Regarding Ring of Force Shield and Free Actions.


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 100 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Yure wrote:
That Jupiter Ascending movie had a shield thing that came up and down pretty quick. I'd let it fly. The player is already loosing a ring slot that could have some other enchantment.

While watching that movie and the first time the shield got used, someone quipped near my group "ring of force shield"!


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Ring of Force Shield = 8,500gp

Heavy wooden shield = 7gp

Both give you +2 AC, but one weighs 10lbs and the other weighs nothing.

8,493gp seems a lot just to save 10lbs of encumberance.

Its intended use is to allow a character with both hands full of weapon to still benefit from the shield bonus; hence the free action activation.

If you rule that you can't use it in the same round as you attack with a 2HW, then you might as well throw this magic ring in the sea. We don't pay 8,500gp to get not much more benefit than if we bought a 7gp shield. We pay 8,500gp so that we can get the benefit of a shield even though we're using a 2HW.

Additionally, while the shield is up, you lose all 2HD AoOs. Seems like a fair trade off.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Ring of Force Shield = 8,500gp

Heavy wooden shield = 7gp

Both give you +2 AC, but one weighs 10lbs and the other weighs nothing.

8,493gp seems a lot just to save 10lbs of encumberance.

Its intended use is to allow a character with both hands full of weapon to still benefit from the shield bonus; hence the free action activation.

If you rule that you can't use it in the same round as you attack with a 2HW, then you might as well throw this magic ring in the sea. We don't pay 8,500gp to get not much more benefit than if we bought a 7gp shield. We pay 8,500gp so that we can get the benefit of a shield even though we're using a 2HW.

I can't speak on this issue specifically, but every dev clarification I've heard about the ring of force shield had it acting as though it were a shield which, made it suck, of course.

Though I disagree with the notion, I suspect that is the case here as well.

Sovereign Court

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Ring of Force Shield = 8,500gp

Heavy wooden shield = 7gp

Both give you +2 AC, but one weighs 10lbs and the other weighs nothing.

8,493gp seems a lot just to save 10lbs of encumberance.

Its intended use is to allow a character with both hands full of weapon to still benefit from the shield bonus; hence the free action activation.

If you rule that you can't use it in the same round as you attack with a 2HW, then you might as well throw this magic ring in the sea. We don't pay 8,500gp to get not much more benefit than if we bought a 7gp shield. We pay 8,500gp so that we can get the benefit of a shield even though we're using a 2HW.

At the very least it should be compared to a +1 light mithril shield as it has no ACP or arcane spell failure. Comparing it to a normal heavy shield is ignoring many of the benefits, and thereby is a flawed argument. (Even in comparison to the +1 light mithril shield - it also weighs nothing... works against ethereal... can't be sundered... is drawn as a free action... etc)

Even if it ends up being a mediocre magic item - that's not a proof either way. There are a lot of medicore magic items.


LazarX wrote:
Or be a graceful player and accept it.

I did accept it, and took roughly 40 extra damage because of it and as a result was mildly salty.

It was near the end of the session so I didn't fuss too hard.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Ring of Force Shield = 8,500gp

Heavy wooden shield = 7gp

Both give you +2 AC, but one weighs 10lbs and the other weighs nothing.

8,493gp seems a lot just to save 10lbs of encumberance.

Its intended use is to allow a character with both hands full of weapon to still benefit from the shield bonus; hence the free action activation.

If you rule that you can't use it in the same round as you attack with a 2HW, then you might as well throw this magic ring in the sea. We don't pay 8,500gp to get not much more benefit than if we bought a 7gp shield. We pay 8,500gp so that we can get the benefit of a shield even though we're using a 2HW.

One would argue that it's intended use is to give shield protection to characters who either can't use shields or are not proficient in them.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Ring of Force Shield = 8,500gp

Heavy wooden shield = 7gp

Both give you +2 AC, but one weighs 10lbs and the other weighs nothing.

8,493gp seems a lot just to save 10lbs of encumberance.

