Ring of Force Shield and Two-handed weapons

[smetzger]

Force Shields are not animated, you do not just hit the on switch and they protect you, you have to do that yourself. Also see my last post about time and abstract D&D combat.

Yes you can turn it on and weild it and turn it off without any problems. Thus the stuff about free action.

Your stuff about abstract D&D combat has no relevance because it is not how D&D combat works. Everyone takes 'turns' in D&D combat and time is in fact parceled out in these finite actions. In fact this is essential for the feather fall spell work, if someone bull rushes you off the side of a cliff you don't actually start falling untill its your turn, at which time you can use a free action to cast feather fall.

 

[AGGEMAM]

Yes you can turn it on and weild it and turn it off without any problems. Thus the stuff about free action.

Your stuff about abstract D&D combat has no relevance because it is not how D&D combat works. Everyone takes 'turns' in D&D combat and time is in fact parceled out in these finite actions. In fact this is essential for the feather fall spell work, if someone bull rushes you off the side of a cliff you don't actually start falling untill its your turn, at which time you can use a free action to cast feather fall.

Hong, Thanee, and kreynolds have tried to explain you the ACTUAL rules here. Are the rules ambigious? Maybe! But it is none-the-less how they work!

Let's face the ring is crap, don't buy it!

Btw, the feather fall note is correct, though!

 

[mikebr99]

Is everyone in agreement that the Force ring gets turned off so that the spellcaster can cast his spell during his turn?

Is everyone in agreement that the above noted spellcaster would gain the bonus to AC for every attack during that round, except the one that came from the AoO provoked from his casting the spell?

Is everyone in agreement that the Force shield is out of the way for the spellcasters STANDARD ACTION???

Does everyone agree that a standard action spell takes the same amount of time (in D&D anyway...) as a standard action sword swing?

The extra hand is free and able to perform a standard action...
Cast a spell.
Help to swing a sword.
Pick his nose...

Why is one standard action aloud, and the others aren't?

 

[smetzger]

Hong, Thanee, and kreynolds have tried to explain you the ACTUAL rules here. Are the rules ambigious? Maybe! But it is none-the-less how they work!

Let's face the ring is crap, don't buy it!

Btw, the feather fall note is correct, though!

No, they have not explained the actual rules. They have made references to bucklers and their theories of how time flows during the D&D combat. However, no one has quoted a rule that says you cannot use a number of free actions to turn the ring on and off.

Are you saying that even if its a free action to turn the ring back on it takes something extra to be actually weilding the shield after its turned on? That seems to be what Thanee is saying. Could you provide a rules reference for this? So if I take the actions necessary to strap on a regular shield it takes something extra to actually 'weild' the shield.

 

[laiyna]

Correct me if I'm wrong but a shield stacks with armor, so why would the ring not stack with bracers of armor?

Lai

 

[AGGEMAM]

Correct me if I'm wrong but a shield stacks with armor, so why would the ring not stack with bracers of armor?

Ok, armor stacks with shield only by virtue of a special exception to the normal stacking rules, read PHB, page 104.

 

[Darklone]

Sage advice

Read the DnDFAQ. And the description for the spell mage armour. It says explicitely that it does not stack with shields.

 

[AGGEMAM]

Re: Sage advice

Read the DnDFAQ. And the description for the spell mage armour. It says explicitely that it does not stack with shields.

So does the PHB on page 104.

 

[IceBear]

For what it's worth, I agree with those that would allow the ring to be turned off, attack with two-hands, and then turn it back on at the end of your turn. Now, I am not sure if I would allow the +2 to AC then, as Thanee has a point with the buckler argument.

Actually, no, I don't think I would allow allow the +2 to AC after the attack (I would allow the shield to come into existence, but I don't think I would allow it to be weilded). It's really no different than having a magical buckler and attack with a great sword. Sure, at the end of the attack, you could take a free action and take one hand off the sword but the buckler rules clearly state that you don't get the benefits of the buckler on your AC that round.

I would allow someone to use the ring as a free action, move through someone's threatened area and get the extra +2 on AC during the AoO, and then as a free action dispel the shield, weild his weapon two-handed and attack. I'd even allow them to switch to one-hand and re-summon the shield, but it wouldn't gain them anything as they wouldn't get the +2 bonus on AC.

IceBear

PS No, you can't use a shield with Mage Armor by the rules

 

[Thanee]

Is everyone in agreement that the Force ring gets turned off so that the spellcaster can cast his spell during his turn?

Is everyone in agreement that the above noted spellcaster would gain the bonus to AC for every attack during that round, except the one that came from the AoO provoked from his casting the spell?

Is everyone in agreement that the Force shield is out of the way for the spellcasters STANDARD ACTION???

Does everyone agree that a standard action spell takes the same amount of time (in D&D anyway...) as a standard action sword swing?

The extra hand is free and able to perform a standard action...
Cast a spell.
Help to swing a sword.
Pick his nose...

Why is one standard action aloud, and the others aren't?

Well, I'm not in agreement with that!

The spellcaster would get the +2 AC, because the shield does not interfere with spellcasting.

The shield can even be turned on while casting, no problem. The shield would even count against any AoO during the casting.

Bye
Thanee