Ring of Force Shield and Two-handed weapons
- Thread starter Mithril Man
- Start date
AGGEMAM said:
The end of your turn is just before the start of someone elses turn.
"When a character's turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round's worth of actions."...."In the same way, a round can be a segment of game time starting with the first character to act and ending with the last,.."
IceBear
Explorer
I don't know where Aggeman is going with this. I agree with Thanee's buckler ruling that you can't use a buckler on an arm that has been used for an attack (or, as I extrapolate, cast a spell) in the same round.
Thus, to me, if the wizard casts a spell (with the hand the shield is on) it doesn't matter whether or not he turns the shield back on and moves or turns the shield back on and ends his turn. Where does it say that taking a free action at the end of your turn doesn't have an effect?
It's all or nothing here - I would rule that if the person uses that arm to cast a spell, he can't use it to get protection from a shield too, AFTER casting the spell.
IceBear
Thus, to me, if the wizard casts a spell (with the hand the shield is on) it doesn't matter whether or not he turns the shield back on and moves or turns the shield back on and ends his turn. Where does it say that taking a free action at the end of your turn doesn't have an effect?
It's all or nothing here - I would rule that if the person uses that arm to cast a spell, he can't use it to get protection from a shield too, AFTER casting the spell.
IceBear
Last edited:
I'm not sure either...IceBear said:
But that is how the thing works... That is exactually what is was created to do. That is why it is so good for Fighter/Mages.
Mind you, 'good' is a relative term... since we are only really talking about +2 AC bonus.
The whole mechanic of not getting spell failure penalties is completely dependant on the fact that the shield is turned off while casting and then back on to defend the rest of the round.
IceBear
Explorer
I don't that's what it was created to do. You have to remember that a spellcaster could have a large shield in one hand and still cast a spell without any problems (ok, an arcane caster would have a chance of spell failure due to the shield). That's why this is good for a spellcaster, it have no armor penalty or arcane failure chance, but he wouldn't have to use the dispell/resummon aspect of the item in this case so it's irrelevant.
Basically, for a spellcaster, this item is useful when he has both hands full and needs to quickly free one for spellcasting. This is mostly true for a cleric. The cleric could have a weapon in one hand and this shield in the other. Normally, to cast a spell, the cleric would have to free one hand and the easiest to do would be to drop the weapon as a free action and then cast the spell. This, however, leaves the cleric without a weapon during the next round unless he wants to bend down and pick it up. With this item, he could dispell the shield, cast the spell, and then resummon the shield. I wouldn't allow the AC bonus until his next round, but he would have both shield and weapon the next round for melee purposes.
IceBear
Basically, for a spellcaster, this item is useful when he has both hands full and needs to quickly free one for spellcasting. This is mostly true for a cleric. The cleric could have a weapon in one hand and this shield in the other. Normally, to cast a spell, the cleric would have to free one hand and the easiest to do would be to drop the weapon as a free action and then cast the spell. This, however, leaves the cleric without a weapon during the next round unless he wants to bend down and pick it up. With this item, he could dispell the shield, cast the spell, and then resummon the shield. I wouldn't allow the AC bonus until his next round, but he would have both shield and weapon the next round for melee purposes.
IceBear
But, as stated in the description of the item, the reason that there aren't any spell failure checks is because you trun it off while casting.IceBear said:
So if the spellcaster casts a spell every round (as most of them do...) then he wont get the benefits of this magic item at all? Except maybe during the 1st round before its his turn?
That seem a bit pricey for a 1 round +2 AC bonus... 8,500gp for +2 once... that's cost effective.
IceBear
Explorer
That's a point about the item description. I've read it so fast before that I didn't catch the fluff about WHY it doesn't cause Arcane Failure or Armor Check penalty.
That puts things into a different light. They *could* be referring to the fact that if the spellcaster had nothing in his right hand and the shield in his left he could dispell the shield, cast the spell with his right (without any penalty), and then resummon the shield (which would continue to give the +2 to AC because the left hand wasn't used in the spellcasting.
Bottom line, I wouldn't allow it to work one way for spellcasters and another way for 2H weapons which was what a few people suggested - you have to be consistent.
Hmmmm...based on that fluff text I think I will side with you and Caliban. It is, afterall, only +2 on AC.
Also, with my original position, if the cleric was planning on casting a spell every round then he would be better off to drop his weapon rather than dispell the shield. Seriously, this is one area that a lot of people forget (including myself). If a cleric has a mace and shield ready and is in melee, if he wants to cast a spell, one of them has to go first. With this item, if he only wants to cast a spell and then go back to melee it would give him the choice of not having to drop his weapon. If he was planning on multiple spells and wants the AC, then he needs a different plan.
Anyway, that was my original stance, but based on the item description I'll allow either a spellcaster or 2H weapon weilder to dispell the shield, take their action and then resummon the shield continuing to get their +2 on AC
IceBear
That puts things into a different light. They *could* be referring to the fact that if the spellcaster had nothing in his right hand and the shield in his left he could dispell the shield, cast the spell with his right (without any penalty), and then resummon the shield (which would continue to give the +2 to AC because the left hand wasn't used in the spellcasting.
Bottom line, I wouldn't allow it to work one way for spellcasters and another way for 2H weapons which was what a few people suggested - you have to be consistent.
Hmmmm...based on that fluff text I think I will side with you and Caliban. It is, afterall, only +2 on AC.
Also, with my original position, if the cleric was planning on casting a spell every round then he would be better off to drop his weapon rather than dispell the shield. Seriously, this is one area that a lot of people forget (including myself). If a cleric has a mace and shield ready and is in melee, if he wants to cast a spell, one of them has to go first. With this item, if he only wants to cast a spell and then go back to melee it would give him the choice of not having to drop his weapon. If he was planning on multiple spells and wants the AC, then he needs a different plan.
Anyway, that was my original stance, but based on the item description I'll allow either a spellcaster or 2H weapon weilder to dispell the shield, take their action and then resummon the shield continuing to get their +2 on AC
IceBear
Last edited:
IceBear
Explorer
Please remember that in my original post I *WAS* going to agree with you because of the fact that it was only +2 and the cost of the item. Then I started thinking that if there was an existing rule, like Thanee pointed out, then I should use that for consistency. However, if this item is not consistent with that rule to begin with (allowing spellcasters to cast with that hand - at least it *seems* like that's what it's saying - and keep the +2) then it's just as well to keep that inconsistency with other uses of that item as well.
However, the trouble with fluff text is that it's highly subjective. I could see an argument for the fact that they are ASSUMING that your other hand is free for spellcasting and thus you would take a free action to get rid of the shield before casting to avoid the penalties. I mean, many people allow for a cleric with a buckler to pass a weapon to that hand as a free action, then cast with the now free hand, and then pass it back.
But, I'm now in my paragraph #1 frame of mine
so I'd let my players dispell the shield, attack, resummon and get the +2. It's inconsistent with how someone with a buckler would be treated, but hey, it's magic 
and the item seems inconsistent with how a buckler would be treated anyway.
IceBear
However, the trouble with fluff text is that it's highly subjective. I could see an argument for the fact that they are ASSUMING that your other hand is free for spellcasting and thus you would take a free action to get rid of the shield before casting to avoid the penalties. I mean, many people allow for a cleric with a buckler to pass a weapon to that hand as a free action, then cast with the now free hand, and then pass it back.
But, I'm now in my paragraph #1 frame of mine
so I'd let my players dispell the shield, attack, resummon and get the +2. It's inconsistent with how someone with a buckler would be treated, but hey, it's magic and the item seems inconsistent with how a buckler would be treated anyway.IceBear
