"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."
Combat starts, you draw your bow and fire, then free action activate the force shield. Hold the bow in the other hand. When its your turn again free action turn off the shield, shoot with your bow, free action turn on the shield.
Activating a ring of force shield is a free action, as is deactivating it. You could use a two-handed weapon and then activate the ring as a free action when finished, deactivating just before wanting to use the two-handed weapon again on your following, and so on and so forth. This only prevents you from taking AoO with your weapon. Other than that, Rocky Williams 530 is correct.
EDIT: Ninja'd by the OP by 38 seconds.
Yeah, you can use it with a Greatsword this way.
In the Serpent Skull AP, they actually equip the iconic Valeros with one at higher level, so he gets the shield bonus to AC.
Meh. It's a +2 bonus you can't increase. Not a game breaker.
==Aelryinth
It came up in this instance because the character in question was using the ring to use shield feats. The AC was mostly incidental (especially in the context of this particular game). The only reason I'm questioning this is because a Buckler says you can't use the shield in the same round you make attacks with a weapon using that hand.
If they were not wielding the buckler, but only a sword, and they attacked with the sword as a standard action, then spent a move action to ready the buckler, it should grant the AC bonus. Same thing with a light or heavy shield. The ring is basically doing the same thing, only with a free action instead of a move.
So, another guy in my gaming group and I got into discussing shield abilities and he pointed one out and mentioned that he'd used it in a previous game. In said previous game he was using a Longbow and I immediately wanted to know how he was using a two handed weapon and gaining a shield bonus. The buckler specifically says this isn't possible (at least without feats) but the Heavy Shield, which the Ring of Force Shield imitates has no such wording since you can't use the hand for anything. If anyone knows of any official clarification on this item please post, I couldn't find anything but a lot of speculation and 'well here's how I do it'.
Here's a similar thread: Ring of Force Shield
There is no "official stance" on the ring of Force Shield, so no dev clarification to go on. Unfortunately all you're going to get is opinion.
One thing we do know is that the ring must be wielded as a heavy shield. If you would allow a person to attack then equip a shield to gain the bonus, the ring functions in the same way. I would not allow a person to attack then equip a shield to gain the shield bonus, so I would not allow the ring of force shield to work in this way.
And I agree with your references on the Buckler, I have advocated to the rules designers that all shields should carry this restriction.
@grick:
I have an issue with your scenario regarding the buckler and sword in your post. You would not be able to attack with the sword as a two handed weapon then ready the buckler. You would need to Standard Action (Attack) + Move Action (Draw buckler) + Move Action (Equip Buckler). The player in question is really milking the action economy of the game.
remember he won't be able to get AoO's once he activates the shield.
remember he won't be able to get AoO's once he activates the shield.
Correct, but the problem is when people are using weapons (like a longsword) in two hands for a damage boost during their turn, switching the shield on and then wielding the sword in one hand to make AoOs while gaining a shield bonus.
|
remember he won't be able to get AoO's once he activates the shield.Correct, but the problem is when people are using weapons (like a longsword) in two hands for a damage boost during their turn, switching the shield on and then wielding the sword in one hand to make AoOs while gaining a shield bonus.
Why is that a problem?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would not allow a person to attack then equip a shield to gain the shield bonus
Interesting house rule. Do you not allow weapon switching, either? Shoot a crossbow, then draw a sword, since they use the same arms?
@grick:
I have an issue with your scenario regarding the buckler and sword in your post. You would not be able to attack with the sword as a two handed weapon then ready the buckler. You would need to Standard Action (Attack) + Move Action (Draw buckler) + Move Action (Equip Buckler).
Ready or Drop a Shield: "Strapping a shield to your arm to gain its shield bonus to your AC, or unstrapping and dropping a shield so you can use your shield hand for another purpose, requires a move action. If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you can ready or drop a shield as a free action combined with a regular move. Dropping a carried (but not worn) shield is a free action."
The extra action (to retrieve a stored item) is only if the item is not carried in easy reach. If the shield was stuffed into a backpack, then yes, you're right. Assuming the shield is carried in easy reach, like every other weapon, then it's only one action to ready it.
So avoid that issue altogether. A quickdraw shield with quick draw feat. Standard action attack with broadsword. Move action retrieve quickdraw shield from the bag you inexplicably keep it in. Free action ready the shield. This is completely rules legal, makes logistical sense, and does not break game balance.
Following that same logic, stowing the QD shield (free), full attack with broadsword (full round), then donning the QD shield (free) is also legal.
And following that same logic, doing the same with a magical weightless force construct that otherwise functions identically is also legal.
