| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Can you use a ring of force shield simultaneously with two-handed weapons such as a bow or greatsword?
Can you use a ring of force shield simultaneously with two-handed weapons such as a bow or greatsword?
This sounds really familiar. Did you search this out?
I'm still in the No camp :)
No unless your GM says yes.
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).
Can you wield a heavy shield and a 2 handed weapon?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you wield a heavy shield and a 2 handed weapon?
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).
Can you wield a "weightless and encumbrance free" heavy shield and a 2 handed weapon?
Can you wield a "weightless and encumbrance free" heavy shield and a 2 handed weapon?Can you wield a heavy shield and a 2 handed weapon?
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).
No.
No.Can you wield a "weightless and encumbrance free" heavy shield and a 2 handed weapon?Can you wield a heavy shield and a 2 handed weapon?
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).
Why not, you have a free hand?
Why not, you have a free hand?No.Can you wield a "weightless and encumbrance free" heavy shield and a 2 handed weapon?Can you wield a heavy shield and a 2 handed weapon?
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).
It says it can be wielded as a heavy shield, not it can be wielded as an weightless and encumbrance free heavy shield. If you wield a heavy shield, you cannot use that hand for anything else.
Weightless and encumbrance free is not the same thing as 'not needing a hand to use' -- these terms are not the same.
Weightless and encumbrance free is not the same thing as 'not needing a hand to use' -- these terms are not the same.
Correct. For what the OP wants, you'd need to research a spell that created a Force Shield that acts as if it were a Heavy Steel Shield with the Animated property. Then it would float around in front of you of it's own accord.
|
Even if can't have it on at the moment you attack, you should still be able to deactivate it and reactivate it as a free action in the same turn. It's still operating at a huge penalty, since it means you can't take AoOs.
I'd just allow it hands-free. It doesn't scale, and AC is incredibly expensive to maintain as levels increase.
You know what you could use that's a shield with two handed weapons? A buckler :o
...and AC is incredibly expensive to maintain as levels increase.
Not true. AC is one of the cheapest things to increase as you gain levels.
When creatures are getting +20 to hit you pretty much are just mitigating the secondary attacks in the high game. Personally I think items that give miss changes give you a better bang for your buck at the higher levels.
When creatures are getting +20 to hit you pretty much are just mitigating the secondary attacks in the high game. Personally I think items that give miss changes give you a better bang for your buck at the higher levels.
And how!
Although a Halfling Monk/Duelist would disagree that you can't stop attacks with AC. :)
When creatures are getting +20 to hit you pretty much are just mitigating the secondary attacks in the high game. Personally I think items that give miss changes give you a better bang for your buck at the higher levels.
I've found that its very easy to negate primary attacks with AC.
Consider that a +20 to hit is matched with:
+5 amulet of natural armor (+5 ac) 50k
+5 ring of protection (+5 ac) 50k
+5 full plate (+14 ac) 25k
+5 heavy shield (+7 ac) 25k
that's + 31 ac or a total AC of 41, without dex, for only 150k... if you want to save some money have mithral full plate a 16 dex and only a +4 ring and amulet to save 26k and have the same AC. Save 9k more by taking dodge and reduce the amulet another point. Heck just have a 40 AC and save 9k more by having a +3 ring...
So we've kept an AC 40 and knocked 54k off the above price (putting us at 96k for a 40 AC).
This isn't even taking into account options like shield focus, the defender of the society trait, or class features that raise AC.
At level 13 you can have that 40 AC and a +3 weapon as well as a cloak +3 leaving 17k for stat boosters (perhaps a +2 headband and +2 belt of physical superiority)... and honestly it just gets easier to keep the AC up as you gain more wealth -- without killing your offensive options too.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
As far as I'm concerned your hand is only 'free' if you are not wielding a sword in it. If a player wanted to release the greatsword to wield the ring/ shield, they can. So you could attack with the sword, defend with the shield... but you cannot use two hands on the sword for attacks of opportunity while the shield is active. It makes an interesting corner case for weapons which you can wield one handed or two handed.
As Abraham spalding just demonstrated it IS impossible to protect against this with enough funds, but not all characters have access to that type of wealth especially when you have parties of 6+ and the expense of deaths or failed fights to deal with.
All I'm saying is typically the BBGs will be pretty much auto hitting their first attack and that its really only the secondary attacks the typical player (who isn't a tank), can hope to mitigate.
Sorry for the diversion on this side discussion.
As far as I'm concerned your hand is only 'free' if you are not wielding a sword in it. So if a player wanted to release the greatsword to wield the ring/ shield, they can. So you could attack with the sword, defend with the shield... but you cannot use two hands on the sword for attacks of opportunity while the shield is active. It makes an interesting corner case for weapons which you can wield one handed or two handed.
Makes the Bastard Sword a viable build option without having to to dip into Fighter with the Polearm Mastery.
But really if you're doing damage the difference between 1d8 (4.5 avg) and 2d6 (Avg 7) isn't a big deal when you're getting +17 to damage at level 10.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I'm just going to use a buckler.
