Force Shield ring and bow?

[LokiDR]

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.

logical fallicy: a statement that does not work in logical argument. If I say "A B C D" a slippery slope kind of arguement would be to conclude I would next say "E F G H". Or, in other terms, that because one "bad" thing is allowed more will definately follow. Without evidence, this is a baseless statement.

I asked if you knew of any other rule clarifications that lead to widespread game imbalance. I haven't, but perhaps you have evidence of the "slippery slope" at work.

If you say this is setting a bad precident, which is not quite the same as a slippery slope, you must believe that there are other items which can be abused by application of this ruling. Can you think of any other currently published items? None come to mind for me.

If you believe that other designers will later create items that can be abused by this ruling, I would have to ask where you get the idea from. If they are aware of the notion of free actions as being allowed in multiple per turn, they would never create such a thing. Only if they ignored the ruling would there be a problem. If they ignore rulings, I wouldn't trust what they design in the first place, would make a case that they are bad designers.

Rules in general get wacky when applied without thought. Then again, disallowing rules without thought leads to strange results as well.

 

[LokiDR]

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.

-Hyp.

Weren't the gloves of storing FAQ'd to only release an item as a free action, storing an item as a move-equivelant?

 

[Hypersmurf]

You've got it backwards.

DMG Errata:

p. 217 and 218, Gloves of Storing: Gloves of Storing don’t state what sort of action. After the sentence that
ends: “only store one item at a time.” INSERT:
Storing or retrieving the item is a free action.

-Hyp.

 

[Anditch]

Another idea for a shield

If u want why dont u have a shield and have it animated it frees up both hands. Animated is equal to +2 its in the DMG.

 

[Anditch]

read my description

Answer me this at anytime in my post did i discribe the shield. No i said it acted like a wall of force for the purposes of the spell. i never said that it was or not a shield shaped item made of force. So i never got the description wrong as i never described it.

 

[AuraSeer]

Re: read my description

Answer me this at anytime in my post did i discribe the shield./B]

Since you ask: yes. See that part where you said it would sit between the bowshaft and the string, and still allow the bow to be used? And the part where you said wood and metal will pass through it? I'd call that description, and I'd also say it's incorrect.

 

[mikebr99]

Anditch, read the item description again, you've got it totally wrong.

The ring creates an object identical to a large shield, except that it is made of force instead of wood or metal. It grants a +2 armor bonus to AC, just like a shield does. It grants no other benefit; unlike a full-size wall of force, it does not help against targeted spells, breath weapons, or anything that doesn't use an attack roll.

The ring can be activated or deactivated as a free action, so it doesn't interfere with anything else you do. IMC, our ranger routinely shuts the field off, makes full attacks with his bow, and then reactivates it at the end of his turn. That gives him the benefit of the higher AC, without preventing use of a two-handed weapon. (However, if he were attacked while the field was off-- for instance, if he drew an AoO by firing the bow in a threatened square-- he would not get the benefit.)

Exactly... This is also how spellcasters get around the spell failure when using this item. YMMV


Mike

 

[Artoomis]

I have to revise my earlier statements, having gone back to the actual description of this item:

This ring generates a large shield-sized (and shield-shaped) wall of force that stays with the ring and can be wielded by the wearer as if it were a large shield (+2 AC). This special creation, since it can be activated and deactivated at will (a free action), has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance.

The description implies that this item lets you instantly put the shield up and down mutiple times in a round, effectively getting the +2 armor class constantly, even to the point that there is no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure.

With that description, it's clear that you could use a bow with it, simply activating and deactivating at will as required to allow you to shoot.

 

[LokiDR]

effectively getting the +2 armor class constantly

Unless you get hit while the ring is off such as when you are shooting or casting.

 

[Artoomis]

Unless you get hit while the ring is off such as when you are shooting or casting.

Well, a readied action might be able to do that, but that would be the only way.