| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
This 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.
I believe my GM ruled that it did not when we found one many sessions ago. My reading is that it does as the text seems to indicate that you wield it.
Thoughts?
|
I don't have all the citations, but it's treated exactly like a heavy shield, which requires a hand.
However, you can activate it as a free action and deactivate it as a free action.
If you were holding a bow, for example you could juggle the bow to one hand at the end of your round, and turn on the shield in your off-hand. At the beginning of the next turn, you could turn the shield off. Thus, when it's not your turn, you can act as if you are holding a heavy shield.
The same can be done with a 2H weapon juggled to one-hand, if you are willing to give up AoOs when it's not your turn.
Contributor; Developer, Super Genius Games
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While it's a common ruling that it requires no hand, I have always assumed that "wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield" means just what it says -- and a heavy shield takes a hand. So if you wield it as you would something that takes a hand, the ring's force shield takes a hand to use.
It also says the wall of force stays with the ring
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks folks, I thought so.
I can see some uses for this item (arcane casters without Shield, bow juggling shenanigans, etc.,), but it does seem pretty underwhelming.
|
|
It's a bit hard to run down all the bits of rules, but a ring of force shield is solid against adversaries like shadows, ghosts, wraiths and spectres.
Since it is a "wall of force" in shield form, it's a force effect, which is good against incorporeal creatures.
I've seen a ring of force shield make the difference in saving character lives against death-by-shadow.
its un-sunderable.
so that a major plus in SOME campaigns.
if you actually keep track of damage to armor and stuff, all of a sudden that unbreakable shield is looking kinda nice.
I'd house rule it that you can enhance its shield bonus just like a real shield too, but that the bonus is only active when the shields active.
Why is it "un-sunderable". Can't you just sunder the ring on the wielder's hand?
You'd only be not-wielding the two-handed weapon in question, so you could make AoO's with other weaponry (if you had natural weapons or armor spikes for instance). Of course, those other attack options wouldn't be able to do as much damage, but such is life. :)
Related question: Could you shield bash with it?
Related question: Could you shield bash with it?
If it acts like a shield that you can normally bash with, than yes. If not, than no.
Actually you can break a Wall of Force with weapon damage in Pathfinder:
"It can be damaged by weapons and supernatural abilities, but a wall of force has hardness 30 and a number of hit points equal to 20 per caster level."
Also, since most rule that it "can be wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield" then bash away! If it takes a hand to use, then it can be used like a shield.
The last point is that Lincoln Hills mentioned that you can use a two-handed weapon on your turn and get the benefit of the shield in-between turns. That is not correct. "A heavy shield is so heavy that you can't use your shield hand for anything else."
Actually you can break a Wall of Force with weapon damage in Pathfinder:
"It can be damaged by weapons and supernatural abilities, but a wall of force has hardness 30 and a number of hit points equal to 20 per caster level."
This ninja'd my next point. But to add to it anyway, since the ring is a caster level 9, that would imply 180 hit points.
Also, since most rule that it "can be wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield" then bash away! If it takes a hand to use, then it can be used like a shield.
Exactly.
The last point is that Lincoln Hills mentioned that you can use a two-handed weapon on your turn and get the benefit of the shield in-between turns. That is not correct. "A heavy shield is so heavy that you can't use your shield hand for anything else."
I think the reason he said that he could do this is you can activate and deactivate the shield on your turn as a free action. Thus, before anything else, deactivate your shield (free action), then wield a two-handed weapon freely (standard action or full-round), then complete any <move/swift> actions, then reactivate your shield (free action).
The presence of the shield prohibits the use of two-handed weapons while it's active, but the ability to activate or deactivate it as a free action means that while it's not present it can't interfere.
The other thing is that the part that you quote specifically states that the shield is too heavy. The ring itself creates a "weightless and encumbrance-free" shield. Since the text you quote is part of the descriptive text instead of the specific game rules across the board, some GMs might rule that out anyway in lieu of the weightless aspect.
But that's more a matter of interpretation and personal ruling thn anything else.
Whale_Cancer, I'd like to apologize for the tone of my earlier post. Your comment was still rude, but because I was irritated my response came off harsher than I like. I hope the explanation that I and Hendelbolaf each gave were sufficient to explain what I meant.
I would say that no, a Ring of Force Shield does not require any sort of free-hand to wield, furthermore; since it has no armor check penalty, characters who are not normally proficient with a Heavy Shield can wield it without penalty (Since the only drawback to wielding a shield you aren't proficient with, is taking its armor check penalty on all your attack rolls, and strength and dexterity based ability checks).
Having the ability to activate and deactivate it as a free action any number of times in a round, basically means you can shoot arrows through it, throw items through it, cast spells through it, or anything else you can think of, by simply deactivating as a free action before your action, then reactivating as a free action after your action.
In game terms, it's nothing more than an item that gives a +2 shield bonus to AC. So it would stack with Armor bonuses, Deflection, Luck, Insight, Sacred, or Profane bonuses. That's basically it.
