OK, already tried a search on this one, but generally ring of force shield is discussed in tandem with two handed weapons. The consensus (as much as there is one) appears to be that it is a no go.
What about with dervish dance? I suspect that the answer is going to be no again, but it can't hurt to ask. It would be nice if there was ever an official word on this. As it stands the ring of force shield seems to be a greatly overpriced trinket that only a fool would buy.
We have always said is works for archers, twohanded types, and or 2 weapon types, shoot even spell spell casters. It eats up the ring slot and maxs at +2 vs shiled that can get a+9 (tower), +7}(heavy) or +6 (Light) +4 shiled spell. For whole alot more Gold. I used it on dervish in 3.5 D&D. should still work now.
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.
(bolding mine). It must be WIELDED. Since it has no ACP, there's no real problem if the wielder isn't proficient in shields.
Dervish Dance(Combat)
You have learned to turn your speed into power, even with a heavier blade.Prerequisites: Dexterity 13, Weapon Finesse, Perform (dance) 2 ranks, proficient with scimitar.
Benefit: When wielding a scimitar with one hand, you can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on melee attack and damage rolls. You treat the scimitar as a one-handed piercing weapon for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a duelist’s precise strike ability). The scimitar must be for a creature of your size. You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand.
It has been argued in other threads that "wielded" is a restricted subset of "carried" (that is, something must be carried to be wielded, but not all things carried are wielded).
I'd think that because it must be actively wielded, you DO have a shield in your hand, it's just a weightless shield of force. You still have to actively interpose it between yourself and an incoming attack (i.e., wield it).
EDIT:Messed up quote tags
What about with dervish dance?
If you're using the shield when you make the attack, that attack will not benefit from Dervish Dance.
For example, on your turn, you draw your scimitar and attack an orc. DD applies. As a free action you activate your ring and the shield appears, and your AC goes up.
The orc provokes an AoO, and you attack him with your scimitar. Since you're wielding a shield, DD does not apply.
On your next turn, you deactivate the ring as a free action, and full-attack the orc with your scimitar. DD applies. Then as a free action, you activate the ring and your shield appears.
Fair warning: Some GM's go crazy over this and will limit free actions in an attempt to stop you from using the item as intended, thus potentially crippling everyone at the table.
Fair warning: Some GM's go crazy over this and will limit free actions in an attempt to stop you from using the item as intended, thus potentially crippling everyone at the table.
Ok, explain to me how limiting someone to one free action used to toggle a particular item on or off is "potentially crippling everyone at the table" ?
Ok, explain to me how limiting someone to one free action used to toggle a particular item on or off is "potentially crippling everyone at the table" ?
Dervish Dancer: "I use a free action to activate this item like it says in the book."
Crazy GM: "That's unreasonable, I'm going to overreact and limit everyone to one free action per turn, as it says the GM can do so in the Combat chapter, despite also saying you can use one or more free actions!"
Inquisitor: "Ok, I cast Brand as a standard action, manipulating the divine focus as a free action. I then am unable to touch the orc as a free action, so I guess I do nothing."
Archer: "I take a full-attack to shoot the orc, but am unable to draw more than one arrow, so I guess I only make two attacks."
Druid: "I handle my animal companion to have him act in combat, but now I'm prevented from speaking to my team, alerting them to an impending threat."
Gunslinger: "I shoot my gun but am unable to reload it, despite taking multiple feats, class abilities, and items in order to do so as a free action."
Etc.
I believe casting a normal single spell requires 2 separate free actions.
Speaking is a free action, and that's necessary for completing Verbal Components.
Preparing material or focus components are free actions each.
Drawing a weapon while moving towards your enemy (free action) while shouting (free action) a battle cry wouldn't work.
Couldn't cease concentration on a spell and then cast another, as that's 3 free actions.
What usually happens is that GMs try to nerf one specific build by saying "ONLY ONE FREE ACTION PER TURN!". This invariably means it nerfs everyone else at the table who isn't that build. But the GM doesn't tend to actually enforce the rule for others at the table anyways, otherwise there would be no way to cast any spells without silent spell and eschew materials.
