D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 Monks and Shields
- Thread starter Xeoble
- Start date
niteshade6
First Post
By the letter of the rules you certainly still get all the shield penalties even for an animated shield. If your using a shield you get the penalties. You could certainly argue that the spirit of the rules is another matter entirely. Personaly though I would not rule that because having a shield floating around in front of you with it's own free mind might hinger you just as much in many ways as wielding one. Perhaps even more if it can't read your mind and know when your about to do things. Of course the main reason I would disallow it is for game balance reasons. Animated shields are good enough as is.
)
dcollins
Explorer
I, too, don't see any 3.0 rules basis for an animated shield freeing a character from penalties other than those it explicitly states. I would enforce all normal shield penalties to a monk using an animated shield.
In game rationale, if necessary: the monk must take care to stay behind the animating shield, giving up his usual freedom of mobility to gain cover from the shield.
In game rationale, if necessary: the monk must take care to stay behind the animating shield, giving up his usual freedom of mobility to gain cover from the shield.
Arc
First Post
I've always wondered about that question in 3.0: If you have an intelligent dancing/animated weapon, can it wield itself?
If yes, then why would you find them anywhere? Most likely, they would have floated off to go and do whatever.
If no, then what kind of control does an intelligent item really have?
If yes, then why would you find them anywhere? Most likely, they would have floated off to go and do whatever.
If no, then what kind of control does an intelligent item really have?
Nareau
Explorer
If animated shields carry with them all the associated penalties of normal shields, would you apply the arcane spell failure to an arcane caster with one? Would a rogue with a large animated shield suffer a -1 to hit? Would a monk with a dancing sword lose his ability to make unarmed attacks, since he's kinda "using" it?
I don't think so.
The DMG description of the Animated ability states that: "Upon command, an animated shield floats within 2 feet of the wielder, protecting her as if she were using it herself, but freeing up both her hands. Only one shield can protect a character at a time." (emphasis mine) Note that it doesn't say, "affecting her as if she were using it herself." Sorry dcollins, I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one.
The ring of Force Shield can be activated/deactivated as a free action, right? My DM is nice, and allows my sorcerer to drop shields at the beginning of her action, cast a spell, then raise shields at the end of her action. I think this is a pretty good way of dealing with the item, and I'd allow a monk to use it like this without penalty on his action. However, he'd still suffer penalties if he took an action not on his turn (like making an AoO).
Spider
I don't think so.
The DMG description of the Animated ability states that: "Upon command, an animated shield floats within 2 feet of the wielder, protecting her as if she were using it herself, but freeing up both her hands. Only one shield can protect a character at a time." (emphasis mine) Note that it doesn't say, "affecting her as if she were using it herself." Sorry dcollins, I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one.
The ring of Force Shield can be activated/deactivated as a free action, right? My DM is nice, and allows my sorcerer to drop shields at the beginning of her action, cast a spell, then raise shields at the end of her action. I think this is a pretty good way of dealing with the item, and I'd allow a monk to use it like this without penalty on his action. However, he'd still suffer penalties if he took an action not on his turn (like making an AoO).
Spider
Jhyrryl
First Post
All About the Proficiency
For the sake of argument, here's the exact text (from the SRD):
Since a monk is not proficient at shield use, I would rule that the shield would get in the monks way, because she wouldn't know the proper way of making it move, thereby incurring armor check penalties to her attacks and skill checks that involve movement. If the monk spent a feat acquiring shield proficiency, or multi-classed to gain that proficiency, she would know how to properly position the shield, and so I would then allow her the use of the animated shield without loss of the character's special monk stuff.
This "incorporeal third arm" (incorporeal so it doesn't interfer with the motion of the body's material components), is also how I would view the shield in a situation where "attendance" is a factor. Someone trying to sunder or grab the shield would have to deal with the shield moving exactly as if the character were wielding it, taking into account awaredness, etc.
