| 11 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The items 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)". So my question is: does a monk loose his wisdom bonus to AC while wearing this item? Why?
Yes. Because it is used as a shield.
Yes, because the monk must actively wield it, and does so as if it were a heavy shield.
I've always assumed no, monk's can use it without penalties.
I would probably conclude that you did, because you're wielding it and getting what I assume is a shield bonus from it.
I would agree that you'd lose the WIS bonus to AC as well - but just to point out, gaining a shield bonus from something does not automatically cause you to lose it. The Shield spell (which grants a shield bonus to AC) can be cast on a Monk without causing him to lose his WIS bonus to AC, because he's not actually wielding a shield.
It's the fact that - although it's a magic disc of force - you still have to wield it as a shield in order to gain its benefit which causes you to lose the WIS bonus.
ok thanks
monk loose his wisdom bonus to AC while wearing this item? Why?Yes because the Monk AC Bonus class ability says so.
To be fair, it doesn't say anything about ring of force field. I can understand why it might be unclear. A ring of force field isn't armor, and it isn't a shield; it's a magic item that provides an armor bonus - very similar to bracers of armor.
The difference is that the ring of force field specifically calls out that the magic item creates a shield of force that you must wield as a shield. It's that statement which causes you lose your Monk AC bonus.
[edit]
I should state that this is my interpretation of the item. I could actually see the designers having intended it not to cause you to lose your bonus because it is in fact a magic item and not actual armor or an actual shield. There's some support to that argument: Even though it says you wield it as a shield, it doesn't mention anything about requiring shield proficiency to use in order to gain the bonus.
@Lifat: Playing devil's advocate here, as I agree with your conclusion.
The question is: Is he wielding a shield? No, he's not. He's using a magic item that creates a magical disc of force that he wields as if it were a shield.
Something that is like or works as something is not that thing itself. For example, many classes let you treat your levels in that class as Fighter levels for the purposes of qualifying for feats - but they aren't actually Fighter levels, so magic items that state they increase your Fighter levels would not arguably have any benefit for the non-Figther class.
Same thing here: It's treated as a shield, but it's not a shield.
Additionally, I would think that if it was intended to count as an actual, physical shield that the text would make some mention of shield proficiency and the penalties you'd take if you lack it - and it doesn't.
The question is: Is he wielding a shield? No, he's not. He's using a magic item that creates a magical disc of force that he wields as if it were a shield.
Same thing here: It's treated as a shield, but it's not a shield.
And we're treating it as a shield, including when determining if the monk can use it without losing his bonus.
Additionally, I would think that if it was intended to count as an actual, physical shield that the text would make some mention of shield proficiency and the penalties you'd take if you lack it - and it doesn't.
[rhetorical question] What is the penalty for wielding a shield without proficiency ? [/rhetorical question]
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.
[rhetorical question] What is the ACP of the wall of force created by a Ring of Force Shield ? [/rhetorical question]
This special creation has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance.
That's why it's not mentioned, because it doesn't matter.
Let's say there's a special banquet table or barn door that can be wielded as if it were a tower shield. Would anyone claim that that would be usable by a monk without losing his bonus ?
The thing I get stuck on is the line saying: "... and can be wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield..." The line under monk AC that I previously quote says nothing about proficiency, but does say something about wielding it.
It doesn't, actually.
He loses these bonuses when he is immobilized or helpless, when he wears any armor, when he carries a shield, or when he carries a medium or heavy load.
You're probably correct, since the whole 'wield' and 'carry' thing is a relatively recent (i.e., post-Core publication) discussion. But the ability doesn't actually say 'wield'.
[rhetorical question] What is the penalty for wielding a shield without proficiency ? [/rhetorical question]
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.
[rhetorical question] What is the ACP of the wall of force created by a Ring of Force Shield ? [/rhetorical question]
This special creation has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance.
That's why it's not mentioned, because it doesn't matter.
I have always assumed - and I admit readily this isn't RAW or even RAI - that the Monk's AC bonus comes from his ability to flow and move. This is implied by the statement that he gains the bonus while not wearing armor and while unencumbered (i.e., both things that tend to hinder your movement).
Carrying a shield without being proficient in it specifically states that it hinders movement (movement-based skills) and your ability to attack, so taken that way it does matter.
Let's say there's a special banquet table or barn door that can be wielded as if it were a tower shield. Would anyone claim that that would be usable by a monk without losing his bonus ?