The problem with your answer is a heavy shield does require a 'hand' to use, penalty or not. That hand is being used through out the turn (even when it isn't your action, where you can 'juggle' it w/ free actions). In order to gain the shield bonus that hand needs to be 'using' the shield not doing other things, as a heavy shield would be used. This prevents you from doing things outside your action, like AoO with a 2h weapon or bow (with appropriate feats/abilities), or anything that would require a 'hand' available. You aren't able to perform the free action outside your turn to make it 'available' and 'juggle' it for those actions.
The only downside to not wielding it during your turn is pretty big: attacks of opportunity. Just saying.
I REALLY wish they would simply make the activation a swift action instead of free action. It would clear up some of the more cheesier uses, while still serving a very useful function.
Also, worth noting:
According to the weapon tables bashing with a heavy shield is a Martial Weapon (and thus those not proficient take the -4 non-weapon proficiency penalties), and deals 1d4 damage (x2 on a critical).
EDIT:
I REALLY wish they would simply make the activation a swift action instead of free action. It would clear up some of the more cheesier uses, while still serving a very useful function.
Eh, given that you'd be sacrificing +2 AC for one (or more, if you specialize, but then you're spreading yourself thin) attacks of opportunity in a round, I'm not too sure that it's all that cheesy. To each their own, but especially since you can't enhance it, switching off is decent, but not as good as, say, perma-enchanting your ring with a constant Shield spell (although by RAW, that sort of thing definitely needs GM approval and/or adjucation).
Regardless, the switch-off trick drops most attacks of opportunity and allows you either a +2 to AC or an opportunity attack to deal 1d4 (which you could get with an unarmed strike anyway), which isn't all that amazing. It might get a little silly with two of them, but then you're spending on awful lot of money and two ring slots for a measly +4 bonus to AC. Actually, that probably wouldn't stack, as they're both Shield bonuses. I don't know, I'd have to look that up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you, and I apologize for my part in it.
To make up for my part in it, and also to clarify several points that were made, but deleted, here is some amount of explanation.
Related question: Could you shield bash with it?If it acts like a shield that you can normally bash with, than yes. If not, than no.
In other words, if you treat the shield created by a ring as a Heavy Shield (including requiring that it be held by a hand), then yes, you should be able to bash with it because it is, for all intents and purposes as shield. This is the most RAW form of the ruling, from what I can tell.
On the other hand, if you follow the original ruling given in the OP by their GM - that it does not function like a shield, but only similar - you must ascertain how similar to a shield it functions. The rules of simplicity indicate that no, it probably does not function as a shield for this purpose and does not allow a Shield Bash, although I'd allow it in my own games.
EDIT: for clarity and word choice
Also, since this point was lost in the removal as well:
The last point is that Lincoln Hills mentioned that you can use a two-handed weapon on your turn and get the benefit of the shield in-between turns. That is not correct. "A heavy shield is so heavy that you can't use your shield hand for anything else."
The reason that one could theoretically get away with this is that the activation and deactivation of the shield is a move action. Thus the idea would be:
Turn:
- Start Turn
- Free action deactivate shield
- Standard or Full-round: attack with two-handed weapon (including ranged)
- Move or swift action may be incorporated as above or used as desired
- Free action activate the shield
- End Turn
This would enable you to wield the two-handed weapon while during your turn (but only holding not on your turn) but still gaining the benefit of the shield on turns not your own.
As others have pointed out this would negate attacks of opportunity with the weapon you currently have equipped, although if the shield were capable of shield-bashing (which, to my reading of the RAW it is), you would be able to sacrifice your +2 Shield AC for a single attack of opportunity (dealing 1d4 base damage, and ghost touch property), or more if you have the right feats. Depending on the weapon you have equipped, this may be more optimal than otherwise.
You'd only be not-wielding the two-handed weapon in question, so you could make AoO's with other weaponry (if you had natural weapons or armor spikes for instance). Of course, those other attack options wouldn't be able to do as much damage, but such is life. :)
Bump.
This kind of shield is meant for archers, casters, two-weapon fighters, etc. so they can do their thing during their turn, and have extra protection between turns, at the cost of some AOO-potential. For all these kinds of characters, armor spikes are a cheap and easy way to continue to threaten the world around you while your hands are occupied in attack-less ways. The spikes do less damage than your main weapon, but that is the price paid for extra ac.
I have a character who fights with Crane Style, a battle axe with a weapon cord, and a Ring of Force Shield.
He gets two-handed damage with the axe on his turn, and then switches to an empty hand and a heavy shield on the enemy's turn. He takes AoOs with his unarmed strikes, which is a slight effectiveness nerf, but the benefits of two handed damage make up for it.
Yes the mechanics are a little silly. That's why we hand-waive it as the axe actually just turning into a shield when he's attacked.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
My reading is that it does as the text seems to indicate that you wield it.
It is a free action to make it appear or disappear, and when present you are using your hand to hold it.
Most people turn it off for their turn and back on at the end of their turn so they have the +2 Shield AC when not their turn and the fact it is using a hand doesn't matter any more.
