome bucklers for primary spellcasters.  Primarily due to their ridiculously low price in comparison to the similar benefits gleaned from the higher cost Mithral Buckler ... and the buckler's ability to cheaply wear augment crystals or be adorned with ASAs if the buckler becomes magical. 

I also noticed that MinMax and BG folks often don't price the Darkwood Bucklers (and the magical Feycraft Darkwood Bucklers) properly.  I think there's confusion with Darkwood being considered a Masterwork Item, the DMG/SRD's weird entry item for DBs, and how to stack all these substances/templates together. 

So some questions for all of you.

1.  Do you acknowledge that DBs are not RAW-legal, but still advocate them as reasonable houserule-legal?

2.  How much GPs would you consider a magical +1 Darkwood Feycraft Buckler to cost?

[Keldar]

Why would anyone recommend darkwood for a buckler?  It only reduces the ACP by 2, and costs 50 gp more than Masterwork, which would zero out a buckler's ACP anyway.

[phaedrusxy]

What I typically use/recommend is a darkwood shield (heavy or light, depending on if you need to use the hand or not). A heavy darkwood shield costs 257 gp and has an ACP of 0, meaning anyone can use it and not suffer the ACP to attacks, etc. Of course, darkwood has no effect on ASF, so it's still not the choice for arcane casters.

[Sleek]

What I typically use/recommend is a darkwood shield (heavy or light, depending on if you need to use the hand or not). A heavy darkwood shield costs 257 gp and has an ACP of 0, meaning anyone can use it and not suffer the ACP to attacks, etc. Of course, darkwood has no effect on ASF, so it's still not the choice for arcane casters.

Why would anyone recommend darkwood for a buckler?  It only reduces the ACP by 2, and costs 50 gp more than Masterwork, which would zero out a buckler's ACP anyway.

It seems that the weight reduction of 50% is the big draw for wimpy, low-STR arcanists.  While Mithral does that too, the price differential between the 2 is significant.  Once Feycraft or Githcraft is added to the so-called Darkwood Buckler, the ACP issue dissapears and you've still saved a sizable chunk of coin from going straight mithral. 

Remember, this combo is really being aimed at optimized Sorcerors and Wizards.  Who won't be suffering the attack penalty of the buckler, but still have both hands available for spellcasting, wand manipulation, etc.

[Keldar]

2 and a half whole pounds!   

Masterwork Feycraft Buckler +1 AC -0 ACP 0% ASF 4.5lbs 675gp
Darkwood Feycraft Light Shield +1AC -0 ACP 0% ASF 2.5lbs  715gp
(For Githcraft add 100gp to the price to get +1 Concentration)

[Sleek]

Seems a lot of those higher-tier Kobold Sorc and Pixie spellcaster builds are running around with stupidly low STR's.  And 2.5 pounds can make a big difference for encumberance optimization and protection against RoE's and what-not.

Such builds aren't my thing - but being a "gram weenie" (as ultralight hikers can often be called) is an aspect of optimization that some folks chose to pursue.   Or have to if their DMs are encumberance-checking fanatics.  I had one of them for 6 years.  Ugh.

[linklord231]

Seems a lot of those higher-tier Kobold Sorc and Pixie spellcaster builds are running around with stupidly low STR's.  And 2.5 pounds can make a big difference for encumberance optimization and protection against RoE's and what-not.

Such builds aren't my thing - but being a "gram weenie" (as ultralight hikers can often be called) is an aspect of optimization that some folks chose to pursue.   Or have to if their DMs are encumberance-checking fanatics.  I had one of them for 6 years.  Ugh.

Smaller-sized characters can actually carry more gear than their Medium+ counterparts (despite having low Strength), because of the way gear weight scales.  A shield sized for a Small character weighs half as much, but that character's carrying capacity is only reduced by to 75%. 

[faeryn]

Seems a lot of those higher-tier Kobold Sorc and Pixie spellcaster builds are running around with stupidly low STR's.  And 2.5 pounds can make a big difference for encumberance optimization and protection against RoE's and what-not.

Such builds aren't my thing - but being a "gram weenie" (as ultralight hikers can often be called) is an aspect of optimization that some folks chose to pursue.   Or have to if their DMs are encumberance-checking fanatics.  I had one of them for 6 years.  Ugh.

Smaller-sized characters can actually carry more gear than their Medium+ counterparts (despite having low Strength), because of the way gear weight scales.  A shield sized for a Small character weighs half as much, but that character's carrying capacity is only reduced by 75%.

That math doesn't quite add up... If your carry capacity is reduced by 75% then a weight reduction for gear of only 50% will not permit you to carry more, it's the exact opposite, that would let you carry less.

A simple example...

If a medium creature had a carry capacity of 100lbs and was carrying 50lbs of gear were made into a small creature, their carry capacity if reduced by 75% becomes 25lbs, and if the gear they carried was reduced by 50% then that too would become 25lbs. While the medium creature could still carry another 50lbs of gear, the small creature with the exact same gear is at it's capacity.

I'd assume you probably meant to say "reduced to 75%" not "reduced by 75%"... if that is the case then indeed a small creature could carry more than a medium creature; since 25lbs is only 1/3 of a max capacity of 75lbs as opposed to 50lbs being 1/2 of a capacity of 100lbs.

[linklord231]

Sorry, that is what I meant.  Reduced to 75%, not by 75%.  I was thinking "Reduced to be 75% of what it would be as a Medium creature."  Editing original post for clarity. 

[Sleepyphoenixx]

Why not use the Darkwood Buckler as written (a light darkwood shield)? The only difference compared to a buckler is that you can't wield a weapon in your shield hand, which primary casters don't care about anyway.

[Sleek]

Well, many primary spellcasters like having a wand, staff, or rod in hand .... and their free hand available for spells that require somatic gesturing. 

The Darkwood Light Shield becomes problematic in that scenario.

[Keldar]

The shield hand can hold the wand when its not in use.  No troubles.

[StreamOfTheSky]

My Druid archer was quite happy to have a wood option for the archery-friendly buckler.