I'm curious though: If the ring of force shield DOES use up a hand slot, why would anyone ever bother using it over other options (such as an actual heavy mithral shield or a buckler? Kinda defeats the whole point if you ask me to enforce what amounts to "flavor text" as a rule.
I think I'm just going to use a buckler.
I'm curious though: If the ring of force shield DOES use up a hand slot, why would anyone ever bother using it over other options (such as an actual heavy mithral shield or a buckler? Kinda defeats the whole point if you ask me to enforce what amounts to "flavor text" as a rule.
Because I'm a halfling with 8 strength. A ring weighs --, whereas a shield weighs actual weight.
The shield created by the ring specifically says
"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 means that it is attached o your ring, and by this it is attached to your hand. It is not floating out there deflecting things automatically or hands free, which means your hand must be free.
This is good in a pinch where a fighter with a two handed weapon, or using two weapons, needs more defense rather than an attack of opportunity. This is also decent as the shield does not impair the movement, skill use, or the casting of spells.
It is also good for two weapon users gives you the AC when not your turn and you can still make AoO's with your main hand weapon. Since the only time you would ever not have the AC bonus is on your turn against AoO's you provoke and that mostly only happens if you move more than 5' if you don't make a full attack keep the ring shield up.
It's worked great for a TWF rogue in one of my games.
I'd also like to note that...not all characters will be using Full Plate, so...Fighters...maybe Paladins, Cavaliers...sure...they'll get that bonus.
Light armor melee's have to have ALOT more AC to keep up with the huge +14 AC of the full plate+5, I suppose a Light Armored player can get close, if they are Dex machines: Mithral Chain Shirt+5 (9 ac) + 22 dex (+6} gets a Dex machine up to +15 AC with Armor & Dex.
Actually celestial armor offers a higher total bonus than full plate does -- so in light armor you can have *more* AC than in full plate -- even with a fighter (who can have even more AC due to his armor training).
All in all I'm just tired of the myth that AC doesn't keep up. It does, it is easy to do, and honestly anyone saying otherwise simply fails at math or critical thinking.
It stands to reason that if it takes up a hand and is wielded as a heavy shield then I should be able to benefit from shield bashes with it or upping the bonus with the shield focus line of feats.
If all that works out fine, I think it might remain a worthwhile item, even if it takes up a hand.
It stands to reason that if it takes up a hand and is wielded as a heavy shield then I should be able to benefit from shield bashes with it or upping the bonus with the shield focus line of feats.
Yep, sounds reasonable. Also, it's not as easily sundered as most shields. Since the only way to sunder it is to sunder the ring, which is protected by the shield.
Agreed -- what's more I'll even throw in a basically free ghost touch since it's a force effect. Bash away on the ghost.
Something else though -- a ring of force shield would be easier to sneak into say, the king's coronation or the huge ball that's taking place at some noble's house than a buckler, heavy shield or glove of storing (assuming that the glove isn't specifically built to look like it will belong in such places). So for a more... covert means of having a shield with you the ring of force shield might be a nice choice (and unlike a glamoured shield it's not going to show on anti-illusion methods).
Agreed -- what's more I'll even throw in a basically free ghost touch since it's a force effect. Bash away on the ghost.
Something else though -- a ring of force shield would be easier to sneak into say, the king's coronation or the huge ball that's taking place at some noble's house than a buckler, heavy shield or glove of storing (assuming that the glove isn't specifically built to look like it will belong in such places). So for a more... covert means of having a shield with you the ring of force shield might be a nice choice (and unlike a glamoured shield it's not going to show on anti-illusion methods).
I came up with this one time to fool PCs. :)
Long Sword of Brilliant Energy. Deactivate it, you have a sword pommel. Place the sword pommel in a lead lined belt pouch. You now have a very nasty sword that can't be detected by Detect Magic or Arcane Sight until you pull it out. :)
|
3.5 FAQ wrote:
Does the shield of force created by the ring of force shield (DMG 232) require a free hand to use, or can I use it when wielding two weapons or a two-handed weapon?
The item is silent on the issue, so the Sage believes it appropriate to assume that the ring’s shield functions just like a normal heavy shield (except for the lack of armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance). Thus, it requires a free hand to gain the shield’s benefit.
Of course, a character wielding a weapon in that hand could activate the ring after making his attacks for the round (thus gaining its benefit while enemies attack) and deactivate it at the start of his next turn (allowing attacks with that hand). While you wouldn’t be able to use the shield hand to make attacks of opportunity while the shield was active, you’d otherwise be nearly as effectively protected as if the shield were active continuously.
|
|
Suggestion:
you can do like my halfling rogue3/sorcerer4/arcanetrickster10 and use a Ring of Force and Glove of Storing combo! :)
M= main hand
O= off hand
Start round: M = longsword; O = force shield ON
Free Action: deactivate force shield
Free Action: retrieve short sword from glove of storing
Full Attack with longsword and short sword TWF
Free Action: short sword goes in glove of storing
Free Action: reactivate force shield.
End of round: M = longsword; O = force shield ON
Voila! :)
Assuming your GM allows you all these free actions then yes, you can have your cheese and eat it too.