Further, what happens if the wall of force effect is sundered? Do you just reactivate it as a free action? Does the ring go inert? What's the deal there?
Yes, there are no stated drawbacks regarding the sundering of the force effect. The ring is still functional (hasn't been sundered) and on your turn you could reactivate it.
|
|
** Joshua J. Frost Jul 6, 2009, 07:20 PM | Flag | List
Ring of force shield essentially grants you a +2 shield bonus to your AC as if you were wielding a heavy shield without needing to actually wield anything. It requires no hands to wield--just an open ring slot.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jq8b?Potions#14
Ring of force shield does not occupy nor take up your hand.
Given you have a rigid shield sized disk of force attached to your finger that says it is treated as a heavy shield..
Look you can by the rules blink it on and off no oroblem but while it is activated its a heavy shield except those areas it lists as exception. The inability to hold things while your heavy shield is active was not removed as an exception.
That said this is one of those areas where other similar items have specific sub rules. But no global game rule that covers "I just used my hand to do 3 seperate free acrions and full attacked ut can still fukky use the shield to defend" in our group we just apply rules similar to a buckler without the -1 to hit but its a hiuse rule.
** Joshua J. Frost Jul 6, 2009, 07:20 PM | Flag | List
Ring of force shield essentially grants you a +2 shield bonus to your AC as if you were wielding a heavy shield without needing to actually wield anything. It requires no hands to wield--just an open ring slot.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jq8b?Potions#14
Ring of force shield does not occupy nor take up your hand.
The question isn't whether the hand is occupied by the shield, it is definitely not something "held" in hand.
The "effort" it takes to use the shield is what is being discussed. It isn't a "dancing" shield, so that arm is being used to move the shield around to gain its AC bonus. This stops you from being able to TWF with a weapon in the shield hand or us a 2H weapon AND gain the AC from the shield.
|
On Sunder: It would take an incredible amount of effort to break the force shield, since it has Hardness 30 and 180 hit points. Adamantine does not ignore the hardness, so that drops damage by 30 for every hit.
Since you are able to deactivate it and reactivate it as free actions, it has to be sundered in a single turn, or it is uninjured when reactivated.
The "best" way to have a chance to sunder it would be with a ranged weapon user with Clustered Shots. Even then, without the cheese of the 14 attack double-barreled firearm user, it would be difficult to come up with 210 points of damage in a single turn.
On usage: Since it has an ACP of 0, it does not matter if you take the non-proficiency penalty to wielding it or not, other than for attack rolls. -0 makes no difference. Weight is 0, so no effect on encumbrance.
For actual use:
Beginning of turn:
Free action: deactivate ring
Free action: put now-empty hand on weapon
Full round action: make multiple nasty attacks
No action: 5' step, if needed
Free action: remove hand from weapon
Free action: activate ring
As mentioned, you won't be able to take AoOs with your two-handed weapon, but you can have other options available, like armor spikes, spiked gauntlet, IUS, cestus, etc.
Overall, it is a fairly limited way to help a low AC PC have a slightly better chance of surviving. Not much of an exploit, siunce it is only a +2 shield bonus, and arcane casters, in general, have a better spell (+4 shield bonus).
its not as heavy as a shield, nor is it attached to the ring, nor is your hand completely taken over by the shield effect.
you can have it in play, and still wield a two-handed weapon.
Simply put: Its Magic.
If I have a heavy shield (in game terms) but use magic so that it is weightless, can I use a two-handed weapon?
I'd rule (and I've a GMPC with one of these rings) that the Ring is in effect creating a Shield that uses the hand in question. While you can cast spells with that hand without causing spell failure chances, if you use two weapons or a two-handed weapon, you cannot have the shield effect active.
How the GMPC will utilize the ring in this situation is while moving, use only one weapon. After in position to flank a foe, snag a second weapon for two-weapon fighting... at which point the ring is deactivated (but Offensive Defense goes into effect, hopefully).
Given it allows someone to use a heavy shield without any penalties to stealth or the like, it's powerful enough as it is. No need to get silly. ;)
|
|
LazarX, the bonus is only +2. It's not the shield spell. So, comparing an 8500gp ring to a 1200gp +1 darkwood shield, you're dang skippy I expect it to be better. Now if you want to compare it to a +1 ghost touch shield, then the ring of force shield is by far the better deal, but that just goes to show that ghost touch is overpriced.
|
|
LazarX, the bonus is only +2. It's not the shield spell. So, comparing an 8500gp ring to a 1200gp +1 darkwood shield, you're dang skippy I expect it to be better. Now if you want to compare it to a +1 ghost touch shield, then the ring of force shield is by far the better deal, but that just goes to show that ghost touch is overpriced.I would definitely compare it to a +1 ghost touch shield, also keep in mind that it adds no weight to encumbrance, a heavy deal for those 7 str mages.
Yeah, but they [need that extra defense against incorporeal touch attacks, since it takes, on average, and discounting crits, only two touches for a CR 3 Shadow to kill them.