Its intended use is to allow a character with both hands full of weapon to still benefit from the shield bonus; hence the free action activation.

If you rule that you can't use it in the same round as you attack with a 2HW, then you might as well throw this magic ring in the sea. We don't pay 8,500gp to get not much more benefit than if we bought a 7gp shield. We pay 8,500gp so that we can get the benefit of a shield even though we're using a 2HW.

At the very least it should be compared to a +1 light mithril shield as it has no ACP or arcane spell failure. Comparing it to a normal heavy shield is ignoring many of the benefits, and thereby is a flawed argument. (Even in comparison to the +1 light mithril shield - it also weighs nothing... works against ethereal... can't be sundered... is drawn as a free action... etc)

Even if it ends up being a mediocre magic item - that's not a proof either way. There are a lot of medicore magic items.

Two adventurers go to the magic item shop, to spend 8,500gp each.

The first is a 'sword & board' guy. He sees a ring of force shield for the full 8,500gp, and he sees +2 heavy steel shield for 4,170gp, and a sign offering to enchant his non-magical armour to +2 for 4,000gp. Does he spend 8,170gp to get +6AC and full use of his shield slot, or does he spend even more, 8,500gp, to get +2AC, four less(!), use up one of his two ring slots, and leave his shield slot hanging in the wind? For what benefit? It's a free action instead of a move action to don? He dons his shield as he sets out adventuring. The time it saves him is more than outweighed by +4AC. Oh, the shield weighs 15lbs? He's a strong guy, that 15lbs won't mean a damn thing. Oh, the shield has a -1 ACP? If he's built for stealth, the -1 is outweighed by +4AC, and if he isn't built for stealth then he won't care. Oh, the shield won't help veresus incorporeal? He's going to get hit by an incorporeal touch attack anyway, with or without the ring, and -2AC versus incorporeal weighed against +4AC versus everything else? No brainer.

So there's no way in heck that the sword & board guy buys the ring. Even when he's much more wealthy, the ring doesn't stack with any shield he has, and his shield will get to +5 with lots of special abilities while the ring stays the same.

What about his friend, the greatsword guy? He can't use a shield in the same round as he uses his greatsword, not because there's a rule against benefiting from a shield bonus to AC in the same round as attacking with a 2HW, but because it takes a move action to don/doff which is incompatable with a full attack.

But he knows that it's a free action to release/re-grip a 2HW with one hand while holding it in the other, and a free action to activate/de-activate the ring. So he can have the ring activated at the end of each turn in combat, de-activate it on his next turn, re-grip his sword, full attack, release his shield hand, then re-activate the ring. Brilliant! A useful magic item!

But wait! The DM says that he's not going to allow it to work. Why? Because he's the DM and he says so!

Okay, is the greatsword guy going to spend 8,500gp on a shield he can't use when he's fighting with his greatsword? Not a chance. There are infinitely more ways he could spend that money. 8,000gp on a ring of protection +2, for example.

If the DM rules this way (for whatever reason), then it is a completely pointless item that no-one would buy therefore no-one would make in the first place.

Silver Crusade

LazarX wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Ring of Force Shield = 8,500gp

Heavy wooden shield = 7gp

Both give you +2 AC, but one weighs 10lbs and the other weighs nothing.

8,493gp seems a lot just to save 10lbs of encumberance.

Its intended use is to allow a character with both hands full of weapon to still benefit from the shield bonus; hence the free action activation.

If you rule that you can't use it in the same round as you attack with a 2HW, then you might as well throw this magic ring in the sea. We don't pay 8,500gp to get not much more benefit than if we bought a 7gp shield. We pay 8,500gp so that we can get the benefit of a shield even though we're using a 2HW.

One would argue that it's intended use is to give shield protection to characters who either can't use shields or are not proficient in them.

You can still use a shield without proficiency, and the ring must still be wielded as if it were a heavy shield, so if you're forbidden to use a shield then you can't use the ring either.

