Ring of Force Shield and Two-handed weapons

[kreynolds]

Whatever...

Nice.

It does have to be wielded, does it not?

Not in my opinion. If it did, you'd have an armor check penalty and an arcane spell failure chance, which it doesn't.

It may be activated and de-activated as a free action, but how many free actions can someone take in a round?

According to this particular magic item, as many as you need. Now, if we're gonna start screaming about how many free actions a single magic item should give you in a round, then you might as well ban the Quick-Loading crossbow enhancement.

 

[Gromm]

"An iron band, this simple 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 normal shield (+2 AC). "

Only one question. Can you wield a normal shield while using a 2 handed weapon?

No.

Can I use a ring that effectively lets me wield it like a normal shield while using a two handed weapon?

No.

Could this be any easier?

No.


It doesn't say it can be used with a two handed weapon, or with two weapons. In fact it says exactly the opposite of that, so how could you possibly read that into it?

 

[kreynolds]

"An iron band, this simple 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 normal shield (+2 AC). "

Only one question. Can you wield a normal shield while using a 2 handed weapon?

No.

Correct.

Can I use a ring that effectively lets me wield it like a normal shield while using a two handed weapon?

No.

No? Where do you get that? Maybe magic items are not capable of such things in your games, but that sure as heck isn't a universal law, so I don't see how it applies.

[BCould this be any easier?

No.


It doesn't say it can be used with a two handed weapon, or with two weapons. In fact it says exactly the opposite of that, so how could you possibly read that into it? [/B]

Where in your quote does it say that you can't use it with a two-handed weapon? Nowhere. Where in the SRD does it say that you can't use it with a two-handed weapon? Nowhere. Where in the DMG does it say that you can't use it with a two-handed weapon? Nowhere. Where in the DMG errata does it say that you can't use it with a two-handed weapon? Nowhere. Where in the DnD FAQ does it say that you can't use it with a two-handed weapon? Nowhere. Thank you.

This isn't really as simple as it looks. I mean, come on, it's a magic item for god's sake. Nothing is simple when it comes to the interpretation of a magic item.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If i use a Small Mithral Shield +5, can I use it together with a two handed weapon? It does not have any Armor Check Penalty or Arcane Spell Failure..
I doubt this part of the ring`s description is not a good indicator.

But since they say "it can be wielded by the wearer as if it were a normal shield" seems to imply that it imposes the penalty that you cannot use it together with a two-handed weapon.

Mustrum Ridcully

 

[smetzger]

1) Its a free action to activate and deactivate.
2) You weild it as a normal shield
3) You can hold a two-handed weapon in one hand.
4) You can switch holding a two-handed weapon from one hand to two-hands as a free action and vice versa.

Conclusion:
You could have the ring activated while holding your greatsword in one hand and then when it comes your turn you could
1) take a free action to deactivate it,
2) take a free action to switch your sword to two hands,
3) make your attack(s),
4) take a free action to switch holding your sword from two hand to one hand
5) take a free action to activate your ring

Of course if your attacks provoked AoO or someone had a ready action on you then for those attacks you would not have the benefit of the ring.

Also, it a little murky as to whether you could make any AoOs. I don't think you could, I believe that technically you can't take a free action unless its your turn.

 

[kreynolds]

If i use a Small Mithral Shield +5, can I use it together with a two handed weapon? It does not have any Armor Check Penalty or Arcane Spell Failure..
I doubt this part of the ring`s description is not a good indicator.

You're right. That part isn't. The ring only has 2 really big functions, and that's one of them.

But since they say "it can be wielded by the wearer as if it were a normal shield" seems to imply that it imposes the penalty that you cannot use it together with a two-handed weapon.

Mustrum Ridcully

Maybe. But the emphasis on the shield deactivating/activating at the blink of an eye, as often as you need to, is one of the reasons I'm convinced.

By the way. Has anybody actually bothered to sit back and ask themselves, "I wonder if this item is balanced with the costs?" No. I don't think anybody has. But I have since the beginning, though I just realized that I didn't point it out. Look, the damn thing is only worth 8,500gp, and what do you get out of it, really? A measley +2 AC bonus and you can bash with it! What's the big frickin' deal here? Think about it? If all you wanted was +2 to AC, that bonus alone would only cost 2,000gp, but by springing the extra 6,500gp, you also get a shield that never get's in your way. This item doesn't exactly break the balance of power.

 

[Gromm]

Rape the rules all you want, the intent of the ring was to be a shield for spell casters. If you can convince your DM to allow it more power to you. I guess thats what WotC gets for trying to add some flavor to a magic item.

If you decide to allow it then don't forget your character is effectively unarmed while hes doing so since hes got a 2 handed weapon in one hand and a shield in the other.

