Force Shield ring and bow?

[Artoomis]

The FAQ makes it pretty clear that a character can wield a longspear, switch their grip to one handed, attack with spiked gauntles (or the like) then put both hands on the spear again (ready for more AoOs).

For this reason, I would allow the shield to work with the bow. It is +2 AC for a relatively large cost. That seems pletty balanced to me.

I agree. This item seems balanced. I feel it sets a bad precedent, though, and starts us down the slippery slope that leads to items that give invulnerability all the time but still allow the character to take all their actions in the round.

 

[Kharne]

I agree with just about everything that has been said on both sides of this argument. Our group ran into a very similar problem with this ring in one of our games...and we basically decided to allow the character to turn it both "on" and "off" during their actions. The character in question was using a spiked chain, so he wasn't actually able to threaten with the spiked chain while the item was on without taking the -4 to hit for using a large weapon in one hand.

I also agree with the concept of only allowing a character to only turn an item "on" of "off" once each round.

 

[Kharne]

Bah, double post....

 

[LokiDR]

I agree. This item seems balanced. I feel it sets a bad precedent, though, and starts us down the slippery slope that leads to items that give invulnerability all the time but still allow the character to take all their actions in the round.

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Have other rulings/clarifications cause something in the game to become grossly imbalanced?

I think if free actions are understood to be unlimited by the designers, they won't make items that can be abused by taking multiple free actions. Then we won't have to worry about disallowing multiple free actions, and we can stick to "reasonable".

 

[Artoomis]

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Have other rulings/clarifications cause something in the game to become grossly imbalanced?

I think if free actions are understood to be unlimited by the designers, they won't make items that can be abused by taking multiple free actions. Then we won't have to worry about disallowing multiple free actions, and we can stick to "reasonable".

A logical fallicy? I don't think so.

It is perfectly reasonable for a designer to come up with an item that, for whatever reason, gives amazing protection but is activated with a free action. Such an item should only be allowed to be activated/deactivated once per round - that would be part of it's game balance.

If you allow the ring discussed above to be activated and deactivated in one round such that you always gain the benfit, then, by logical extension, you should do the same for any similar item - even if wayyyy more powerful.

A "slippery slope," as used here, means that the same logic that is applied in a simple, easy, reasonable case can also be applied in a more unreasonable case.

D&D rules tend to go all wacky when a seemingly simple, reasonable ruling is then applied universally.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The character in question was using a spiked chain, so he wasn't actually able to threaten with the spiked chain while the item was on without taking the -4 to hit for using a large weapon in one hand.

House rule?

There are two possibilities otherwise, and neither of them works out to a -4 penalty (assuming the character is Medium).

1. He has the Monkey Grip (Spiked Chain) feat. He can wield his Chain one-handed at a -2 penalty.

2. He doesn't have the feat. He cannot wield a Large weapon in one hand at all. It's physically not possible. No -4 penalty - he just can't do it.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It is perfectly reasonable for a designer to come up with an item that, for whatever reason, gives amazing protection but is activated with a free action. Such an item should only be allowed to be activated/deactivated once per round - that would be part of it's game balance.

And several of them do specifically give a once/round restriction.

Tower Shield, for example. It can be moved as a free action... but only once per round.

An item that doesn't specify a once/round limit is not inherently limited. Gloves of Storing, for instance... I wouldn't have a problem with someone with two Gloves of Storing dismissing the longsword in their right hand, summoning the longbow in their left hand, making a full attack, dismissing the bow in their left hand, and summoning the sword in their right hand... every round.

A DM who did have a problem with it could invoke the "reasonable" clause regarding free actions... but that's not inherent to the item, it's DM judgement. The tower shield, on the other hand, has an inherent limitation.

-Hyp.

 

[Kharne]

Oops, thanks for pointing that out Hypersmurf.

Actually, we weren't allowing him to threaten at all with it when he had his shield up since you can only take free actions technically on your turn (we house rule you can say things outside that). The reason I listed the -4 is because I confused myself into thinking that what we were using was the house rule and that was the way it should have worked...LOL, feeling like an idiot now. There I go trying not to confuse the situation with our house rules...and mess up the rules. Thanks for checking me on that

 

[Kharne]

Man...what am I doing to cause these double posts?...sorry for the spam folks.

 

[AuraSeer]

If you allow the ring discussed above to be activated and deactivated in one round such that you always gain the benfit, then, by logical extension, you should do the same for any similar item - even if wayyyy more powerful.

That's an invalid logical extension. Nothing says that all free-action items must work the same way. Your hypothetical game-breaking defense item need not behave the same way as a +2 AC item. (Any item that's so unbalancingly powerful probably should have explicit restrictions-- i.e., one use per round-- rather than depending on an individual DM's ruling about how many free actions are"reasonable".)

If I continue your extension argument, it's clear that a knife thrower should only be able to Quickdraw one knife per round, because it would be unbalanced if he threw a hundred knives in one round. We don't know how he'd manage that, but a hypothetical tactic that allowed it would be unbalancing, so we need to take preemptive action... right?