Sovereign Court

Malachi - your logic is basically 'if you don't allow this borderline abuse of the rules - the ring sucks - and it wouldn't exist if it sucked'. (Though it'd still have uses - just not for primary combatants. Not horrible for a str 5 Sorceror. Not bad for a Wrecker Oracle.)

There are a LOT of magic items which suck - or at the very least are extremely situational.

Curious though - in your ruling - wouldn't a +1 quickdraw shield still do the same thing for much less gold if you have the Quickdraw feat? For the same gold - said feat would give you +2 AC and not use up a ring slot. (making it an awesome feat even ignoring all of the other uses) So therefore - why would the ring exist?

Edit: Of note - I'm not saying that there isn't an argument that you CAN both use and not use it. I disagree - but there is a reasonable argument. However - you must also admit that there is a valid & logical argument the other way as well.


I'm going to disagree there Malachi.
"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)."
Emphasis on "CAN". It doesn't have to be wielded as a shield, and will grant you the +2 AC regardless. I believe the purpose of it being able to be wielded as a shield is for the benefit of shield slam attacks and other relevant feats.


I'm going to throw out a hypothetical (mainly for Malachi and all those who support the use of the ring as given in the OP). Let's say I am holding two weapons as well as having a buckler on my offhand. For a full-round action I TWF with said weapons, then as a free action drop the weapon in my offhand. Does that mean that I get the AC from the buckler that instant?

Since it is now a page later I will again quote the relevant rules.

Buckler wrote:
In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn.
Shield Bashing Attacks wrote:
If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next turn.

While these rules don't perfectly describe the case of a single magic item, they seem to display what the general intention is for defending with a shield during the same round you use that hand to attack with.

More relevant hypothetical. Let's say I shield bash with the ring of force shield (assuming you can, I know its been debated). I then free action turn off the shield and free action turn it back on in the same turn. Do I now get the AC bonus from the shield, despite the rule on shield bashing I quoted above?

Silver Crusade

Ziere Tole wrote:

I'm going to throw out a hypothetical (mainly for Malachi and all those who support the use of the ring as given in the OP). Let's say I am holding two weapons as well as having a buckler on my offhand. For a full-round action I TWF with said weapons, then as a free action drop the weapon in my offhand. Does that mean that I get the AC from the buckler that instant?

Since it is now a page later I will again quote the relevant rules.

Buckler wrote:
In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn.
Shield Bashing Attacks wrote:
If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next turn.

While these rules don't perfectly describe the case of a single magic item, they seem to display what the general intention is for defending with a shield during the same round you use that hand to attack with.

More relevant hypothetical. Let's say I shield bash with the ring of force shield (assuming you can, I know its been debated). I then free action turn off the shield and free action turn it back on in the same turn. Do I now get the AC bonus from the shield, despite the rule on shield bashing I quoted above?

If you shield bash with the force shield, then you don't get the AC bonus unless you have the feat which says you keep it.

All the normal rules apply. Attacking with a shield has rules. Losing the AC is not a law of the universe, but a consequence of it being difficult to keep the AC from it while doing so, a skillful move that needs to be trained, i.e. a feat.

The rules for the buckler are rules for the buckler. They don't apply to things that are not a buckler and are not used as a buckler. For example, you can have a buckler tied to your arm and still hold a weapon simultaneously. This is not true with a heavy shield, nor with this force that is used as a heavy shield.


Doubtful. For the case of using it as a shield bash I would agree that you don't get the AC bonus for ir.
However, I don't consider it to be a buckler, because in no way is it a buckler.. So in that regard I would have to disagree.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Greven wrote:

I'm going to disagree there Malachi.

"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)."
Emphasis on "CAN". It doesn't have to be wielded as a shield, and will grant you the +2 AC regardless. I believe the purpose of it being able to be wielded as a shield is for the benefit of shield slam attacks and other relevant feats.

No, you don't get the shield bonus to AC unless you wield it.

I wish it didn't need to be 'wielded'! If that were true then I'd leave it on the whole time, and use my 2HW to my heart's content, benefiting from that +2 shield bonus to AC from the force shield I'm not wielding!

