My point was more along the line of, if your DM decides to treat magically conjured shield-like effects as if they were physical shields, there are probably ways around such a ruling.
D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 Monks and Shields
Sm!le
Explorer
How would he handle the shield spell?
Which has almost all the exact same verbiage as the ring.
There are other things in the game that uses exact same mechanic.
In D&D 3.5e, the Shield spell creates an invisible, tower shield-sized mobile disk of force that provides a +4 shield bonus to AC. As per the description, this bonus applies against incorporeal touch attacks, and the shield has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance. However, you can't use the shield spell for cover. It is see through.
If the discussion is about whether characters need proficiency in shields to benefit from the shield bonus provided by the Shield spell, the spell description is clear—it doesn't mention any proficiency requirements. It creates a magical force field that functions as a shield, but it doesn't have the encumbrance or drawbacks associated with physical shields.
So, similar to the magic (Ring of Force) item, the (Shield) spell explicitly states that it provides a shield bonus, and there is no indication in the spell description or item that proficiency is required. Therefore, characters can benefit from the shield bonus provided by the (Shield) spell or the (Ring of Force) item without needing proficiency in shields.
In summary, both the magic item (Ring of Force) or the (Shield) spell provide shield bonuses without requiring proficiency in shields. The rules for these effects are described in their respective descriptions, and there is no mention of proficiency being a prerequisite for gaining the benefits of the shield bonus.
"If your DM decides to treat magically conjured shield-like effects as if they were physical shields?"
Absolutely, you've captured a key aspect of tabletop role-playing games like Dungeons & Dragons. The Dungeon Master (DM) is the storyteller and arbiter of the rules within the game world. The DM has the authority to make rulings on how certain situations, spells, or items are handled in their campaign.
If players have concerns or disagreements about how a particular rule or situation is being handled, it's generally best to discuss it with the DM. Open communication is crucial in resolving issues and ensuring that everyone at the table is on the same page. Players and DMs can work together to find compromises, and sometimes, a better understanding of each other's perspectives can lead to a more enjoyable gaming experience.
If, despite discussions and compromises, a player finds that the DM's style or rulings are not aligning with their preferences, finding a different group or DM is always an option. Different tables may have different playstyles and house rules, and it's important for everyone to find a group that suits their preferences and play preferences.
Ultimately, the goal is for everyone at the table to have fun and enjoy the collaborative storytelling experience that tabletop RPGs provide. Communication and mutual understanding play a significant role in achieving this goal.
Which has almost all the exact same verbiage as the ring.
There are other things in the game that uses exact same mechanic.
In D&D 3.5e, the Shield spell creates an invisible, tower shield-sized mobile disk of force that provides a +4 shield bonus to AC. As per the description, this bonus applies against incorporeal touch attacks, and the shield has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance. However, you can't use the shield spell for cover. It is see through.
If the discussion is about whether characters need proficiency in shields to benefit from the shield bonus provided by the Shield spell, the spell description is clear—it doesn't mention any proficiency requirements. It creates a magical force field that functions as a shield, but it doesn't have the encumbrance or drawbacks associated with physical shields.
So, similar to the magic (Ring of Force) item, the (Shield) spell explicitly states that it provides a shield bonus, and there is no indication in the spell description or item that proficiency is required. Therefore, characters can benefit from the shield bonus provided by the (Shield) spell or the (Ring of Force) item without needing proficiency in shields.
In summary, both the magic item (Ring of Force) or the (Shield) spell provide shield bonuses without requiring proficiency in shields. The rules for these effects are described in their respective descriptions, and there is no mention of proficiency being a prerequisite for gaining the benefits of the shield bonus.
"If your DM decides to treat magically conjured shield-like effects as if they were physical shields?"
Absolutely, you've captured a key aspect of tabletop role-playing games like Dungeons & Dragons. The Dungeon Master (DM) is the storyteller and arbiter of the rules within the game world. The DM has the authority to make rulings on how certain situations, spells, or items are handled in their campaign.
If players have concerns or disagreements about how a particular rule or situation is being handled, it's generally best to discuss it with the DM. Open communication is crucial in resolving issues and ensuring that everyone at the table is on the same page. Players and DMs can work together to find compromises, and sometimes, a better understanding of each other's perspectives can lead to a more enjoyable gaming experience.
If, despite discussions and compromises, a player finds that the DM's style or rulings are not aligning with their preferences, finding a different group or DM is always an option. Different tables may have different playstyles and house rules, and it's important for everyone to find a group that suits their preferences and play preferences.
Ultimately, the goal is for everyone at the table to have fun and enjoy the collaborative storytelling experience that tabletop RPGs provide. Communication and mutual understanding play a significant role in achieving this goal.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