What is a tower shield really but a table with a handle on the back to allow you to hold it up?
I don't really see this as an apt comparison; if the reason the monk loses the AC benefit is because it hinders his movement (which I think the ability implies), then there's no weight to the ring of force field.
The line I quoted says "uses a shield", not "carry a shield". That quote is taken from 6th edition of the CRB and is the same on prd.
I copied and pasted from the PRD as well. It uses 'uses' in the section on Weapon and Armor Proficiencies, and 'carries' in the actual section on the AC bonus.
So we were both accurate in our quotes; they're just different in different places (yay).
I don't really see this as an apt comparison; if the reason the monk loses the AC benefit is because it hinders his movement (which I think the ability implies), then there's no weight to the ring of force field.
I don't see the reason the monk loses his bonus as a hindrance to movement effect, but rather a combat doctrine effect. Monk doctrine dictates the monk uses his wisdom (bonus) in combat to perceive the opponent's attack coming, predict where it will land, and not be there when it does. A shield is rather the opposite, at least in the last step. Shield use doctrine instructs the user to predict where the attack will land and interpose your shield between it and you. Armor use doctrine is almost passive. Don't care where the attack will land, just trust your armor to stop it. If the monk is doing either of the latter, he's not doing the former.
Yeah. Although filtering through common sense, I doubt that is the intent. :)
Anyway, I FAQ'ed the original post. I think there's enough vagueries here that it could merit some clarity\designer input.
I've always assumed that the ring can be used by a monk without penalty. Regardless of the flavor text (at least I've thought of the 'heavy shield' part as flavor text), it is really just a permanent but watered down shield spell.
No.
A shield spell does not require active use:
Shield creates an invisible shield of force that hovers in front of you. It negates magic missile attacks directed at you. The disk also provides a +4 shield bonus to AC. This bonus applies against incorporeal touch attacks, since it is a force effect. The shield has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance.
A ring of force shield does require active use:
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.
A ring of force shield is treated as a heavy shield (but is weightless and has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance). A darkwood or mithral heavy shield also has no armor check penalty, but cannot be used by a monk without losing their AC bonus. You cannot fight with a two-handed weapon (or two weapons, unless you are bashing with the force shield, use the hand using the active force shield for unarmed/natural attacks, etc.) with an activated force shield, either; a shield spell does allow these actions.
I am torn on this one as well. I have decided to allow the monk to use it without penalty, but I still wonder.
My reasoning:
There is no weight to the force shield.
There is no armor check penalty to the force shield.
There is no arcane failure due to the force shield.
There is nothing to block the view of an attack.
It specifically calls out the +2 benefit of AC but no penalties or proficiencies required.
As a free action it can be dropped, thereby getting it out of the way of all of the monk's actions other than defense.
If the passage, "as if it were..." was completely followed, than one would have to have proficiency with the Heavy Shield.
For 8,500gp the only benefit over a 1,020 gp shield would be its ability to be deactivated and a 5% spell failure chance. That is a lot for an extra 7,480 gp.
For only 7,020 gp a character could have a Heavy Shield that gives +4 to AC with only a 5% spell failure and a ring of protection +1 for a total of +5 AC.
The ability to use it without proficiency seems to me to be a key value of the item.
Therefore I ruled that it protects as per a heavy shield (+2 AC) but does not impede as one.
Not that this really matters, but Hero Lab allows a monk to equip it without penalty also.
How I understand the the written rules:
The statement "as if it were" gives the default description of behavior for the effect. It behaves exactly as a heavy shield. You need the appropriate proficiency to avoid the armor check penalty associated with the shield.
The rest of the text for ring of force shield then goes on to clarify the exceptions to that rule. Since the text states that there is no armor check penalty, then the question of proficiency no longer matters. You still aren't proficient, but the penalty is zero.
Since the ring is wielded as if it were a shield, it acts as a shield for any other rule, subject to the specific exceptions in the text. This means that a monk would be affected exactly as if she were wielding a heavy shield except with no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance.
RAI:
Since the ring of force shield described as weightless and encumbrance-free in the same sentence, it probably isn't supposed to hinder the monk's movement and cause her to forfeit her AC bonus from Wisdom. It's certainly worth asking for clarification.
I think we agree exactly. I had to do a lot of soul searching before I would use it for my monk but I came to the same RAI conclusion, but still do not know if it is correct.