Silver Crusade

Greven wrote:

Doubtful. For the case of using it as a shield bash I would agree that you don't get the AC bonus for ir.

However, I don't consider it to be a buckler, because in no way is it a buckler.. So in that regard I would have to disagree.

Not sure who or what you're disagreeing with re: buckler.


So why is it more difficult to keep the AC from a buckler during a two-handed attack than it is to keep the AC from a shield that then appears right after you finish two-handing? Other than "the ring is a magical item", what logistical difference is there? What hand motions are different?

Silver Crusade

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Malachi - your logic is basically 'if you don't allow this borderline abuse of the rules...

Abuse of the rules? This is what it was invented for!

Many magic items exist to give you the capability to do something you couldn't do without magic. Like using a 2HW and a shield in combat, for instance.

They took the trouble to make its activation/de-activation a free action. This means, in terms of the action economy of the game, you can have the shield up after you complete your full attack with a 2HW, and switch it off just before your next full attack. If the designers, for some reason, felt that this item should exist but that its use by a 2HW user would be 'borderline abuse', then they would have nipped that 'abuse' in the bud by saying that...what...some magic won't let it? What stops it, exactly?


Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Greven wrote:

Doubtful. For the case of using it as a shield bash I would agree that you don't get the AC bonus for ir.

However, I don't consider it to be a buckler, because in no way is it a buckler.. So in that regard I would have to disagree.

I don't think he is saying that it IS a buckler, he is only pointing out that "intent" seems to be that if you use your offhand to make an attack, you don't gain the benefit to AC (either by having a buckler equipped, or using a shield to attack).

I'm on the fence for this issue. I can see it both ways. However, I usually side with intent and it seems that the intent of this item is to act like a shield for those that normally don't or can't use a shield.

The main issue I have with the suggested use is that activation is a free action, and deactivation is a free action and the suggestion is that both can be done in the same round, as many times as the DM allows. While I think that a light switch could be flipped up and down many times in 6 seconds, there is more to "using" this item then just flipping a switch. As a GM I would say that activating (and being able to benefit from it) is a free action, and deactivating it (so you can use your hand, etc) is a free action, but both actions can't be taken in the same round.

I think there is a HUGE difference between Free Actions (I can take 15 of them if my GM allows) and Swift Actions (1 per round) in action economy and changing the ring to a Swift Action would be disastrous (WAY too many things require Swift or Immediate Actions), but limiting the activation to once per round (especially if other free actions are in play) wouldn't be unreasonable.

Silver Crusade

Canthin wrote:
Greven wrote:

Doubtful. For the case of using it as a shield bash I would agree that you don't get the AC bonus for ir.

However, I don't consider it to be a buckler, because in no way is it a buckler.. So in that regard I would have to disagree.

I don't think he is saying that it IS a buckler, he is only pointing out that "intent" seems to be that if you use your offhand to make an attack, you don't gain the benefit to AC (either by having a buckler equipped, or using a shield to attack).

I'm on the fence for this issue. I can see it both ways. However, I usually side with intent and it seems that the intent of this item is to act like a shield for those that normally don't or can't use a shield.

The main issue I have with the suggested use is that activation is a free action, and deactivation is a free action and the suggestion is that both can be done in the same round, as many times as the DM allows. While I think that a light switch could be flipped up and down many times in 6 seconds, there is more to "using" this item then just flipping a switch. As a GM I would say that activating (and being able to benefit from it) is a free action, and deactivating it (so you can use your hand, etc) is a free action, but both actions can't be taken in the same round.

I think there is a HUGE difference between Free Actions (I can take 15 of them if my GM allows) and Swift Actions (1 per round) in action economy and changing the ring to a Swift Action would be disastrous (WAY too many things require Swift or Immediate Actions), but limiting the activation to once per round (especially if other free actions are in play) wouldn't be unreasonable.

In RAW terms, all free actions are exactly the same size.

It is certainly possible, and has been done before, that an ability is a free action to use, 'but no more than once per round'. Since the ring could have said this but didn't, adding that 'once per round' part is a houserule, and doesn't help the debate on the RAW of how the item works.

