|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Can a monk use a Ring of Force Shield without penalty?
IMarv
Not quite.
"When wearing armor, using a shield, or carrying a medium or heavy load, a monk loses his AC bonus, as well as his fast movement and flurry of blows ability."
"An iron band, this simple ring generates a 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 heavy shield (+2 AC).
Any time the monk activates and wields the shield, he suffers the penalties listed above. So even if he uses free actions to turn it off at the begining of his turn and back on after his turn, he will lose his AC bonus from Monk levels and Wisdom. Not likely that the +2AC would be a fair trade, useless at level 8, detrimental at 12th level.
Reckless is correct.
On the other hand, you can use a shield spell without penalty if you can get a way to cast it.
Reckless is correct.
On the other hand, you can use a shield spell without penalty if you can get a way to cast it.
Potions are perfect in that regard for non-casters. :)
An iron band, this simple ring generates a 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 heavy shield (+2 AC). This special creation has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance since it is weightless and encumbrance-free. It can be activated and deactivated at will as a free action.
By the previous opinion that means you can only use this ring if you have the shield proficiency. It is weightless and was clearly designed with a wizard in mind.
I would say yes a monk can use it but I am just crazy that way.
For some reason, I had it stuck in my head that you could not brew a potion with spells of a "Personal" range.
You couldn't in 3.5; the wording has mysteriously changed in PF.
|
|
An iron band, this simple ring generates a 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 heavy shield (+2 AC). This special creation has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance since it is weightless and encumbrance-free. It can be activated and deactivated at will as a free action.By the previous opinion that means you can only use this ring if you have the shield proficiency. It is weightless and was clearly designed with a wizard in mind.
I would say yes a monk can use it but I am just crazy that way.
"Shield Proficiency...
Normal: When you are using a shield with which you are not proficient, you take the shield's armor check penalty on attack rolls and on all skill checks that involve moving."
The 0 ACP is useful here, as is the lack of arcane spell failure, if you're an Arcane Spellcaster. The ability to turn it on and off as a free action is useful for keeping the hand free while casting spells. It does not negate the fact that you are, in fact, wielding a shield. For instance, you cannot use it and a 2 handed weapon at the same time. Also, if you have a weapon in the other hand and turn it off to cast a 1 round casting time spell, you do not have the +2 again until your next turn, when you can reactivate it as a free action.
I actually went off and double checked this a minute ago, and I can't find where 3.5 prohibited it too.For some reason, I had it stuck in my head that you could not brew a potion with spells of a "Personal" range.You couldn't in 3.5; the wording has mysteriously changed in PF.
It's in a strange spot: SRD
The imbiber of the potion is both the caster and the target. Spells with a range of personal cannot be made into potions.
EDIT: And actually Pathfinder didn't change that clause. It's still there, I was just looking in the wrong place. PFRPG pg 551.
Yeah, when I realized I had been looking in the wrong section I found it, too. You got in before my edit, though.
well shucks darn. I guess I was remembering a house rule some DM used in the past. Mage Armor is still in potion form though... and provides +4 ac.
EDIT: Its not too hard to activate a 1st level spell scroll with UMD. And at later levels you could have a quickened scroll of Shield.
I have a Pearl of Power (1) for the wizard for that spell. I'm looking for something for the juicy Shield Armor AC bonus.
IMarv
The Meteor Hammer weapon in the Legacy of Fire player's guide can give a +1 shield bonus if you're proficient with it. But that'd cost you a feat.
A custom magic item is probably your best bet.
Perhaps a amulet of shielding?
Get a amulet shaped like a small shield. Add an ability to cast a quickened shield effect 1-3 times a day.
EDIT: Quickening the spell would do two things. Because of its higher spell slot requirement it is set at least at 9th caster level so your duration will be high. Being able to activate it as a free or swift action at the beginning of a combat is also a plus.
I have a Pearl of Power (1) for the wizard for that spell. I'm looking for something for the juicy Shield Armor AC bonus.
You can take ranks in Use Magic Device and buy a wand of shield with a decent caster level (5 is usually a good cost vs durability compromise). If you activate it before combat, in other words when you can spend a few rounds just waving the wand around, you can usually activate a wand even with fairly low ranks in UMD. Just don't roll a 1.
|
What about Two-handed weapons and the ring? Is it still possible to deactivate the ring (free action), grip the weapon in both hands (free action), attack (full or standard action), release the ring hand (free action) and reactivate the shield (free action) all in one round? Essentially letting two-handed weapon weilders to have a shield too?
Wizards can carry a "penalty free" shield without proficiency because the the penalties are meaninless when applied.
