Ring of Force Shield and Two-handed weapons
- Thread starter Mithril Man
- Start date
IceBear
Explorer
I think he's laughing at my wishy-washiness 
Honestly, this is a subject that I really could rule one way or the other depending on the circumstances and the players. Once I made an in game ruling, I'd be stuck with it, but right now I seriously could go either way.
I've *never* been a big fan of fluff text and I could really see that the reason it doesn't give Arcane Failure chance and still gives an armor bonus is because it's dispelled while you're casting with the *other* hand.
Anyway, doesn't really matter that much to me either way as it's only AC +2. It'll just depend on my mood and the character when it comes up
IceBear
Honestly, this is a subject that I really could rule one way or the other depending on the circumstances and the players. Once I made an in game ruling, I'd be stuck with it, but right now I seriously could go either way.
I've *never* been a big fan of fluff text and I could really see that the reason it doesn't give Arcane Failure chance and still gives an armor bonus is because it's dispelled while you're casting with the *other* hand.
Anyway, doesn't really matter that much to me either way as it's only AC +2. It'll just depend on my mood and the character when it comes up
IceBear
Dalin the Monk
First Post
I look at it this way....
If you are going to allow the following sequence:
Deactivate Force Shield (Free)
Attack with 2h weapon (Standard)
Hold weapon in 1 hand (Free)
Reactivate Force Shiled (Free)
Gain bonus from Force Shield
shouldn't you also allow the following sequence?:
Attack with 2h weapon (Standard)
Hold weapon in 1 hand (Free)
Gain bonus from buckler strapped to your arm
Seems like virtually the same sequence... yet one is prohibited by the rules... and the other may or may not be prohibited based on its description.
This is why I would not allow the Force Shield to be used this way.
If you are going to allow the following sequence:
Deactivate Force Shield (Free)
Attack with 2h weapon (Standard)
Hold weapon in 1 hand (Free)
Reactivate Force Shiled (Free)
Gain bonus from Force Shield
shouldn't you also allow the following sequence?:
Attack with 2h weapon (Standard)
Hold weapon in 1 hand (Free)
Gain bonus from buckler strapped to your arm
Seems like virtually the same sequence... yet one is prohibited by the rules... and the other may or may not be prohibited based on its description.
This is why I would not allow the Force Shield to be used this way.
IceBear
Explorer
Actually, I think the rule states that if you used the arm on which the buckler is on for any action, then you can't use it for defense. I don't think it matters if the buckler was there or not.
That's the reason why I initially went the way I did (and I'm honestly thinking that it is the most rules correct answer).
I've changed my opinion to your side based on the fluff text in the item description about why you don't have any penalties (shield disappears while your casting a spell, etc). BUT...if they were assuming that you are performing that action with the non-shield hand (and who's to say they aren't - they've made some weird statements with fluff text in the past that's caused confusion), then Thanee's ruling would be the correct one in my opinion.
IceBear
That's the reason why I initially went the way I did (and I'm honestly thinking that it is the most rules correct answer).
I've changed my opinion to your side based on the fluff text in the item description about why you don't have any penalties (shield disappears while your casting a spell, etc). BUT...if they were assuming that you are performing that action with the non-shield hand (and who's to say they aren't - they've made some weird statements with fluff text in the past that's caused confusion), then Thanee's ruling would be the correct one in my opinion.
IceBear
Thanee
First Post
mikebr99, the buckler gives an attack penalty for the off-hand, that's for the 'it's strapped on the arm even while attacking' bit. The force shield does not have such a limitation. Your counter-argument is a little frail.
The AC loss does not come from the fact, that the buckler is strapped to your arm while attacking, but that you are attacking with the arm your buckler is strapped to. Force shield or buckler, I see no difference here.
Anyways, it's the only rule in existance that covers this kind of question and the force shield ring does refer to normal shields (which include the buckler).
Bye
Thanee
The AC loss does not come from the fact, that the buckler is strapped to your arm while attacking, but that you are attacking with the arm your buckler is strapped to. Force shield or buckler, I see no difference here.
Anyways, it's the only rule in existance that covers this kind of question and the force shield ring does refer to normal shields (which include the buckler).
Bye
Thanee
Tony Vargas
Legend
One way 3E balances is with trade-offs. If you use your force ring between rounds to get an AC bonus, and whack with your greatsword on your turn, you're trading off the ability to make AoOs for a little AC. If you use a Bastard Sword, you're trading of damage for the the AC (the lower damage die when you attack, and the two-handed STR bonus when you take an AoO).
Since you have to give up something for the (relatively small) AC bonus of the force shield, it doesn't seem inherently unbalancing to allow.
OTOH, if you try to use a buckler 'between rounds' while TWF, you're not making any such trade-offs, and I can see how it'd be overruled on balance issues.
Now, that says nothing about logic or realism or even playability....
Since you have to give up something for the (relatively small) AC bonus of the force shield, it doesn't seem inherently unbalancing to allow.
OTOH, if you try to use a buckler 'between rounds' while TWF, you're not making any such trade-offs, and I can see how it'd be overruled on balance issues.
Now, that says nothing about logic or realism or even playability....
"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."
Why is this even being debated??? This is mind-blowingly clear.
There is nothing to read between the lines.
There's no ambiguity.
Just because kreynolds goes on one of his irrational rants does not make his point justified, and this whole argument started with him.
Why is this even being debated??? This is mind-blowingly clear.
There is nothing to read between the lines.
There's no ambiguity.
Just because kreynolds goes on one of his irrational rants does not make his point justified, and this whole argument started with him.
ConcreteBuddha
First Post
poop said:
Boy, aren't we a bit testy...no ambiguity? Neat. Thank you for enlightening us. I guess we won't discuss game balance in your presence anymore.
.
.
.
You must be new here. Most arguments on these boards start because of kreynolds. Get used to it.
.
.
.
(Disclaimer: Friendly jab at kreynolds. Friendly jab at poop. My work is done.)
