Ring of Force Shield and Two-handed weapons

[kreynolds]

Strange. The thread never moved up the list when I posted. Odd.

*bump*

 

[Varius]

#1 - I disagree with letting the person have the shield after using the two handed weapon. Think of two weapon fighting, a buckler does not get the ac bonus if you use the off hand weapon

#2 - Is everyone forgetting that the shield is still a Wall of Force? No sundering it. Blocks ethereal creatures. Has no weight. I'd say that is what part of the price is, right?

 

[The Lost One]

I am planning to give one of these to a villain in my campaign.

I dodged the whole two-handed weapon question by giving him a bastard sword (and EWP bastard sword), but I did come up with at least one more advantage.

A Ring of Force Shield allows you to use effects that require you to have hands free without actually using an MEA to sling your shield or sheathe a weapon, or drop your weapon or shield on the ground.

My villain has a flying mount and would keep his hands free to use a bow and/or his Deflect Arrows feat depending on the threat he is facing. He could fire his bow, hold it one hand and Deflect Arrows, or fire his bow, hold it one hand and get +2 AC (although this has the same timing question as the greatsword) or get +2 AC and Deflect Arrows.

 

[RigaMortus]

I think I'd go with the "can wield and swing a two-handed weapon while wearing the force shield, but upon swining said weapon you lose the +2 AC bonus for that round" arguement. That is how it works with Buckler's after all...

 

[Marshall]

Damn good point about the shield proficiency. I figure that the additional 4,500gp of the item not only provides the appropriate proficiency, but it also accounts for the complete removal of armor check penalties and arcane spell failure chances.

Best damn argument I've seen yet. Just when I think all hope is lost, nwn_deadman saves the day. Thanks man. That was the missing "rule break" I'd been looking for.

Except a Large Shield +2 give AC+4 while the ring only gives AC+2.

The point about the Mithril Buckler is that the penalty for using armor untrained is double the check penalty. Since the buckler has a penalty of 0...

 

[smetzger]

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.

This is the Rules forum. We are discussing the official rules. If you don't agree with the official rules thats fine, but that doesn't change what the official rules are.

 

[Thanee]

I also think that you can activate and deactivate it as much as you like, but once you attack you lose the AC bonus until your next action, shields up or not.

There is no rule covering this precisely, but the one closest to it, is the rule for bucklers!

Bye
Thanee

 

[Caliban]

What I'm saying is that the only real use for the ring is for people using a two handed weapon. Allowing you to get a two-handed attack and still receive a +2 AC bonus seems to be exactly what it's intended for.

The only other situation where it would be useful is in the case of a caster who wears armor and uses a weapon and shield (spellsword, for example). It would allow them to free up their hand to cast a spell.

At the level most characters can get it, it's less effective than a magical shield that costs less. For most shield fighters, it's simply not worth the cost.

It's almost never useful to a pure arcane caster, since it will not stack with bracers or mage armor.

It's marginally useful for a cleric, but most of those who use shields would prefer a magical shield with a higher armor bonus.

If you don't allow two-handed fighters to use it, it's just an overpriced bauble with very little practical use.

Paying 8,500 gp for +2 AC that you end up only using against incorporeal creatures (and not even then if you are an arcane caster) isn't worth the price for most PC's.

 

[Gromm]

It's almost never useful to a pure arcane caster, since it will not stack with bracers or mage armor.

You lost me here. Its like a shield, so it should stack. Or are you saying that a character with mage armor up gets no benefit from shields? ie My fighter/mage has mage armor and a large shield +1 but gets no benefit from the shield for some reason.

Seems to me that it should grant a bonus to someone with mage armor up (like all shields should). I can't fathom why it wouldn't (rule-wise and logically).

 

[Caliban]

You lost me here. Its like a shield, so it should stack.

It's like a shield so it would not stack.

Or are you saying that a character with mage armor up gets no benefit from shields? ie My fighter/mage has mage armor and a large shield +1 but gets no benefit from the shield for some reason.

Exactly.

Seems to me that it should grant a bonus to someone with mage armor up (like all shields should). I can't fathom why it wouldn't (rule-wise and logically).

The rules specifically state that bonuses of the same type will not stack.

A shield grants an armor bonus, therefore it will not stack with armor bonuses from any other source, except for worn armor. (There is a specific exception in the rules that allows the armor bonus from a shield to stack with the armor bonus from worn armor, but not with the armor bonus from mage armor or bracers of armor. It's located on page 104 of the PHB, under the Armor Qualities section. And a shield is a type of armor, according to Table 7-5: Armor. This has also been confirmed by the game designers, namely Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, and Sean K. Reynolds.)