My 3.5 wizard loved his +1 Mithral Buckler of Proof Against Transmutation and suffered all of the penalties of using it.
When you are using a shield with which you are not proficient, you take the shield's armor check penalty on attack rolls and on all skill checks that involve moving.
A penalty of 0 is no penalty at all. But loosing Evasion, fast movement, etc for a monk. Now that sucks.
IMarv
So a rogue can use a MW light shield with no penalty or even a Heavy mithral shield.
I would just pick up Use Magic Device ranks. Even as a non-class skill it won't be that difficult to use scrolls of the shield spell.
My monk has a decent Int (14), but not such a good Cha (10). I'm weighing the costs and benefits of dipping a level of Wizard (Abjurationist). You don't have to be an awesome wizard to use Staves and wands and Scrolls, you just have to BE one. (Sadly, Shield is not on any Domain spell list.) (Scrolls of spells above the level you can cast have a caster level failure chance, but high caster level spells of spells you can cast do not. Any wizard can use a 20th caster level 1st level spell, but a 20th caster level 2nd level spell is spooky/scary.)
That isn't quite true, you need to be at least the same caster level as the scroll to be able to automatically use it.
To have any chance of activating a scroll spell, the scroll user must meet the following requirements.
- The spell must be of the correct type (arcane or divine). Arcane spellcasters (wizards, sorcerers, and bards) can only use scrolls containing arcane spells, and divine spellcasters (clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers) can only use scrolls containing divine spells. (The type of scroll a character creates is also determined by his class.)
- The user must have the spell on her class list.
- The user must have the requisite ability score.
If the user meets all the requirements noted above, and her caster level is at least equal to the spell's caster level, she can automatically activate the spell without a check. If she meets all three requirements but her own caster level is lower than the scroll spell's caster level, then she has to make a caster level check (DC = scroll's caster level + 1) to cast the spell successfully.
So the DC to use a CL 20 2nd level spell and a CL 20 1st level spell would be the same (DC 21). The reason you don't need to make the check when you equal or exceed the CL of the scroll is because you automatically make it (the lowest you can roll is 1 and the DC is CL + 1).
In response to the rest of the thread, when Pathfinder Society converted I actually made my Qadiran Wizard into a Monk/Wizard. I only have a single level in Monk at the moment, but I plan to take a few more, I put more levels into Wizard to start so that I could get a few of the higher level spells. So with Spells (I keep Mage Armor up all the time, and the goal is to get Shield up early in a battle) I can get my AC up to 21 (25 with Shield). Which is pretty good for both a Monk and a Wizard. Sadly though, I haven't had a chance to play this character since the conversion, I've been running the games mostly. I really want to play the character, I'm looking forward to combining my arsenal of touch spells with the Unarmed Strikes. Plus you rarely expect a Wizard to be able to handle himself in a Grapple :D
Yes, the monk can use it.
It's a ring, not a shield. It's 'as if'... there is no shield.
Well, it would be up to interpretation, unlike the Shield spell which functions separately from the caster, the Ring of Force Shield needs to be wielded much like a regular shield would be. It does not have any weight, and therefore doesn't restrict a person significantly while they use it. However, a Monk's limitation could be interpreted as their fighting style, if they try and use a shield then it prevents them from being as effective.
At the same time, a Monk can carry objects in their hands without any sort of penalty... As I said, DM interpretation but I can easily see it go either way.
Yes, the monk can use it.
It's a ring, not a shield. It's 'as if'... there is no shield.
Same interpretation here, it's the "weightless and encumberance-free" part that does it for me and pricing fits a little over a wondrous item giving a deflection bonus to A.C. An item with a continuous "Shield" spell would go at 4000 (?) but I think the bonus costing would take precedent.
So, if I understand this correctly.
A monk can attack with any body part, making sunder attempts with his bare hands.
But he can't make a punching motion towards the weapon as it comes towards him, with this "shield" that has no weight, no penalties, nor any arcane failure chance, that can also be dismissed as a free action.
My opinion on the matter is the monk only has to be concerned about the shield and dismiss the shield if he makes an attack with that hand, or suffer a -4 penalty for attempting a shield bash with a weapon he's not proficient in. If he dismisses it, he cannot reactivate the ring in the same round, as it's essentially the same free action in the same round.
Monks have no training with shields, and in fact their training is useless if they're using a shield. The "shields" created by rings of force shield are treated as shields both mechanically and flavorwise. If a monk's training forbids him the use of shields, why would it not forbid him the use of shield-sized, shield-shaped walls of force that act exactly like shields?