Denying someone the AC bonus from a shield they just equipped is like denying someone the threat from a weapon they just equipped. It doesn't matter what you did with your arms earlier, it matters what you're doing now.
Interesting house rule. Do you not allow weapon switching, either? Shoot a crossbow, then draw a sword, since they use the same arms?
You can equip the shield, but you would not gain the buckler's AC bonus as you have used a weapon in that hand per the restriction in Buckler's ruling.
That is an interesting logical leap Sir Grick and I am surprised that you would jump to such a strange conclusion. I wold allow weapon switching (if that were the topic), but that's not what we're talking about here.
So avoid that issue altogether. A quickdraw shield with quick draw feat. Standard action attack with broadsword. Move action retrieve quickdraw shield from the bag you inexplicably keep it in. Free action ready the shield. This is completely rules legal, makes logistical sense, and does not break game balance.
Following that same logic, stowing the QD shield (free), full attack with broadsword (full round), then donning the QD shield (free) is also legal.
That is a different circumstance than what you originally said, but yes, moving the goal posts is an easy way to ensure your point and discredit mine.
Denying someone the AC bonus from a shield they just equipped is like denying someone the threat from a weapon they just equipped. It doesn't matter what you did with your arms earlier, it matters what you're doing now.
It is similar, but not the same. I can see the merit of your side, I just do not think that was intended by the designers. If it didn't matter then why would a buckler cause you to lose your shield bonus when you attack with a weapon? You could just use some free action to pose your arm defensively could you not? Wouldn't that be a lot easier than wrangling some rules loop holes to circumvent a restriction made for a shield (the Buckler) that is supposed to be used while fighting with multiple weapons?
Think about the greater picture. If what you're saying is true then the QuickDraw shield has outclassed the buckler in every way imaginable.
Interesting house rule. Do you not allow weapon switching, either? Shoot a crossbow, then draw a sword, since they use the same arms?You can equip the shield, but you would not gain the buckler's AC bonus as you have used a weapon in that hand per the restriction in Buckler's ruling.
And you don't think the buckler rules only really apply when wearing a buckler?
That is a different circumstance than what you originally said, but yes, moving the goal posts is an easy way to ensure your point and discredit mine.
Your problem with the example was removing the shield from a bag. So I removed that impediment to get at the heart of the matter: Losing the bonus from an item you have not yet equipped.
I can see the merit of your side, I just do not think that was intended by the designers.
Shields are messed up anyway. Why would you lose AC from casting with a buckler when you can just hand over the weapon in your other hand as a free action, cast with that hand, then switch back?
You could just use some free action to pose your arm defensively could you not?
No, because there's no rule that says you can. Unlike equipping the shield.
Wouldn't that be a lot easier than wrangling some rules loop holes to circumvent a restriction made for a shield (the Buckler) that is supposed to be used while fighting with multiple weapons?
Yes, it would be easier to make house rules about how shields work.
Think about the greater picture. If what you're saying is true then the QuickDraw shield has outclassed the buckler in every way imaginable.
At a cost in gold and a feat, yes. Bucklers are good for archers, but not as good as an 8.5kgp magic item. I don't really see this as a problem.
And you don't think the buckler rules only really apply when wearing a buckler?
No. It's like a mounted charging lance pounce, this circumstance was not available in the CRB, so the designers did not incorporate this ruling into all shields because under the CRB it was not possible (my opinion).
Shields are messed up anyway. Why would you lose AC from casting with a buckler when you can just hand over the weapon in your other hand as a free action, cast with that hand, then switch back?
You can switch, but if you don't then there's some kind of penalty. I agree that this is a strange rule to include, but its ok if they have that listed out. Again, not all the designers/editors might not have been on the same page. It is possible the Equipment editor was not aware you could switch weapons as a free action in Pathfinder. (Perhaps this was not possible in 3.5 or whatever legacy artifact this is).
No, because there's no rule that says you can. Unlike equipping the shield.
But at the same time you're extrapolating a cirumstance that was not covered by the CRB to create an ambiguous rules area that nullifies the point of the buckler. Is that easier than looking at another example of a shield that functions in the way you're thinking and applying that to quickdraw shield?
A light quickdraw shield doesn't say you can shield bash with it, nor does it list damage... but we know you can bash with light shields because of the CRB...
Bucklers are good for archers, but not as good as an 8.5kgp magic item. I don't really see this as a problem.