An excellent point raised above is that Paizo produce stat blocks for high level martials that include the AC bonus from the ring and a 2HW as the attack, with no note about only including the shield bonus in rounds where the 2HW is not used.

It is what it is for, after all. : )


Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
An excellent point raised above is that Paizo produce stat blocks for high level martials that include the AC bonus from the ring and a 2HW as the attack, with no note about only including the shield bonus in rounds where the 2HW is not used.

Except that the stat block is from 3.5 (Second Darkness was a 3.5 AP that Paizo made) and we are now discussing Pathfinder, not 3.5.

I agree that RAW Free Actions are Free Actions but also RAW the number of Free Actions is limited by the GM so a GM limiting this ring to one activation/deactivation per round isn't a house rule, which is why there will be table variation.


Canthin wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
An excellent point raised above is that Paizo produce stat blocks for high level martials that include the AC bonus from the ring and a 2HW as the attack, with no note about only including the shield bonus in rounds where the 2HW is not used.
Except that the stat block is from 3.5 (Second Darkness was a 3.5 AP that Paizo made) and we are now discussing Pathfinder, not 3.5.

I would also like to add that even if it were a Pathfinder AP, it wouldn't be the first time that an AP statblock or rules reference was just wrong (the authors are, after all, usually just as imperfect as we are at reading the rules).

Anyway, thank you for the discussion all. Malachi, I'm not going to try and convince you further, nor was that really my intention in the first place. Those reading this thread who were/are undecided in the matter, I hope I have given you some food for thought that will help you decide. Without more evidence either way or developer comment, I don't think either ruling can necessarily be called more wrong than the other. Until actual new information is posted I don't have anything more to say.

Sovereign Court

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


In RAW terms, all free actions are exactly the same size.

Actually - I'd argue that in RAW terms - all free actions are whatever size the GM says they are.

But that wasn't my argument at all. I think that you could turn it off & on in your turn. I just think that all turns are happening at once - and I don't think it should be Schrodenger's shield.

I'm with Ziere though - all arguments have been made for both sides. Agree to disagree - and say that one should expect table variation.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
An excellent point raised above is that Paizo produce stat blocks for high level martials that include the AC bonus from the ring and a 2HW as the attack, with no note about only including the shield bonus in rounds where the 2HW is not used.

That, Sir, might have been a flub on my part, as I can no longer locate the said NPCs... I found one with a ring of force shield, but he's a heavy metal band-looking sorcerer with a spiked gauntlet in the other hand...

Still, I believe the free action feature of the ring of force shield would allow for this, same way the glove of storing combat interaction is widely recognized and accepted...

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

Addendum: you can pretty much get the same two-handed benefit for much cheaper now via the use of quickdraw shields, so I'm not going to be a deeeeeeeeeck GM to anyone to spends 8K on a ring of force shield...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

We have two precedents that state that attacking with a weapon in shield hand loses the shield bonus. The we have the whole hands of effort thing. And lastly we have a prohibition of using a manufactured weapon and natural weapon on the same limb in the same round. All told it is pretty clear that a given limb can only be used for one thing per round, attack or shield. The fact that the ring is a crappy item is irrelevant to the rules at hand.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

We are the borg, resistance is futile. We cannot accept something that says free actions are regulated by GM ruling. We cannot be happy until every single part of this game is formalized and codified, and regulated and enforced in a manner that is beyond everything that is regulated and enforced in real life. The game must be perfect....... because real life is sooooooooooo imperfect and depressing... [/sarcasm off]


Then you would be okay as an archer if the GM limited you to 2 free actions a turn?


thorin001 wrote:
Then you would be okay as an archer if the GM limited you to 2 free actions a turn?

Yeah, seriously, this is the rules forum. We already know that GMs can tweak things how they like, so how about we try to figure out what the actual rules say as to whether this is legal.

They've already FAQed that a spellcaster can free action shift grips to cast a spell and still be able to wield a 2H weapon for AoOs, essentially free-action choosing different grip configurations for the turn compared to the rest of the round. Why is this so different?