I'm not going to say definitively that it doesn't work the way Grick wants it to. But I am going to call "strawman arguement" on his follow-up arguement. I've never seen a DM invoke a limit of only one free action (of any type) per turn. I have seen a DM invoke a limit on how many times you may activate/de-activate the same item in a turn. A DM insisting that you can only toggle a particular item on/off once per turn is not the same thing as "crippling everyone at the table".
Due to the nature of a turn-based system, things that are really going on simultaneously are broken down sequentially for resolution. If you want the benefit of that shield for the turn, you have to put up with the limitation of that shield for the turn. Yes, it's a free action to activate, so you can still get in a full attack. Yes, it's a free action to de-activate. That's so you can switch to wielding two-handed without wasting too much time.
But toggling it on an off so that the only time you lose the shield bonus is if you provoke an AoO by your actions while losing the benefits of the free hand only on your own AoOs ?
Fair Warning: Many DM's won't let you get away with having your cake and eating it too.
I'm not going to say definitively that it doesn't work the way Grick wants it to.
Do you want to provide reasoning as to why it doesn't? Unless the GM places some kind of arbitrary restriction on the number of activations/deactivations per round, I don't see any problems with Grick's reasoning.
It's what the ring is for! If the designer of this item only wanted it to be 'toggled' once per round he'd have made it a swift action. He made it a free action to toggle so that it can be used this way!
I can't speak for the designer, but making it a swift action would conflict with things like Arcane Strike that are ALSO swift actions. What the ring is for is to be a weightless shield that takes no time to equip. Very useful for switch hitters from the days before quickdraw shields.
Who would pay 8500gp for it if it didn't?
I'm trying to point out that a DM who rules that you can only activate or deactivate a device once per turn is not "crippling everyone at the table". They just think you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.
The bottom line is that the DM is WELL within the rules to tell you that you can only use THAT PARTICULAR free action once per turn.
I can't speak for the designer, but making it a swift action would conflict with things like Arcane Strike that are ALSO swift actions. What the ring is for is to be a weightless shield that takes no time to equip.
I think most people would assume that when a designer makes an item that can be deactivated at will as a free action, their intent is that the item can be deactivated as a free action. By removing "and deactivated" from the text, it would work the way you want: free action to equip it, and a move or standard to drop or deactivate it.
I'm trying to point out that a DM who rules that you can only activate or deactivate a device once per turn is not "crippling everyone at the table".
It depends on which rule they're changing.
If they're house-ruling that the ring cannot be deactivated as a free action, then it doesn't affect anyone who doesn't use the ring. Just like ruling that anyone using the ring dies or is unwelcome at the table.
If they're using the limit on free actions ("Free actions don't take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn.") to make the reasonable limit "1 free action" then they are crippling most others at the table.
The bottom line is that the DM is WELL within the rules to tell you that you can only use THAT PARTICULAR free action once per turn.
Only if the "reasonable limits on what you can really do for free" is taken out of the context of the "limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn".
The DM is within the rules to change any rule that does not suit the style of play that the gaming group enjoys. I would assume that most groups using a ring of force shield enjoy using it the way it was written (which we can assume is the way it was intended).
The problem with toggling the item on and off is that the combat round lasts over a period of time. With both you and your opponent taking multiple actions, of which most are free actions.
The problem of toggling something on and off in combat is that you just don't really know when or how that will help you and that triggering this effect indicates when you'll be doing something so would actually hurt you in your attempt to do it.
I think you're trying to argue that combat is simultaneous, rather than turn-based, which is true with the fluff of descriptions, but completely breaks down when actual combat rules are applied. Mechanically, it's 100% turn based, and any action that precedes another action always happens in that order. (With a few odd exceptions like AoO's and readied actions happening before whatever cauesed them)
Anyway, the end result is that if you hit an orc, then activate your shield, then the orc attacks you, your shield is up because you activated it before he attacked.