Bucklers are not as good as quickdraw shields though... even for archers even without Quickdraw. If you full attack with a buckler, you lose the AC. If you standard attack with a buckler equipped, you lose the AC. If you standard attack with a quickdraw shield, you move (pull it out) and swift action to don it, gaining AC and a weapon to threaten with.
If you take Quickdraw, you can now gain the AC bonus after a full attack with a quickdraw shield (in your reading/opinion). Remind me now, what purpose do bucklers have?
We haven't even gotten to Ring of Force Shield yet..
And you don't think the buckler rules only really apply when wearing a buckler?No. It's like a mounted charging lance pounce, this circumstance was not available in the CRB, so the designers did not incorporate this ruling into all shields because under the CRB it was not possible (my opinion).
It was certainly possible.
Standard action attack. Move action don buckler. Gain AC bonus.
But at the same time you're extrapolating a cirumstance that was not covered by the CRB to create an ambiguous rules area that nullifies the point of the buckler.
I'm following the existing rules and looking at how it works.
It makes no sense that when you equip a shield, that shield does nothing because of something you did earlier (in the turn, in the round, in the combat, in the hour...).
Attack (once) with a longsword using both hands. (Standard action)
Don light wooden shield. (Move action)
The light shield now grants you an AC bonus.
Why would you not do the buckler the same way? You didn't attack while wearing the thing, so why would it care what you did before it was equipped?
Bucklers are not as good as quickdraw shields though... even for archers even without Quickdraw.
Having and/or using the quickdraw shield prevents the archer from taking full attacks. The buckler doesn't.
With a QD shield, you can standard attack each turn, and gain an AC bonus every other turn.
With a buckler, you can full attack one round, and gain an AC bonus the other round. Depending on feats, level, and spells, this might be the better option.
If you standard attack with a quickdraw shield, you move (pull it out) and swift action to don it, gaining AC and a weapon to threaten with.
You can do the exact same thing with a light shield, minus the swift action. Just don't keep the shield in your bag, keep it handy, so you don't have to burn an extra action either way.
Remind me now, what purpose do bucklers have?
I'll sum up the differences for you.
With +0 BAB:
Don or drop buckler or light shield: Move action.
Don or stow Quick Draw Shield: Move action.
With +1 BAB:
Don or drop buckler or light shield: Move action or free with a move.
Don or stow Quick Draw Shield: Move action or swift with a move.
With Quickdraw feat:
Don or drop buckler or light shield: As above, depending on BAB.
Don or stow Quick Draw Shield: Free action.
The benefits of the QD shield include being able to stow it instead of dropping it, at the cost of 50gp and a more restricted action to do so if you don't have quickdraw.
By pure RAW, the buckler doesn't really work. "In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn." You only have an off hand when TWFing. Also, even if you had three arms, if you TWF with two of them while the third wears the buckler, no AC for you. This is pretty clearly not the intent, so a more reasonable way to rule it (IMO) is "In any case, if you use a weapon with your shield hand, you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn." This would only apply when the buckler is equipped, and it would apply to any sort of attack using that hand (instead of only when TWF).
Grick, before I continue to debate you, we seem to have a philosophical difference on how shields work.
You seem to think having a shield "handy" allows you to Draw it at the same time as you Don it (rolled together in a single Move Action). However, this is not the case. You must Draw the shield (regardless of if it is stowed in a pack or on your back at the ready) then Don it. That's two move actions. I feel that your simplified stance is stemming a lot of the disagreement.
How do we know that my proposal is the one presented in the Core Rules and yours is not? The text on quickdraw shield.
If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may don or put away a quickdraw shield as a swift action combined with a regular move.
Why does it take an extra Swift Action on top of the Move to perform something you claim can be accomplished in a single move (donning a shield)? Because it cannot be done.
Normally, you can draw a weapon/shield combined with a move if your BAB is +1. The quickdraw shield allows you to draw then Don it with an extra swift action expenditure.
Hopefully I've made my point clear and that you're attributing a lot more power to shields than they have. You cannot attack 2handed, then don a buckler as a move action, you first have to Draw the Buckler (regardless of location).
You must Draw the shield (regardless of if it is stowed in a pack or on your back at the ready) then Don it. That's two move actions.
How do we know that my proposal is the one presented in the Core Rules and yours is not? The text on quickdraw shield.
Except the quickdraw shield isn't core...
However, I see your point of view, and in light of that, understand your interpretation of the Ring of Force Shield.
I've always looked at readying a shield to be equivalent to drawing a weapon. If it's in a bag, yes, move to retrieve a stored item. But if it's carried in easy reach, one move action and you're ready to go. Especially since a shield should qualify as a weapon-like object, since it can be used as a weapon, and made into a magic weapon in its own right.
|
|
I love when people bring personal opinions on how things should work to the rules forum.