I seem to recall a post from one of the devs stating that you can two handed fight with a ring of force shield even while active.


If the whole point is to ask "can you swing with a 2 hander then let go and block with a shield" I would ask "as a GM would you let someone with a buckler do this?"

The answer is of course no. The rules are clear. So why would you allow someone do it with a projected heavy shield?

As a GM I wouldn't. There's some clear rules on that as far as one shield. And as already pointed out, you're not actually swinging or blocking once, it's all happening at once. From a rules standpoint and roleplaying they seem to concur this is just not going to happen.


CommandoDude wrote:
I seem to recall a post from one of the devs stating that you can two handed fight with a ring of force shield even while active.

I was bored, so I think I found the post you are talking about here

Joshua J. Frost wrote:
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.

Joshua was never a developer though as far as I can tell, just a regular employee who was also in charge of PFS for a while. His "ruling" doesn't really match the item text all that well either, and also would suggest that you are no longer wielding the shield in a hand, and therefore (probably) could not shield bash with it. Whichever way it is, the ring of force shield seems to need a proper FAQ, I just don't know the best way to word the question.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I guess no one liked my suggestion of still requiring a move action to don the shield generated by the ring, eh?

Actions in a round do happen sequentially. While D&D is an abstraction of combat, it is a turn based game. If someone wants to change what they're wielding and holding twice on their turn, this is perfectly reasonable and allowed (except under the most draconian limitations of free actions).

While you can say what does and doesn't fly in your own game... guess what, that applies to everything. This is the rules forum where we discuss what the rules actually allow, not what does or doesn't fit your version of what is reasonable.

In any case, paying 8k for a +2 shield bonus while wielding a 2H weapon (with the added minor drawback of doing less damage on AoO) is hardly game breaking. Until high levels, there's actually many cheaper ways to get an extra 2 AC... so this is bad option in most cases. At high levels, that "real" shield is still going to have more AC (note that a +3 heavy shield costs ~9k and gives 5AC).

Cavall wrote:
If the whole point is to ask "can you swing with a 2 hander then let go and block with a shield" I would ask "as a GM would you let someone with a buckler do this?"

The buckler has this in its specific description:

"if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler's Armor Class bonus until your next turn"

The shield generated by the ring isn't a buckler, and thus this rule doesn't apply.


At high levels, UMD + wand of shield is much superior (and more than 10x cheaper) if you can spare the action to buff.


for 9,000 and change + quick draw you could have a +3 quick draw light shield and do the same thing with a +4 shield bonus instead.


I started a FAQ for what I think is the most relevant question in the matter.
Arguments can be made, but so can a FAQ, and while it might not be answered, it might at least be worth a try, right?

Silver Crusade

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


In RAW terms, all free actions are exactly the same size.

Actually - I'd argue that in RAW terms - all free actions are whatever size the GM says they are.

But that wasn't my argument at all. I think that you could turn it off & on in your turn. I just think that all turns are happening at once - and I don't think it should be Schrodenger's shield.

I disagree.

First, as far as the game goes, each combatant takes all of his actions during his own turn (except ones that specifically are not), and each combatant takes turns one after the other.

But this represents simultaneous action, right? Well...yes and no.

Yes, the combat round represents all the combatants action all the time. But no, this doesn't mean that each combatant is attacking and parrying simultaneously.

In a real combat, sometimes you swing for them and they try to block, and sometimes they swing for you and you try to block. A 'conversation with the blades', attack after attack, parry after parry, pass after pass.

This is represented in the case we're discussing by attacking two-handed followed by parrying with the shield of force.

But surely you can wait until they try to attack two-handed to quickly strike while they are not parrying with the shield, what fencers call a 'stop hit'. How does the game model that?

Easily. Readied actions. 'I ready an action to strike as he's swinging two-handed for me, DM'. If you hit, he won't have the benefit of the force shield. You'll only get one attack if you do this, but you pays your money and takes your choice.

