Currently working on an antipaladin/summoner gestalt design, and really tempted to go sword/board. I was worried about ASF and not having a hand free for spellcasting when I came across the ring of force shield. This would seem to solve most of the problems with a quasi-caster toating around a shield and bashing things with it...
Ring of Force Shield wrote: Source Ultimate Equipment pg. 171 (Amazon), PRPG Core Rulebook pg. 479 (Amazon)
Aura moderate evocation CL 9th
Slot ring; Price 8,500 gp; Weight —
Description
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.
But can such a shield be used for shield bashing, and even so, can it qualify for shield bash improving feats?
I would say yes, it acts as a shield.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Not only can it act as a shield, the description specifically states that it "can be wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield." (emphasis mine)
Of course, unlike a regular shield, it cannot be enhanced (either through magic vestment, magic weapon/greater magic weapon, or permanent magic item bonuses/abilities) or otherwise upgraded (i.e., shield spikes). You are stuck with the base 1d4 damage as a one-handed weapon and no bonuses other than Str and Weapon Focus, etc. On the plus side, as a force effect it applies against incorporeal opponents.
Dragonchess Player wrote: Not only can it act as a shield, the description specifically states that it "can be wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield." (emphasis mine)
Of course, unlike a regular shield, it cannot be enhanced (either through magic vestment, magic weapon/greater magic weapon, or permanent magic item bonuses/abilities) or otherwise upgraded (i.e., shield spikes). You are stuck with the base 1d4 damage as a one-handed weapon and no bonuses other than Str and Weapon Focus, etc. On the plus side, as a force effect it applies against incorporeal opponents.
Thank you to Ruske Bell and Dragonchess Player for your replies!
I figured the answer would be yes, but just because it seems that way to me doesn't necessarly mean thats what it would be! lol
Granted a ring of force shield can't be improved as is, but it also doesn't rule out a DM allowing for experimentation of a new form or version that is improved (can haz ring of force spiked tower shield?)
>.<
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
As it's wielded as a shield you have also the downside that it means your hand is not free for spellcasting, assuming you have a weapon in your other hand.
LazarX wrote: As it's wielded as a shield you have also the downside that it means your hand is not free for spellcasting, assuming you have a weapon in your other hand. It can be activated and deactivated as a free action, so many GM's would allow a player to get rid of it, cast a spell, then summon it again in the same round.
I can't imagine a weightless item making any sort of solid hit on an opponent.
I would rule, possibly contrary to RAW, that you cannot attack with it.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
By that logic, it can't stop weapon blows either. Yet it does. The ring's shield is weightless, exactly the same as mage armor.
It's a floating disk of pure force.
Not a feather.
Komoda wrote: I can't imagine a weightless item making any sort of solid hit on an opponent.
I would rule, possibly contrary to RAW, that you cannot attack with it.
The weight isn't causing the damage. The damage is caused by inertia as you bash someone in the face with a solid (though temporary force effect) object.
LazarX wrote: As it's wielded as a shield you have also the downside that it means your hand is not free for spellcasting, assuming you have a weapon in your other hand. The item description says it has no arcane failure chance.
Ruske Bell wrote: LazarX wrote: As it's wielded as a shield you have also the downside that it means your hand is not free for spellcasting, assuming you have a weapon in your hand. The item description says it has no arcane failure chance. 0% Arcane Spell Failure just means it doesn't interfere with spell casting to the point of ruining it completely when you make the attempt. It doesn't mean you have a free hand, that you are required to have, to cast a spell.
If you are doing the sword and board fighting style, you have one hand on your sword, the other wielding the shield. No free hand to cast, regardless of arcane spell failure.
Skylancer4 wrote: Ruske Bell wrote: LazarX wrote: As it's wielded as a shield you have also the downside that it means your hand is not free for spellcasting, assuming you have a weapon in your hand. The item description says it has no arcane failure chance. 0% Arcane Spell Failure just means it doesn't interfere with spell casting to the point of ruining it completely when you make the attempt. It doesn't mean you have a free hand, that you are required to have, to cast a spell.