Look at the order of the actions. Did he attack first and then equip the shield? Okay, he got to attack without a shield and now he gets to take advantage of his shield's AC bonus.
Stop making it more complicated than it is.
Except the quickdraw shield isn't core...
However, I see your point of view, and in light of that, understand your interpretation of the Ring of Force Shield.
It is true, that quickdraw shield is not core. Perhaps I can find something in the core rules...
Draw or Sheathe a Weapon
Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action. This action also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands. If your weapon or weapon-like object is stored in a pack or otherwise out of easy reach, treat this action as retrieving a stored item.
If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move. If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can draw two light or one-handed weapons in the time it would normally take you to draw one.
Ready or Drop a Shield
Strapping a shield to your arm to gain its shield bonus to your AC, or unstrapping and dropping a shield so you can use your shield hand for another purpose, requires a move action. If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you can ready or drop a shield as a free action combined with a regular move.
Dropping a carried (but not worn) shield is a free action.
In my reading, you can carry a shield and not have it be equipped (worn/donned), but do you have to carry the shield before you can ready it? I think so, since you'll have to strap it to your arm, but RAW you can strap a shield to your arm with only a single hand, so who knows.
I guess we end up with two different readings...
Ring of Protection +2 = 8,000g +2 deflection bonus to AC (all 3)
Ring of Force Shield = 8,500g +2 shield bonus to AC (Not Touch AC except against incoporeal attacks)
Now a ring of pro. gives the same numerical bonus to all 3 AC's for 500g less, its only disadvantage is that other deflection bonuses dont stack. A ring of pro. can be later upgraded to a +3/+4/+5. Where as a ring of force shield gives a bonus to only 2/3 AC's.
So now "IF" a ring of force shield also uses a hand for the round you lose any benifet it might have had over a ring of deflection. A cleric with shield of faith is the only time the ring of force shield would seem useful. Even then a cleric would be better served with magic vestment on a +1 Animated shield. only 9,000g a mere 500g more than the ring making the ring usless.
In our games the ring can be used with a two-handed weapon, though AoO's can not be taken with a two-handed weapon while the ring is active. You don't need to be prof. with the ring, allowing monks and wizards to use it freely. now again this is our Houserule. I can't remember if we allowd a shield bash or not.
-Flash
3) i know its a free action to activate/deactivate would you be able to deactivate for aoo and then reactivate at the end of the aoo? or would this be dm descretion also?
thanks for your time
You can typically only take free actions on your turn. Since AOOs are, by definition, not on your turn, you couldn't do this.
(Things like free actions that you take not on your turn are immediate actions).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What time is it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That which is not living
can never enjoy fries
something something something,
what's up there eldritch guy?
couple of questions on ring of force shield
1) say a duelist was using the ring. would he need to deactivate it to retain his abilities with no shield and only 1 weapon?
2) would shield feats work with this shield?
3) i know its a free action to activate/deactivate would you be able to deactivate for aoo and then reactivate at the end of the aoo? or would this be dm descretion also?
thanks for your time
Quibblemuch's assertion above is simply not true.
You can typically only take free actions on your turn. Since AOOs are, by definition, not on your turn, you couldn't do this.
(Things like free actions that you take not on your turn are immediate actions).
Per the CRB (page 181)
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount oftime and effort. You can perform one or more free actions
while taking another action normally. However, there are
reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as
decided by the GM.
So - while the number of free actions one can take is always up to the discretion of the GM, by RAW you can pair other free actions, off turn, with moments when you are allowed to act normally.
It's widely accepted that you can combine free actions with immediate actions off turn, but there had been hesitancy to allow a simalar thing to occur with Attacks of Opportunity, because they were thought not to be considered "actions". And while the CRB does not actually define AoOs as any particualr type of action, it also doesn't include it in the list of things that are "No Actions" (like 5-foot stepping and Delaying).
However, when the Melee Tacticts Toolbox book came out a couple years ago, Paizo published a table called "Combat Options Overview", which classified Attacks of Opportunities as Free Actions, themselves.
So - Attacks of Opportunity are Free Actions that you can take normally when it is not your turn. And you can perform other free actions in conjunction with moments when you can act normally. Therefore, you can take other free actions during Attacks of Opportunity.
All of this is confirmed by the following FAQ about making multiple attacks of opportunity with a ranged weapon, assuming that loading the ranged weapon was a free action:
Yes. As long as you can reload your weapon with a free action you can reload your weapon as part of the ranged attack attack of opportunity you are making with the Snap Shot feat.