Remember, using a 2HW then activating the ring has the drawback of no AoO if your weapon cannot be used one-handed, or with reduced Str bonus to damage if it can.


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Addendum: you can pretty much get the same two-handed benefit for much cheaper now via the use of quickdraw shields, so I'm not going to be a deeeeeeeeeck GM to anyone to spends 8K on a ring of force shield...

Use a Quickdraw, Throwing Shield, and use a Blinkback Belt. Also take the Quickdraw Feat. A Throwing Shield can be thrown as a Free Action. The Blinkback Belt will recall it instantly back to itself after the attack is resolved. Then with the Quickdraw Feat, you can draw a Quickdraw Shield as a Free Action. That only requires 2 Free Actions in a round, an that's not many.

Of course, if the OP's DM won't allow that use of a Ring of Force Shield, he sure won't allow the setup I just proposed. And the GM is well-within his rights by RAW to set any limits on the number of Free Actions you take in a round.

Although, the limitation the OP was running up against was different, wasn't it? He was trying to get away with something more.


I wasn't using a 2handed weapon, I was using a 1 handed weapon grasped in 2 hands. Im not sure if this will affect the discussion about "Using 2 handers w/ buckler". Although its still a curious subject.


Greven the OP wrote:

I started the round with the shield active and my katana in hand.

Drop katana as a free action, grow claws as a sorcerer bloodline power as a free action, deactivate shield as a free action, as a swift action go invisible with my Ninja trick (Vanishing Trick), 5 foot into base to base contact with enemy, full attack, then activate shield in my offhand as a final free action.

This doesn't seem substantially different from blinking the shield out, 2-handing the katana, then blinking the shield back in, which your DM did allow, right?

Ask him about what the difference is to him. Maybe, if you were selecting that particular Bloodline just because you wanted to use those claws in conjunction with your Ring of Force Shield, he might let you take some take some other Bloodline as a substitute, because you only made that decision based not understanding the GM's prediction.

I find myself wondering how your character works as I consider your problem. Why were you using a katana then switching to Claws? Why 2 hand a katana when you can 2 weapon with shield bashing? You give up a lot on bonuses to your shield, armor, ring of protection, and weapon by investing in a Ring of Force Shield. So now instead you use Sorcerer Claws? With a sword and Shield and not just Sorcerer Spells? What's this character?


I'll pm my char to you, in an attempt to keep this thread relevant.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Greven wrote:
Emphasis on "CAN". It doesn't have to be wielded as a shield, and will grant you the +2 AC regardless.

Call it table variance, because I've always used it as a shield when activated. I'm pretty sure except for this thread, I've never heard anyone articulate that they shouldn't be considered wearing a shield with it active. Maybe because the subject never came up because it wasn't relevant.


I see nothing in the item description that gives the +2 shield bonus without it being wielded as a heavy shield:

Quote:
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).

If it's not wielded as a heavy shield, where do you get the AC bonus from? They are linked in the item description.


It also doesn't say "must be wielded to grant the +2 AC"
What if the (+2 AC) was somewhere else in the description? Its really subjective.


But it's not. It's not subjective because it's not added somewhere else. If we are changing the wording we may as well change it to give the answer to the question and save us all the trouble of the thread.

But it's quite clear it creates a green lantern type disc. Said disc can be used to block attacks if used like a shield. It then gives the bonus of that blocking as a heavy shield.

If you don't use it like a shield you don't get the bonus. It's in the same sentence.

The question isn't if you wield it or not of it still gives a bonus. The question was since it can be activated as a free action does it allow you to attack then receive a shield bonus in the same turn.

My personal opinion is no. But I could see where others may say yes, as it's down then back up again. If that was the case, we could at least agree that someone holding action could attack when the ring isn't being used as a shield? (During the attack)


Greven wrote:

It also doesn't say "must be wielded to grant the +2 AC"

What if the (+2 AC) was somewhere else in the description? Its really subjective.

Get what AC? The only mention of AC is in the parenthetical which, by their nature, means that mention is just to clarify something. That 'something' is the AC bonus you get when you wield the force shield as a heavy shield.