Also, I find it quite hilarious that people are arguing that you can use an item designed "as if it were a heavy shield" even if you used that hand to make attacks already.
Is it not interesting that a Buckler is more restrictive in this regard and does not allow you maintain a shield bonus and make an attack using the same limb? Its one or the other with the Buckler - and the Buckler was in fact designed to be wielded the manner that the OP is describing.
In my opinion all shields should have their descriptions errata'd that their shield bonus does not apply if you used that hand to make attacks.
Else, why even buy a ring of force shield, why not just get a quickdraw shield?
Its cheaper, it scales, etc.
In my opinion all shields should have their descriptions errata'd that their shield bonus does not apply if you used that hand to make attacks.
... and the improved shield bash feat?
... and the improved shield bash feat?
Is something that people will say is a "corner case" because they are not performing a "shield bash" they are performing an attack with a hand that then wields a shield after the fact. Or is "raised or lowered with a thought" therefore the rule does not apply to them ^.
I need that SKR hammer of clarification!
... and the improved shield bash feat?Is something that people will say is a "corner case" because they are not performing a "shield bash" they are performing an attack with a hand that then wields a shield after the fact. Or is "raised or lowered with a thought" therefore the rule does not apply to them ^.
I need that SKR hammer of clarification!
That didn't really clarify your position and as such needs more explanation.
That didn't really clarify your position and as such needs more explanation.
Ah.. :)
So, I think that you pointing to Improved Shield Bash should be enough to imply that all shields have the "buckler clause" built into them when they are used to make attacks, you lose the shield bonus.
However, some folks will point out that making a shield bash is a very specific form of attack. They will say that this is not the same as making an attack with a weapon then drawing a shield into that hand. They will argue that the rules only have restrictions on Shield Bashes and they did not make a shield bash.
As such, I'd like to see the "buckler text" added to all the shields for further clarification In any case, if you attack with a weapon in your off hand, you cannot benefit from a shield's Armor Class bonus until your next turn.
Of course improved shield bash would make this restriction not apply to shield bashes.
No that wasn't what I was trying to imply -- I was simply pointing out that the improved shield bash feat would counter your proposed errata'd immediately since it specifically provides the bonus when making an attack with the shield. But your last sentence clarifies your position better.
However you would need additional clarification for casting spells with a light shield.
The benefits of the Ring of Force Shield, as I understand them, are as follows:
* As a Force-effect, the Shield bonus to AC applies even against attacks that normally bypass it, such as incorporeal attacks.
* All shields have a penalty related to switching them out with other methods of attacks.
Heavy shields must be donned and taken off.
Quickdraw shields may be donned, or taken off, as a Swift action as part of a Move action. This can be reduced with a feat, but that's a feat.
You may attack with the arm wearing a buckler (without gaining its benefit), but when you do, your attack is penalized.
Compared against these, switching between defensive posture and wielding or casting in the off-hand doesn't damage your action economy nor your attack rolls.
* A shield is a viable target for Sunder attempts, and there is a feat that reduces damage by sacrificing your shield (it gains the broken condition, IIRC). It is arguable that because the ring generates a wall of force with shield properties, the force shield is capable of being activated and reactivated even after having been 'Broken' several times.
* A ring of force shield has no armor check penalty, which means it doesn't penalize skills affected by armor, and that characters who are not proficient with shields can use it as a shield without taking attack or skill penalties for nonproficiency.
* A ring of force shield has no arcane spell failure chance, allowing arcane spellcasters to get a shield bonus without hampering their casting.
These, of course, are things that mostly benefit a monk, rogue, sorcerer, wizard, or the like.
I agree with the others, the only way to use a ring of force shield with a two handed weapon is to forgo your AoO with that weapon, that leaves shield bashing (which requires a feat) and armor spikes for AoO.
3.5 FAQ wrote:
Does the shield of force created by the ring of force shield (DMG 232) require a free hand to use, or can I use it when wielding two weapons or a two-handed weapon?
The item is silent on the issue, so the Sage believes it appropriate to assume that the ring’s shield functions just like a normal heavy shield (except for the lack of armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance). Thus, it requires a free hand to gain the shield’s benefit.
Of course, a character wielding a weapon in that hand could activate the ring after making his attacks for the round (thus gaining its benefit while enemies attack) and deactivate it at the start of his next turn (allowing attacks with that hand). While you wouldn’t be able to use the shield hand to make attacks of opportunity while the shield was active, you’d otherwise be nearly as effectively protected as if the shield were active continuously.
Yep, I would agree with this.
That's not the buckler clause, at least that not what I think you're talking about. Bucklers are the shields prohibited from being used for bashing. (I think tower shields are as well, but for a different reason)
the bucker clause I was talking about had to do with losing the shield bonus when attacking with that arm.
Why not, you have a free hand?No.Can you wield a "weightless and encumbrance free" heavy shield and a 2 handed weapon?Can you wield a heavy shield and a 2 handed weapon?
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).
Carrying a shield and wielding a shield are not the same thing.