So - back to rabbedrabit's original question: While having a ring of force shield active, and wielding a one-handed weapon in one hand, you threaten squares around you and can make "Free Action" Attacks of Opportunity if they are provoked. While taking the Free Action AoO as normal, you can perform other free actions, such as deactivating the ring of Force Shield so that it no longer interferes with your class abilities. upon completing the AoO, you can perform another free action and reactivate the ring of Force Shield.
The only thing that would prevent you from doing all of this, is a GM who feels that it is unreasonable, per the rules laid out in the CRB page 181.
However, when the Melee Tacticts Toolbox book came out a couple years ago, Paizo published a table called "Combat Options Overview"...
Interesting. I hadn't seen that book. Thanks for the correction!
Interesting. I hadn't seen that book. Thanks for the correction!
No problem. The table is shown on d20pfsrd, on the Combat page. Just scroll down through the Attacks of Opportunity section, and you will find it after the better known "Actions in Combat" table.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oddman, you're overlooking a few points in the CRB.
Speak
In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn. Speaking more than a few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action.
None of the other free actions in the CRB had this exception.
This led to questions like the following FAQ:
Free Actions: Can you take free actions during an attack of opportunity? For instance, can you use the Grab, Trip, Pull, or Push universal monster rules after hitting with an attack of opportunity, since they require free actions and free actions can’t be used off-turn? What about Rock Catching? That seems like it could only work off-turn.
While you can’t take most free actions off your turn, Grab, Trip, Pull, Push, and Rock Catching’s free actions can all be used off-turn. This will be reflected in future errata.
So when you say:
Per the CRB (page 181)
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of
time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions
while taking another action normally. However, there are
reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as
decided by the GM.So - while the number of free actions one can take is always up to the discretion of the GM, by RAW you can pair other free actions, off turn, with moments when you are allowed to act normally.
It's widely accepted that you can combine free actions with immediate actions off turn,
No, that isn't widely accepted.
The CRB section you quoted means that you can take free actions while doing some other action during your turn. For example, you can shout at someone to surrender while making a full attack, because after the first hit it looks like the second one might kill him.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for the Melee Tactics Toolbox: it's either making new rules, or it's just flat out wrong.
The CRB makes no mention of what kind of action an attack of opportunity is. And the MTT table also says using Power Attack is a free action - which is again nowhere mentioned in the CRB.
So, it is your position that, until we get explicit exceptions for each individual free action there is, via FAQ response or Errata, they cannot be performed off turn? Ok.... I will start a more explicit thread, and see if we can clear this up.
Spoiler Alert: We won't be able to. There is no clarity to be found in this den of vipers called the Paizo Forums.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, it is your position that, until we get explicit exceptions for each individual free action there is, via FAQ response or Errata, they cannot be performed off turn? Ok.... I will start a more explicit thread, and see if we can clear this up.
Only those free actions specifically called out as being possible out of turn, are possible out of turn.
Only those free actions specifically called out as being possible out of turn, are possible out of turn.
This assumes there is a rule written somewhere in Paizo's publications that states "Unless noted otherwise, Free Actions can only be taken on a character's turn"
But the closest I have seen to anything like that is a statement that "most" free actions can't be taken off turn.
They spend just as much time stating those which MUST be taken on turn, as they do stating which ones can be taken off turn"
It is more likely that the PDT simply hasn't categorized those free actions that remain, keeping it intentionally vague and leaving it up the the GM to decide, than it is that they intentionally want one ability to work off turn, while another nearly identical ability cannot .
My ranger had this ring in Rise of the Rune Lords, at first I kept it because the idea of shield bashing some enemies with a sudden force field attack seemed cool at that time, the party barbarian never left me a chance (if some day you read this, your taste is bad and you should feel bad!).
I ended up giving it to the party cleric. Which is, IMO, the idea behind the item.
+2 shield AC (it's a force field so applies to 'ghost touch attacks') and a free hand for somatic components while casting or hold an item in combat. Clerics have shield proficiency so they can also use shield feats with this item (at least they should). Mages have Shield spell so maybe it's not so good for them.
I'm still curious about the other rule doubts... risen, on the thread. I'll be reading you my Rulelords.
My ranger had this ring in Rise of the Rune Lords.
That is pretty much the only time I've seen it used. The party Magus got it, so she could free Acton deactivate it, spell combat, free action activate it each turn, upping her defense (at the time lowest in the party). I am now wondering if that was legal but I think it was.