If you are doing the sword and board fighting style, you have one hand on your sword, the other wielding the shield. No free hand to cast, regardless of arcane spell failure. I'm not 100% sure that is true:
Note: this is a partial quote. "This ring generates a shield-sized (and shield-shaped) wall of force that stays with the ring".
To me, it sounds like the anchor point for the shield is the ring itself; it doesn't seem to me to imply that you are holding the shield with straps made out of force, or force shaped handles per se. One might be tempted to argue that a shield with the ring as an anchor point might be cumbersome, yet the shield specifically states it is weightless and non-encumbering.
Perhaps the shape the shield makes MIGHT interfer with somatic gestures, but at least as written, I'm inclined to say the hand the ring is on is still technically free/empty.
Then again, it doesn't matter, since the shield can be formed or dismissed as a free action, with no limit on how often (ie no cooldown period):
Free Action wrote: 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 as far as rules are concerned, you could dismiss the shield as a free action, cast with that hand, reform the shield as a free action, and continue/finish your turn. The question becomes: do you want to force the player to constantly say free action to dismiss, free action to reform or not?
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote: Komoda wrote: I can't imagine a weightless item making any sort of solid hit on an opponent.
I would rule, possibly contrary to RAW, that you cannot attack with it.
The weight isn't causing the damage. The damage is caused by inertia as you bash someone in the face with a solid (though temporary force effect) object. Something should be noted, you are backing up the force of this blow not with your arm and body (like you would as if you had a shield strapped to your arm) but your fist since this is a ring and you are basically punching someone with a heavy (weightless) shield.
Shouldn't the mechanics be different since you are not shield bashing but punching someone with a shield?
prismaticsoul wrote: Skylancer4 wrote: Ruske Bell wrote: LazarX wrote: As it's wielded as a shield you have also the downside that it means your hand is not free for spellcasting, assuming you have a weapon in your hand. The item description says it has no arcane failure chance. 0% Arcane Spell Failure just means it doesn't interfere with spell casting to the point of ruining it completely when you make the attempt. It doesn't mean you have a free hand, that you are required to have, to cast a spell.
If you are doing the sword and board fighting style, you have one hand on your sword, the other wielding the shield. No free hand to cast, regardless of arcane spell failure. I'm not 100% sure that is true:
Note: this is a partial quote. "This ring generates a shield-sized (and shield-shaped) wall of force that stays with the ring".
To me, it sounds like the anchor point for the shield is the ring itself; it doesn't seem to me to imply that you are holding the shield with straps made out of force, or force shaped handles per se. One might be tempted to argue that a shield with the ring as an anchor point might be cumbersome, yet the shield specifically states it is weightless and non-encumbering.
Perhaps the shape the shield makes MIGHT interfer with somatic gestures, but at least as written, I'm inclined to say the hand the ring is on is still technically free/empty.
Then again, it doesn't matter, since the shield can be formed or dismissed as a free action, with no limit on how often (ie no cooldown period):
Free Action wrote: 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 as far as rules are concerned, you could dismiss the shield as a free action, cast with that hand, reform the shield as a free action, and continue/finish your turn. The question becomes: do you want... You are ignoring the fact that it states wielded like a heavy shield when getting the AC bonus. Using a heavy shield means that hand is unavailable to cast spells. Yes, you can dismiss it to cast, but you aren't getting the AC during the cast.
The term wielded has specific meaning in game. It means being used, not just held or touched, but actual usage. Look up the threads regarding wizards and bonded items. If you have a staff as a bonded item, you must have it in hand and use it when casting spells. This prohibits you from holding a metamagic rod in your hand, as then both hands are busy and leave you without a free hand to do the somatic components (assuming they are needed).
Don't dismiss that it is magic.
A magical wall, of pure force.
Magic Missiles weigh nothing, but hurt nonetheless.
skylancer4 wrote: You are ignoring the fact that it states wielded like a heavy shield when getting the AC bonus. Using a heavy shield means that hand is unavailable to cast spells. Yes, you can dismiss it to cast, but you aren't getting the AC during the cast.