What about Two-handed weapons and the ring? Is it still possible to deactivate the ring (free action), grip the weapon in both hands (free action), attack (full or standard action), release the ring hand (free action) and reactivate the shield (free action) all in one round? Essentially letting two-handed weapon weilders to have a shield too?
Yes... but you wouldn't be be wielding the weapon off-turn, only holding it (because you can't wield it in one hand). So you don't threaten, can't flank, can't make attacks of opportunity.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Can a monk use a Ring of Force Shield without penalty?
Can a Monk wear a shield without penalty?
The Force Shield ring makes you be considered to be carrying a shield.Unless I'm confused, you lose all your monk abilities when wearing armour or a shield. You would lose those with the ring.
Someone else mentioned putting personal spells into potions. You can't. You couldn't in 3.5 and you can't in PRPG.
Someone else mentioned putting personal spells into potions. You can't. You couldn't in 3.5 and you can't in PRPG.
Exactly. A character either
1)uses a Spell Trigger/Spell Completion item (like scrolls, wands, or staves) of such spells with a UMD check;
or
2)wears a Ring of Spell Storing where a Wizard or Sorcerer has loaded such spells (like Shield) and casts it himself.
The first option is extremely hard for a Monk - being already dependant on Strength, Dexterity and Wisdom, with Constitution a good choice, Charisma is almost always a 'dump stat'. The second option is possible, but expensive (a Ring of Minor Spell Storing costs 18000 gp, higher versions cost even more).
|
|
What about Two-handed weapons and the ring? Is it still possible to deactivate the ring (free action), grip the weapon in both hands (free action), attack (full or standard action), release the ring hand (free action) and reactivate the shield (free action) all in one round? Essentially letting two-handed weapon weilders to have a shield too?Yes... but you wouldn't be be wielding the weapon off-turn, only holding it (because you can't wield it in one hand). So you don't threaten, can't flank, can't make attacks of opportunity.
Yes, I assumed that was the case, I just didn't include that part in my first post. Give up AoO/Flank bonuses for a +2 shield bonus for two-handers is at least an option I guess.
Can you shield bash with a Ring of Force Shield? If so, why can't you threaten/flank with that?
Can you shield bash with a Ring of Force Shield? If so, why can't you threaten/flank with that?You can't bash because you are not wielding a Shield. You are considered to be wielding one, but you are not in reality.
I'm not sure why you couldn't bash with it. It doesn't say anything in the item about only being able to wield it defensively.
If it just gave a shield bonus like the spell then I could understand your POV.
Some folks suggest that it's not treated like a shield I would say if you treated it more like the shield spell you couldn't bash with it.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I'm not sure why you couldn't bash with it. It doesn't say anything in the item about only being able to wield it defensively.
PRPG p481: "wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield"
I now agree with you. My new view is anything you can do with a Shield you can do with this ring's Shield.
Catching up on old threads...
But a monk can wear bracers of armor, which act as a force field over his body, with no penalty.
A ring of force shield puts a force field over a section of his body, granting him a minuscule amount of extra ac, with the off chance that an attack just so happens to come in at that angle. Or if he just uses his arms to block as per normal, except he now has this big weightless plate that makes blocking with his hands that much more effective.
That's a lot like saying that a monk loses his monk abilities because, by some convoluted fashion, he gets Mage Shield or Mage Armor cast upon him, and that's just silly.
As far as using it to shield bash? I'm torn, since this basically breaks newtonian physics. It has no mass, therefore, it can exert no force upon something else, yet it obviously stops and moves things.
A ring of force shield puts a force field over a section of his body, granting him a minuscule amount of extra ac, with the off chance that an attack just so happens to come in at that angle. Or if he just uses his arms to block as per normal, except he now has this big weightless plate that makes blocking with his hands that much more effective.
That's a lot like saying that a monk loses his monk abilities because, by some convoluted fashion, he gets Mage Shield or Mage Armor cast upon him, and that's just silly.
As far as using it to shield bash? I'm torn, since this basically breaks newtonian physics. It has no mass, therefore, it can exert no force upon something else, yet it obviously stops and moves things.
The way I see it the ring creates a sheild of force which is every bit like a normal shield but made of force. While it's weightless it does have shape and moves with the characters arms, thus the wording "wielded as a heavy shield". IMO what you describe would be more like the shield spell which simply gives a shield bonus. Since it has to be wielded I think it would interfere with the monks abilities.
|
Catching up on old threads...
But a monk can wear bracers of armor, which act as a force field over his body, with no penalty.
A ring of force shield puts a force field over a section of his body, granting him a minuscule amount of extra ac, with the off chance that an attack just so happens to come in at that angle. Or if he just uses his arms to block as per normal, except he now has this big weightless plate that makes blocking with his hands that much more effective.
