Concerning Light-Footed

[David St-Michel]

This lovely little feat says that you cannot have armor, and must not be carrying more then (I forgot, either 20 or 30) pounds of weight in total.

Does wearing a helmet is considered being armored for the purpose of this Feat and its subsequent bonuses?

 

[flatscan]

A helmet is armor so yeah, it counts. The idea of light-footed, I think, is to encourage instances like Conan in the Tower of the Elephant. He takes up the Zamoran practice of wearing only a loincloth while thieving. No encumbarance or anything to make noise with.

 

[Jeffreywns]

And in the same sense picking up a shield (from a defeated guard of course)?.

 

[flatscan]

And in the same sense picking up a shield (from a defeated guard of course)?.

I wouldn't allow light-footed with a shield, even if you don't consider one as armor. Keep in mind the feat has a maximum weight allowance to get the bonus. I don't have the book in front of me, but if a PC were carrying a weapon and light thieving equipment, a shield would likely get them over the weight limit. Even a buckler is 10 lbs or so in real life.

 

[Jeffreywns]

I was wondering if a shield (like the helmet example) was considered armour. A thief with a dagger getting cornered by guards and picking up a shield scenario.

 

[treeplanter]

Thief are not proficient with shield. But let say he take the feat (or have level of another class), I would not allow it with a large shield, that for sure, maybe with a buckler.

 

[flatscan]

Nah, not even with a buckler. The whole point of light-footed is that you're sacrificing the safety of armor DR in order to be able to do more damage with a sneak attack. If you allow armor to be worn, even a helmet or shield, the spirit of the feat is ruined. That's my reading of the feat anyhow.

 

[B_Steele]

So long as the weight requirement wasn't surpassed, I would have no problem with it.

I see an escaping thief scooping up a buckler, but not for the protection necessarily, but instead to use IT as the sneak attacking weapon! Imagine the scene: sneakily slitting one guard's throat with your homemade dungeon-shiv, reaching down to grab the spiked buckler off the guard's arm, then driving it quickly into his partner as he returns from the privy!

It is all about the narrative...

-Bry

 

[David St-Michel]

and kick both bloodied bodies back into the john's for the NEXT unsuspecting guard victim.

I can see it now... "Bathroom serial killer strikes again! Is no potty safe???"

 

[Jeffreywns]

True a single class thief doesnt have it but alot of characters multi-class into thief. The issue is does it count as armour.
Im leaning towards M. Steele's reply. But Im interested in more opinions.

 

[treeplanter]

yeah if he use the shield as a weapon, I guess it is a convincing argument.

I would sure not allow it to a character using a shield in a defensive manner. Shield is part of an armor, and give armor check penality. A shield is encumbring, wich is against light-footed requirement.

 

[flatscan]

A shield is armor. It's right in the book, under equipment, in the armor section. Anybody who argues for being able to use a helmet, or shield, that provides DR, and still get the benefits of light-footed is trying to cheat the system and get an advantage without suffering the disadvantages built into it. Also, as stated before, there is the flavor aspect of it. Zamorans wearing only loin-cloths while thieving so they can have the maximum amount of maneuverability and stealth, and the advantage of light-footed which relates to sneak attacks. Man up, wear the loin-cloth, then you can use light-footed. But you gotta play it smart, stick to the shadows, strike fast and hard, then fade away into the night. :wink:

 

[Jacek]

I'll support flatscan here. Any kind of a shield is first and foremost a means of defense in the opposition to a weapon. Thus it should be treated as armor and not be allowed with light-footed.
Besides, surprise attacks rely on precision, and light weapon is more precise than a buckler not to mention anything larger.

 

[Jeffreywns]

Reviewing these points has helped me decide for my group. The shield, while being within weight limits is an ungainly object and will interfere with the ight-footed feat.
I dont intend to imply this is by any means the "official rule". just my take on the question. Considering I was leaning towards not counting helmets or shields based solely on the weight aspect I failed to take into account the "lurking" intent of the feat.

 

[David St-Michel]

Thank you all for your opinions.