Force Shield ring and bow?

[MikeAlphaTangoTango]

Can you use the Ring of Force Shield while using a bow?

 

[Anditch]

sing a force shield ring with my Bladesinger. He is not allowed to use items in his off hand and get the AC bonus to AC when using a Longsword. But if u read the description it says that the ring acts like a WALL OF FORCE.The wall of force must be continuous and unbroken when formed.If the surface is broken by any object or creature,the spell fails. So i would say that u keep the bow away on your back, power up the ring then get the bow out.The wall of force appears in front of the place where the ring is usually on your finger. So as u hold the bow string the wall of force will be inside the bow between the string and the bow itself, and if that is the case it says in the wall of force description the the wall is indestructable except for a disintergrate sphere of anil etc and also protects vs breath attacks but no where in the description does it say that swords or any other weapon cannot pass through it but it does say that ethereal and material creatures CANNOT pass through it. Again nothing about wood or metal items passing through. So unless u can find info that says that wood or metal cannot pass then i would say go ahead and use it. I hope this sorts out any probs but as usual i suggest that u ask the whole group and get a vote dont leave it up to the DM as he is a neutral in the game or should be.You can give him the casting vote in case of a draw. I believe that all that play the game should get a say and not leave it up to an individual.At the end of the day a +2 to AC isnt exactly ground breaking u r not going to be invincible with it. I hope this helps u out a little

 

[AuraSeer]

Anditch, read the item description again, you've got it totally wrong.

The ring creates an object identical to a large shield, except that it is made of force instead of wood or metal. It grants a +2 armor bonus to AC, just like a shield does. It grants no other benefit; unlike a full-size wall of force, it does not help against targeted spells, breath weapons, or anything that doesn't use an attack roll.

The ring can be activated or deactivated as a free action, so it doesn't interfere with anything else you do. IMC, our ranger routinely shuts the field off, makes full attacks with his bow, and then reactivates it at the end of his turn. That gives him the benefit of the higher AC, without preventing use of a two-handed weapon. (However, if he were attacked while the field was off-- for instance, if he drew an AoO by firing the bow in a threatened square-- he would not get the benefit.)

 

[Shades of Eternity]

<post deleted>

 

[isoChron]

I always thought there is no time between rounds and your action each round. I think it's a continual flow.
I can't imagine someone standing there 5 seconds motionless (even between running movements ) and then he is acting like hell, fireing up to 6 arrows in one second ... (hast + rapidshot + 4 attacks/round).

By the way, you are allowed just 1 free action of the same type in my campaign. No autoquickdrawing from HHH and the like. (Only exception is use of the quickdraw feat to draw multiple daggers for throwing, drawing and nocking an arrow or a bolt or a bullet.)

Wasn't there a controversial post about using a buckler and a greatsword some time ago ?
That was the same thing about letting go the left hand at the end of the round to get full use of the buckler.

But that's all just my little world.

BYE

 

[isoChron]

Err, does it say WIELD like a shield in the description of the ring ??

 

[LokiDR]

I always thought there is no time between rounds and your action each round. I think it's a continual flow.
I can't imagine someone standing there 5 seconds motionless (even between running movements ) and then he is acting like hell, fireing up to 6 arrows in one second ... (hast + rapidshot + 4 attacks/round).
. . . .
Wasn't there a controversial post about using a buckler and a greatsword some time ago ?
That was the same thing about letting go the left hand at the end of the round to get full use of the buckler.

But that's all just my little world.

BYE

The concept of continual rounds does not prevent the use of free actions to do things such as shift grip on a two handed weapon. By the example of the use of a longspear in the FAQ, it is perfectly justified.

The debate was a longbow, buckler, and spiked gauntlets. The buckler didn't work because the item states you can not get the AC bonus if you attacked with that hand.

AuraSeer has the right of it.

 

[Artoomis]

Anditch, read the item description again, you've got it totally wrong.

The ring creates an object identical to a large shield, except that it is made of force instead of wood or metal. It grants a +2 armor bonus to AC, just like a shield does. It grants no other benefit; unlike a full-size wall of force, it does not help against targeted spells, breath weapons, or anything that doesn't use an attack roll.

The ring can be activated or deactivated as a free action, so it doesn't interfere with anything else you do. IMC, our ranger routinely shuts the field off, makes full attacks with his bow, and then reactivates it at the end of his turn. That gives him the benefit of the higher AC, without preventing use of a two-handed weapon. (However, if he were attacked while the field was off-- for instance, if he drew an AoO by firing the bow in a threatened square-- he would not get the benefit.)

The DMG makes it quite clear, however, that the DM should restrict the number of free actions in a round.

In general, I find that it is quite reasonable (and prevents abuse) to only allow one free action that turns an item "on" or "off." No "on" AND "off" in a single round, at least with me as DM. As far as I am concerned, the "free action" bonus of being able to turn an item "on" or "off" without costing an action is quite enough of a bonus.

Abilities that have drawbacks built-in cannot be circumvented by turning them both "on" and "off" during your turn - at least not when I am DM.

 

[AuraSeer]

In general, I find that it is quite reasonable (and prevents abuse) to only allow one free action that turns an item "on" or "off." No "on" AND "off" in a single round, at least with me as DM.

I'll agree that's totally reasonable. I don't see much potential for abuse in this particular item, though.

IMC, the ring is effectively just one more always-on magic item. We assume that whenever the character has a hand free, he gains the item's armor bonus. We thought it fairly balanced, since it's the same price as an Amulet Of Natural Armor +2, and still has some disadvantages. (The ring doesn't stack with mage armor, bracers, or a normal shield, and is not useful for monks. It does require a free hand, and can't be upgraded to a higher bonus.)

If you only allow one switch per round, an archer who fires constantly will still have the AC bonus 50% of the time. Would you consider it abusive to let the bonus be continuous? Or is there some other balance aspect I'm overlooking?

 

[LokiDR]

In general, I find that it is quite reasonable (and prevents abuse) to only allow one free action that turns an item "on" or "off." No "on" AND "off" in a single round, at least with me as DM. As far as I am concerned, the "free action" bonus of being able to turn an item "on" or "off" without costing an action is quite enough of a bonus.

Abilities that have drawbacks built-in cannot be circumvented by turning them both "on" and "off" during your turn - at least not when I am DM.

The FAQ makes it pretty clear that a character can wield a longspear, switch their grip to one handed, attack with spiked gauntles (or the like) then put both hands on the spear again (ready for more AoOs).

For this reason, I would allow the shield to work with the bow. It is +2 AC for a relatively large cost. That seems pletty balanced to me.