That's a lot like saying that a monk loses his monk abilities because, by some convoluted fashion, he gets Mage Shield or Mage Armor cast upon him, and that's just silly.
As far as using it to shield bash? I'm torn, since this basically breaks newtonian physics. It has no mass, therefore, it can exert no force upon something else, yet it obviously stops and moves things.
Note that the rules explicitly state that this item is "wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield" -- if it was supposed to be a variant of 'Shield' or 'Mage Armor', the rules would say so. Rather, it's a weightless shield of force that behaves exactly like a shield, so, going by RAW, any feats (or lack of them) affect it as if were a heavy shield (such as when you're bashing, or interfering with your abilities if you're a monk and you have the shield activated). Of course, everyone is free to houserule that it does not have any mass and cannot be used for anything other than as a quickly activated lesser version of 'Shield' spell.
So if you Shield Bash with it does it do force damage?
If we assume we can shield bash with it, yes, since it's a force effect.
It would be great to have an official answer on this case.If it's considered a shield, monks can't use it without losing some of their abilities, but it can be used to make a bash.
If it can't be used to make a bash, it shouldn't make the monk lose his abilities. That makes sense I think...
So if you Shield Bash with it does it do force damage?
If someone is falling and you cast wall of force underneath them do they take force damage?
I would say no in both cases... So the shield would do bludgeoning damage as James said.
So if you Shield Bash with it does it do force damage?
If we assume we can shield bash with it, yes, since it's a force effect.
It would be great to have an official answer on this case.
If it's considered a shield, monks can't use it without losing some of their abilities, but it can be used to make a bash.
If it can't be used to make a bash, it shouldn't make the monk lose his abilities. That makes sense I think...
I would consider it a ring and let them keept heir unarmored status. A very overpriced ring, both nice for some characters.
Probably better off buying some scrolls or a wand of shield and learning how to use them.
|
|
So if you Shield Bash with it does it do force damage?If someone is falling and you cast wall of force underneath them do they take force damage?
I would say no in both cases... So the shield would do bludgeoning damage as James said.
+1 (or is it +2, since you quoted James in the first place?).
EDIT: the shield would count as a Force effect against Incorporeal creatures, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if you Shield Bash with it does it do force damage?If someone is falling and you cast wall of force underneath them do they take force damage?
I would say no in both cases... So the shield would do bludgeoning damage as James said.
I agree as well, however I would allow it to hit incorporeal creatures since it is composed of force and force effects (like said wall of force) can hit incorporeal creatures without problems.
Another solution for the OP:
Crafting an Item with an AC bonus other than Armor, Deflection, or Natural armor(enhancement) costs bonus squared times 2,500 gp...
I'd give you Bracers of Shielding at that cost... basically bracers of armor with a different bonus type... (I could also probably be persuaded to give it to you at normal armor bonus price too since shields are enchanted at the same cost as armor normally but that wouldn't be RAW in this case).
Just so everyone is on the same page since some people seem confused about it's effect:
Ring of Force ShieldAura moderate evocation; CL 9th
Slot ring; Price 8,500 gp; Weight —
Description
An iron band, this simple ring generates a 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 heavy shield (+2 AC). This special creation has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance since it is weightless and encumbrance-free. It can be activated and deactivated at will as a free action.
The reason it is so expensive it is very useful to pretty much everyone. I'm still kind of on the wall about the whole monk thing...
While I agree that it would likely get in the way of monk attacks when it's active it seems you could deactivate it as a free action, flurry/ monk attack/ whatever, then turn it back on as a free action at the end of your turn. You wouldn't get the shield bonus against AoOs though ;)
Yeah its that encumbrance free part that sticks for me on wanting to let the monk use it.
Its up to the DM i can see both sides of the story.
1: specifically says it functions like a shield,
2: however, it has no weight and no penalty at all
Basically here is my own thoughts on this little tid-bit. Its not limiting monks movements, it has no weight and no penalty what so ever. In my own eyes, i ask myself how would this hinder a monk? answer is it wouldn't. why? because no limiting factors, reason a monk cant use his abilities in armor is because it LIMITS his mobility, reason a monk cant use a shield and his monk skills is again because it limits his range of motion. So would having a weightless shield REALLY take away his monk powers? answer is no probably not however! doesn't mean he knows how to use it and would use shield as a non-proficient weapon.
First key to D&D is to look at things from a logical stand point, and to me logically speaking as a big martial artist fan in real life, cant see this shield hindering monk that much, i might however impose that he cant flurry while shields active since shield could well get in way of his flurry strikes or give him a negative to hit when doing so unproficient.
just my two sense take it how you will.