And I agree with Caliban on the ring of force shield, it's essentially deactivated at the beginning of your turn, allowing you to act as if it weren't there, then reactivated at the end of your turn. When it's not your turn, it's there, just like a normal shield. So it's a worthless item for a monk.
Edit: obviously I also agree with Spider, who hadn't posted when I first viewed the page.
Well, almost. I *would* apply the non-proficiency penalty in all cases he mentions.
For the sake of argument, here's the exact text (from the SRD):
First, it is clear to me that the monk is not wearing the armor when utilizing an animated shield. That said, I think the relative clause here is, "as if the character were using it". To me that says that the shield moves and reacts exactly as it would *if* the character had an incorporeal third arm capable of positioning the shield where appropriate.
Since a monk is not proficient at shield use, I would rule that the shield would get in the monks way, because she wouldn't know the proper way of making it move, thereby incurring armor check penalties to her attacks and skill checks that involve movement. If the monk spent a feat acquiring shield proficiency, or multi-classed to gain that proficiency, she would know how to properly position the shield, and so I would then allow her the use of the animated shield without loss of the character's special monk stuff.
This "incorporeal third arm" (incorporeal so it doesn't interfer with the motion of the body's material components), is also how I would view the shield in a situation where "attendance" is a factor. Someone trying to sunder or grab the shield would have to deal with the shield moving exactly as if the character were wielding it, taking into account awaredness, etc.
And I agree with Caliban on the ring of force shield, it's essentially deactivated at the beginning of your turn, allowing you to act as if it weren't there, then reactivated at the end of your turn. When it's not your turn, it's there, just like a normal shield. So it's a worthless item for a monk.
Edit: obviously I also agree with Spider, who hadn't posted when I first viewed the page.
Well, almost. I *would* apply the non-proficiency penalty in all cases he mentions.
Last edited:
niteshade6
First Post
"If animated shields carry with them all the associated penalties of normal shields, would you apply the arcane spell failure to an arcane caster with one?"
Yes because all penalties apply by the letter of the rules. If the mere act of holding the shield interferes with your magic, I don't see why having it magicaly linked to you would be diferent.
"Would a rogue with a large animated shield suffer a -1 to hit? "
Once again yes. Presumably the shield gets in his way.
"Would a monk with a dancing sword lose his ability to make unarmed attacks, since he's kinda "using" it?"
No, because monks don't suffer any actual penalties for using swords, they just don't get their favorable rate of attacks while using one. A druid however (well a 3.0 druid at least) would certainly lose his druid powers for using an animated sword though.
Yes because all penalties apply by the letter of the rules. If the mere act of holding the shield interferes with your magic, I don't see why having it magicaly linked to you would be diferent.
"Would a rogue with a large animated shield suffer a -1 to hit? "
Once again yes. Presumably the shield gets in his way.
"Would a monk with a dancing sword lose his ability to make unarmed attacks, since he's kinda "using" it?"
No, because monks don't suffer any actual penalties for using swords, they just don't get their favorable rate of attacks while using one. A druid however (well a 3.0 druid at least) would certainly lose his druid powers for using an animated sword though.
Nareau
Explorer
The way I see it, there are two primary effects of wearing a shield: It protects you and it hinders you. That's why I think it's important that the description says it "protects" the user. Imagine if the description said, "...floats within 2 feet of the wielder, hindering the character as if he or she were using it." If it said that, I'd think that it would hinder her and not protect her.
My understanding is that it is the weight, bulk, and restricted movement incurred by having a board strapped to your arm that's hindering you. Take that away, and you're no longer hindered. The idea that the animated shield might "get in your way" doesn't jibe with me.
Spider
My understanding is that it is the weight, bulk, and restricted movement incurred by having a board strapped to your arm that's hindering you. Take that away, and you're no longer hindered. The idea that the animated shield might "get in your way" doesn't jibe with me.
Spider
Similar Threads
D&D 3E/3.5
Homebrew Content