The term wielded has specific meaning in game. It means being used, not just held or touched, but actual usage. Look up the threads regarding wizards and bonded items. If you have a staff as a bonded item, you must have it in hand and use it when casting spells. This prohibits you from holding a metamagic rod in your hand, as then both hands are busy and leave you without a free hand to do the somatic components (assuming they are needed).
I'm not necessarily ignoring that; I'm merely seeing both sides of the argument. The language of the ring and its creation is to me (and it appears others) vague. It's wielded "like" a heavy shield, but the description of HOW it is wielded is lacking. It's weightless, unencumbering, and causes no ASF, yet it doesn't cover HOW it's wielded (does the construct so mimic a heavy shield that there is straps and handles that bind it to the user?). By RAW, I think a lot of people think this shield construct is quite possibly dancing, moving in tandem with the users ring hand. Now, assuming such an assumption is true (a stretch I know, but the whole point of asking these questions is to engage in thought and logic and try to reach a consensus when the rules are murky), can one argue that the users hand is not open/empty, and POSSIBLY free enough to cast a spell? We would have to assume the shield moves freely enough with the ring hand to not interfere with spellcasting, since it has an ASF of 0%.
Then we have to ask can a caster complete a casting and still use the shield if needed during casting (such as suffering an AoO for casting).
It should be noted that while the item description says the construct acts like a heavy shield, it is not 100% a heavy shield, as a heavy shield has a 15% ASF chance, as well as -2 ACP, and is literally strapped or held with a handle of some sort. Therefore, we cannot reasonably rule that such a construct will act 100% like an equivalent heavy shield, and that may open its own headaches (such as my root question of if the construct is valid enough to make shield bash attempts, and if so, be a qualifying "weapon" for shield bash enhancing feats).
I honestly feel there is enough wiggle room and potential for interpretation for DMs to make their own decisions. At the very least, I think we can all agree a caster with this could go: free action drop shield, standard action cast spell, free action form shield. Whether a caster would be willing to sac 2 AC to cast freely or not would probably depend on the situation no?
Skylancer4 wrote: prismaticsoul wrote: Skylancer4 wrote: Ruske Bell wrote: LazarX wrote: As it's wielded as a shield you have also the downside that it means your hand is not free for spellcasting, assuming you have a weapon in your hand. The item description says it has no arcane failure chance. 0% Arcane Spell Failure just means it doesn't interfere with spell casting to the point of ruining it completely when you make the attempt. It doesn't mean you have a free hand, that you are required to have, to cast a spell.
If you are doing the sword and board fighting style, you have one hand on your sword, the other wielding the shield. No free hand to cast, regardless of arcane spell failure. I'm not 100% sure that is true:
Note: this is a partial quote. "This ring generates a shield-sized (and shield-shaped) wall of force that stays with the ring".
To me, it sounds like the anchor point for the shield is the ring itself; it doesn't seem to me to imply that you are holding the shield with straps made out of force, or force shaped handles per se. One might be tempted to argue that a shield with the ring as an anchor point might be cumbersome, yet the shield specifically states it is weightless and non-encumbering.
Perhaps the shape the shield makes MIGHT interfer with somatic gestures, but at least as written, I'm inclined to say the hand the ring is on is still technically free/empty.
Then again, it doesn't matter, since the shield can be formed or dismissed as a free action, with no limit on how often (ie no cooldown period):
Free Action wrote: 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 as far as rules are concerned, you could dismiss the shield as a free action, cast with that hand, reform the shield as a free action, and continue/finish your turn. ... Hence the reason I was asking questions! lol
I honestly think that regardless of anchor mechanic (and whether you allow the ring hand to remain free or not once the shield is formed), the plane of force created is equivilant to a heavy shield in terms of amount of force it can withstand and inflict...perhaps the rings magic can mimic the impact force needed to shield bash properly.
>.< I didn't think this thread would get this much discussion. First good thread I've made! :-)
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