Somedays I wonder how many sets of encylopedias would be required to handle the rules people want. "It doesn't say I can't do this, etc, etc"

Maybe it would have been better if the descirption had read:
"You can use the force shield as a normal shield. Force shield cannot be used in conjuction with two weapons, two handed weapons, or any other possible combination involving the use of two hands at once. Force shields cannot but used as missle weapons, or used to deflect magic missles or other spells. Force shield cannot be enchanted to have an enhancement bonus, nor can it be used by creatures without fingers or other limbs."

Just out of curiousity do you allow people with bucklers to use them when using two handed weapons? I could easily make the same case for a buckler as you do for the force shield, especially a mithral one.

(edit)
On further consideration consider this. When using the force shield as a shield you are probably keeping your arm ready for use as a shield. If you are attacking with a two handed weapon, your arm is now nowhere near where it should be to block an attack (as is the case with a buckler in the same situation). Remember also that despite the way the turn based system works, combat happens all at once, you aren't really attacking an orc while he stands there and waits for you to take your hand off your weapon, reactivate your shield, take your hand off your sword after recovering from the swing, and then bring your arm up into a blocking position.
What would happen is that you would attack, let go of your sword, say the magic word, start to bring up your arm and get chopped with a great ax.
The turn based system creates an impression of "my turn, ok now its your turn", but thats not the intent. Thats where its up the DM to step in and say, "Ok you can't do all that before he attacks you, sorry no AC bonus."

 

[kreynolds]

Rape the rules all you want, the intent of the ring was to be a shield for spell casters. If you can convince your DM to allow it more power to you. I guess thats what WotC gets for trying to add some flavor to a magic item.

If you decide to allow it then don't forget your character is effectively unarmed while hes doing so since hes got a 2 handed weapon in one hand and a shield in the other.

Somedays I wonder how many sets of encylopedias would be required to handle the rules people want. "It doesn't say I can't do this, etc, etc"

Maybe it would have been better if the descirption had read:
"You can use the force shield as a normal shield. Force shield cannot be used in conjuction with two weapons, two handed weapons, or any other possible combination involving the use of two hands at once. Force shields cannot but used as missle weapons, or used to deflect magic missles or other spells. Force shield cannot be enchanted to have an enhancement bonus, nor can it be used by creatures without fingers or other limbs."

Just out of curiousity do you allow people with bucklers to use them when using two handed weapons? I could easily make the same case for a buckler as you do for the force shield, especially a mithral one.

That was perhaps the most useless and unconstructive gob of banter I've ever read on these message boards. Thanks for wasting my time with it.

(edit)
On further consideration consider this. When using the force shield as a shield you are probably keeping your arm ready for use as a shield. If you are attacking with a two handed weapon, your arm is now nowhere near where it should be to block an attack (as is the case with a buckler in the same situation). Remember also that despite the way the turn based system works, combat happens all at once, you aren't really attacking an orc while he stands there and waits for you to take your hand off your weapon, reactivate your shield, take your hand off your sword after recovering from the swing, and then bring your arm up into a blocking position.
What would happen is that you would attack, let go of your sword, say the magic word, start to bring up your arm and get chopped with a great ax.
The turn based system creates an impression of "my turn, ok now its your turn", but thats not the intent. Thats where its up the DM to step in and say, "Ok you can't do all that before he attacks you, sorry no AC bonus."

This, however, does actually make some sense. Perhaps then, the intent of the Ring of Force Shield not having an armor check penalty and no arcane spell failure chance, was to say that if you 1) cast a spell, it doesn't get in your way, and 2) if you use a skill, it doesn't get in your way, and you simply lose the +2 AC bonus while performing either of these actions (including while attacking), though you don't suffer the normal penalties for wielding a shield. That, I can swallow.

Up until this point, everyone had been mentioning small shields, but not bucklers. With the buckler comparison, it's much more logical to function this way. I remember an old thread about two-handed swords while using a buckler, so it all adds up.

Thanks for the input in the second half of your post.

 

[Marshall]

This, however, does actually make some sense. Perhaps then, the intent of the Ring of Force Shield not having an armor check penalty and no arcane spell failure chance, was to say that if you 1) cast a spell, it doesn't get in your way, and 2) if you use a skill, it doesn't get in your way, and you simply lose the +2 AC bonus while performing either of these actions (including while attacking), though you don't suffer the normal penalties for wielding a shield. That, I can swallow.

Up until this point, everyone had been mentioning small shields, but not bucklers. With the buckler comparison, it's much more logical to function this way. I remember an old thread about two-handed swords while using a buckler, so it all adds up.

Thanks for the input in the second half of your post.

Of course IIRC that discusion on "bucklers and 2H weapons" came to the conclusion that you still got the buckler AC bonus and only a -1 to attacks.

You were right to start with, Its 8500gp for a stock Large Shield for crying out loud.

 

[kreynolds]

You were right to start with, Its 8500gp for a stock Large Shield for crying out loud.

That's what's been bugin' me. The price is too high now. Either that, or you never lose the AC bonus.