Ring of Force Shield and Two-handed weapons

[bitbug]

Consider an animated shield instead

Consider this:

Item AC Price
Ring of Force Shield +2 8500 GP
Large Shield,+1, Animated +3 9170 GP

The animated shield can definitely be used with a 2-handed weapon or with two-weapon fighting. It has a higher AC bonus. And I believe that it can be reasonably argued that, while animated, it doesn't cause arcane spell failure or a penalty to attacks for non-proficiency. All for a small premium in price.

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Consider an animated shield instead

Consider this:

Item AC Price
Ring of Force Shield +2 8500 GP
Large Shield,+1, Animated +3 9170 GP

The animated shield can definitely be used with a 2-handed weapon or with two-weapon fighting. It has a higher AC bonus. And I believe that it can be reasonably argued that, while animated, it doesn't cause arcane spell failure or a penalty to attacks for non-proficiency. All for a small premium in price.

And it can be sundered, it doesn't protect from ethereal creatures, it has no weight....they really aren't that similar.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

...and the animated shield doesn't take up an oh'so important ring slot...

My thoughts:

-It's not that powerful for the two-handed weapon users to wield it this way. +2 AC. That's it. I would even allow characters to not have to constantly switch hands between the weapon and the ring seeing as how the "shield" weighs nothing. But that's a house rule to clear up an ambiguous situation.

-It does not stack with other "force" armor bonuses for reasons already stated.

-8,500gp is about right for that interpretation.

-An actual shield is better just because you can enchant it further.

 

[burdett]

Riddle me this.

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.)

Read the following and then answer a simple question...

"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."

If this "special creation" can be activated and de-activated at will (a free action), why couldn't you repeatedly turn the shield on to block as needed, and then off to press your attack, over and over again as you fight?

It seems to me that many DM's like to nerf items for no other reason than to nerf.

 

[AGGEMAM]

Re: Riddle me this.

If this "special creation" can be activated and de-activated at will (a free action), why couldn't you repeatedly turn the shield on to block as needed, and then off to press your attack, over and over again as you fight?

What's your point?

 

[Thanee]

Re: Riddle me this.

"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."

If this "special creation" can be activated and de-activated at will (a free action), why couldn't you repeatedly turn the shield on to block as needed, and then off to press your attack, over and over again as you fight?

It seems to me that many DM's like to nerf items for no other reason than to nerf.

Because it is... wielded as if it were a shield!

You can surely turn it on and off however you like, but it doesn't allow you to block anything with it, if your arm is not able to do so, since you are swinging a huge greatsword around!

Bye
Thanee

 

[Darklone]

Thanks Thanee.

Good point. Thanks a lot for that one.

No offence, but I didn't get the point of the guys who want to use that ring as shield while swinging a greatsword. IMHO fighting is straining enough and switching the shield on and off is an additional distraction.

 

[smetzger]

Re: Re: Riddle me this.

Because it is... wielded as if it were a shield!

You can surely turn it on and off however you like, but it doesn't allow you to block anything with it, if your arm is not able to do so, since you are swinging a huge greatsword around!

Bye
Thanee

Yes, when it is on it is Weilded as a shield. Or are you saying that even when its off its weilded as a shield?

It won't allow you to block anything when it is off, however, there is no limit to the number of free actions that you can take on your turn. So accordeing to the rules on your turn you can use a free action to turn it off, use a free action from holding your greatsword in one hand to weilding it in two hands, attack, use a free action from weilding the greatsword in two hands to holding it in one hand, use a free action to activate the shield.

I am not saying that thats not a little rediculous. I am saying that according to the rules you can do that. There are some disadvantages:
1) can't make AoO's because you aren't weilding a weapon (unless you have Monkey Grip)
2) If you provoke an AoO or someone has readied an action against you you don't get the benefit of the shield.

You are welcome to use common sense and change the rules for your campaign. But it is a rule change, just as allowing a Dragon a step of more than 5 foot is a rule change.

Now, please explain from a rules perspective why I could not do as I outlined.

 

[Thanee]

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.

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).

Bye
Thanee

 

[Otterscrubber]

Tough Call

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.