There are no words, anywhere, in the item description that say you get an AC bonus just by activating the ring.

If the item said:

When activated, you get a +2 shield bonus to your AC, and can wield the force shield as a heavy shield

it would behave as you describe. However, the item does not say this.


Greven wrote:

I'm having a small conflict with my GM over what is acceptable for my character to do in combat.

For about 5 levels (Currently a Ninja4/Sorcerer1/DragonDisciple6) I have been using a Katana and Ring of Force Shield.
I would begin my turn with the Force shield on, Katana in one hand.
Free action deactivate Ring of Force Shield
Free action Two hand my Katana
Attack
Free action Reactivate my Ring of Force Shield.

This was acceptable for quite some time. The situation that became upsetting for my Gm was this

I started the round with the shield active and my katana in hand.
Drop katana as a free action, grow claws as a sorcerer bloodline power as a free action, deactivate shield as a free action, as a swift action go invisible with my Ninja trick (Vanishing Trick), 5 foot into base to base contact with enemy, full attack, then activate shield in my offhand as a final free action.

Am I overstepping what should be allowed with free actions? I assumed all of this was quite fluid to preform in my mind. Dropping weapon while growing claws and turning off the shield to vanish into a blindspot of my enemy, smack him a bunch while re-appearing next to him turning on my shield to defend myself.

I mostly replied privately, but I see no reason why I can't make this public.

So what you were doing before was 4 Free Actions:

1: Turn off your shield
(Full attack action)
2: Re-actiavate your shield

And it seems like the OP's GM was okay with that. What you were wanting to doing next was

1: Drop your katana
2: Activate your claws
3: Deactivate your shield
(full attack action)
4: Re-activate your shield

It does seem like the second thing requires more Free Actions. How many Free actions is your GM allowing in a turn? If you begin combat with your shield deactivated and your katana sheathed, it would be

1: Activate your claws
(full attack)
2: Activate your shield

Since you only need to activate your claws the first round, subsequent rounds would be

1: deactivate the shield
(full attack)
2: Activate your shield.

2 Free Actions/round doesn't seem like that much. Perhaps you should get to the bottom of your GM's issues.

With 1 more level of Dragon Disciple, you will be able to cast Monstrous Physique, turn into a 4 armed sahaugin, use your shield all the time, and have 3 claws left over.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Greven wrote:

It also doesn't say "must be wielded to grant the +2 AC"

What if the (+2 AC) was somewhere else in the description? Its really subjective.

I'm find with you calling it table variance, but I absolutely don't agree with your interpretation. This largely comes down to the rules are written in a way that doesn't require pedantic interpretations. So they will hardly ever write "must be worn" unless the item has effects that are continuous and effects that are only while worn. There are some rods written this way. But if the item only has one effect, you shouldn't ever expect "must be worn" to be words in an item description.


James Risner wrote:
Greven wrote:

It also doesn't say "must be wielded to grant the +2 AC"

What if the (+2 AC) was somewhere else in the description? Its really subjective.
I'm find with you calling it table variance, but I absolutely don't agree with your interpretation. This largely comes down to the rules are written in a way that doesn't require pedantic interpretations. So they will hardly ever write "must be worn" unless the item has effects that are continuous and effects that are only while worn. There are some rods written this way. But if the item only has one effect, you shouldn't ever expect "must be worn" to be words in an item description.

I think I agree with you about eschewing pedantic interpretations, but in the OP's homespun campaign, the DM allowed one configuration and use of the Ring of Force Shield, then he disallowed a new use that was different in a way that is somewhat nuanced. That seems to beg the question "Why?".

Meanwhile, how can we help the OP achieve his desired effect or the next best thing to it?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
how can we help the OP achieve his desired effect or the next best thing to it?

Generally, the best/easiest/desire way to do that is the OP gets a new GM and possibly a new game group. If the GM doesn't change his mind, it isn't worth the OP stressing about the issue.

51 to 100 of 100 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Regarding Ring of Force Shield and Free Actions. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.