Ring of Force Shield and Two-handed weapons

[Caliban]

Because of the rules given for bucklers, which are - by the rules - the only shields who even allow the use of two hands, and therefore are the only shields the Force Shield can compare to.

I don't believe it compares, because the buckler is hanging off your hand the entire time. The force shield is simply not there at all when you are attacking.

Since the Force Shield has to be wielded, you cannot use it while using a greatsword. You can - as outlined above - deactiviate it to use the greatsword and activate it afterwards, but it would still not grant an AC bonus for one turn, since you cannot wield it properly, because you attacked with your shield arm during your last action (see buckler rule).

I don't agree with that reasoning.

Answer me this: If you can't use it with a two-handed weapon, what use justifies it's cost? A +1 ghost touch shield is less expensive and blocks incorporeal, and gives a better AC bonus.

 

[Thanee]

I don't believe it compares, because the buckler is hanging off your hand the entire time. The force shield is simply not there at all when you are attacking.

Well, you don't get a penalty for attacking, do you?
With a buckler you do (at least when fighting with two weapons)!

I don't agree with that reasoning.

Answer me this: If you can't use it with a two-handed weapon, what use justifies it's cost? A +1 ghost touch shield is less expensive and blocks incorporeal, and gives a better AC bonus.

Nothing justifies the cost, Caliban, nothing at all.

The ring just sucks the way it is.

But that doesn't make it work any different...

Apart from the price, you do not agree with the logic of my explanation?
I have a hard time believing this, really!

Bye
Thanee

 

[rhammer2]

Re: Tough Call

This is not a "what can you do with a free action" question. You cannot wield a shield while you are using a two handed weapon. Both would have to be used simultaneously. What you want is an animated shield, then you get your shield bonus and can use your two handed weapon.

It would defintely be up to the DM and his/her palyers to work this out, mainly due to the wording but i think the sticking point here is that some people out there think that a free action means you can do anything you want in a single round. This is not the case. It states the the DM is responsible for what can reasonably be done with free actions in a single round. Also people seem to forget the a combat round is a game concept that includes a lot of things, not just attack, be defensive rinse repeat. It includes feints, parries and deception as part of every combat round, which is summarized in this game system as a single die role for every attack. But here is how it would go in my campaign

According to the description of this item it has all the usefullness and limitations of a regular shield with the one exception of not creating any arcane spell failure, period. All other limitations apply. 2 Handed weapons would not be allowed because you need your hands on a 2 Handed weapon during the course of a fight, not just for the split second you make an attack. They are heavy cumbersome weapons that need 2 hands to WIELD (not just attack) properly. A shield, to be usefull, needs to be wielded with one hand independant of a weapon to be useful.

I am sure others will disagree, and that is why different groups have house rules but i think this is the most logical way to go.

 

[mikebr99]

Why can a spellcaster turn the shield off so he/she has hands free to cast a spell and then turn the shield back on to get the +2 AC, but a warrior isn't aloud the same benefits?

A standard action = a standard action... does it not?

The Shield gets turned off to allow a spellcaster to complete a standard action. So a fighter could also complete a standard action under the same rules... and still get the benefits of the AC bonus.

 

[rhammer2]

You are assuming the wizard is turning the shield off and on. As long as his other hand is free, he can cast with the shield turned on. This is what I would require for the wizard to get the shield bonus in a round.

Why can a spellcaster turn the shield off so he/she has hands free to cast a spell and then turn the shield back on to get the +2 AC, but a warrior isn't aloud the same benefits?

A standard action = a standard action... does it not?

The Shield gets turned off to allow a spellcaster to complete a standard action. So a fighter could also complete a standard action under the same rules... and still get the benefits of the AC bonus.

 

[mikebr99]

Wow.. double post... sorry.

 

[mikebr99]

You are assuming the wizard is turning the shield off and on.

This is how the thing works...

"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). 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 Spellcaster turns it off to cast his spell.

Spellcasters turn:
Move somewhere
Cast Quickened spell (free action)
Turn off Force Shield (free action)
Cast standard action spell
Turn Force Shield back on (free action)

Warriors Turn:
Move somewhere
scream explative at orcs (free action)
Turn off Force Shield (free action)
place second hand on Greatsword (free action)
attack Orc (standard action)
take hand off Greatsword (free action)
Turn Force Shield back on (free action)

Aren't these characters aloud to do similar things on their turn?

 

[Thanee]

Well, an arcane caster can use a shield (even a large shield) and cast at the same time (suffering arcane failure chance), something a fighter using both hands to fight, cannot!

So, I do not see, why the ring should change that...

Bye
Thanee

 

[Caliban]

Well, an arcane caster can use a shield (even a large shield) and cast at the same time (suffering arcane failure chance), something a fighter using both hands to fight, cannot!

So, I do not see, why the ring should change that...

Bye
Thanee

A buckler is strapped to your arm even when you aren't using it.

The shield created by the ring is not. You are not wielding them both at the same time, as you are with the buckler.

First you are wielding the weapon, then you stop doing that and wield the force shield as a free action. (Holding the two-handed weapon in one hand means you are no longer wielding it.)

I can easily see someone switching grips after striking with a swing, especially if it's a weapon than can normally be wielded in one or two hands (i.e. bastard sword or waraxe).

 

[mikebr99]

Thanks for jumping back in Caliban...

Though I'm not sure why this particular debate has sparked so many replies. Especially since we are only talking about a +2 AC bonus.

But everyone is entitle to their opinions... please keep them coming.

My vote goes to being able to use the Ring of Force Shield an a two-handed Weapon. When you aren't attacking, it's up. When you are attacking it is down, therefor no AC bonus, if you provoke an AoO during your turn.