Magic immunity for small characters lvl 6&up? (core)

[Sir Giacomo]

Hi everyone,

paging through magic items in the DMG recently I came across the following item:

From the SRD:
Force Shield: 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). 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.
Moderate evocation; CL 9th; Forge Ring, wall of force; Price 8,500 gp.

A cheap item that can get up a wall of force at will (er...even better, as a free action!)? This needs to be abused, methinks, in conjunction with the following PHB entry on Tower Shields:

From the SRD
Shield, Tower: This massive wooden shield is nearly as tall as you are. In most situations, it provides the indicated shield bonus to your AC. However, you can instead use it as total cover, though you must give up your attacks to do so. The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding. You cannot bash with a tower shield, nor can you use your shield hand for anything else.
When employing a tower shield in combat, you take a –2 penalty on attack rolls because of the shield’s encumbrance.

So...it all depends on how a DM would rule if a heavy shield qualifies as a tower shield for small characters. Since magic items resize for purposes of using them (i.e. the force shield ring for humans fits on a halfling's finger), they do not resize in their effect to the size of the wearer.
Voilà: Free Wall of Force for small characters from lvls 6& up or so! (wbl treasure limit), protecting them vs most magics (rare exception: gaze attack, divinations). Besides cover (=full protection) vs (non-seeking) missile attacks and +4 shield AC bonus to all other attacks.

What do you think?

- Giacomo

[Yuki Akuma]

Heavy shield =/= tower shield. Even a medium heavy shield used by small characters.

Tower shields are about five feet tall. Small tower shields are about two and a half feet tall. Medium heavy shields are about a foot in diameter. See the difference?

Anyway, magic items like rings automatically size themselves for their wearer. The ring does not give a size for the shield, so it's assumed that it's whatever size is appropriate for the user (I mean, why assume it's a medium shield? Just say it's a collosal shield if you want to break it!). A small character using this would get a small-sized heavy shield made of force.

[Sir Giacomo]

Heavy shield =/= tower shield. Even a medium heavy shield used by small characters.

Hmmm, you raise good points, but...


Tower shields are about five feet tall. Small tower shields are about two and a half feet tall. Medium heavy shields are about a foot in diameter. See the difference?

The difference you gave is half a feet here, which is not that much given it is based on rough estimate of how tall a small tower shield should be. The rules give differing effects for different weapon sizes, but none for the shields, so it is not completely out of hand to assume that a heavy medium shield for normal sized characters = a tower shield for small characters.
Where are the measures from? PHB text? I currently only have the SRD available.


Anyway, magic items like rings automatically size themselves for their wearer. The ring does not give a size for the shield, so it's assumed that it's whatever size is appropriate for the user (I mean, why assume it's a medium shield? Just say it's a collosal shield if you want to break it!). A small character using this would get a small-sized heavy shield made of force.

A medium shield is exactly what is written in the equipment rules of the PHB, and those are only given for medium-sized creatures. Consequently, a large character (say, an enlarged barbarian or wildshaped dire bear druid) would have a much smaller shield with the force shield (probably qualfying only as "small" for him/her, giving only +1 AC and nothing else.
The item effect never resizes with the size of the character, or you would get, for instance, a larger fireball area with the necklace of fireballs (etc.)

But I'm looking forward to other opinions of this tricky issue...

- Giacomo

[Ulzgoroth]

It is not the case that effects never resize. The protective field generated by Bracers of Armor fits you whether you're diminutive or colossal.

[Sir Giacomo]

Yes, that's true. Maybe because in that case the effect is personal? (like boosts to morale or healing?). Hmmm...

- Giacomo

[Yuki Akuma]

No, the difference was one and a half feet. Diameter =/= radius! The diameter of a circle is the same as it's height.

Anyway. Mechanically, a heavy shield and a tower shield are completely different. A heavy shield is not a tower shield and vice versa. House rules are all fine and good, but by the RAW? No, it certainly doesn't work!

[Swooper]

That's... stretching it a bit. It says right there that the ring "can be wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield (+2 AC)" - There's no clause about size there. Therefore, it's a heavy shield that gives +2 to your AC regardless of how big you are.

The rules certainly did not intend for this ring to provide a tower shield for small characters, nor a buckler for huge characters. It's simply a heavy shield. Period.

[Sir Giacomo]

Well, so far there seems to be no one in support of that idea. It is certainly not RAW (since there are no rules on how heavy shields given in the equipment list affect small characters). By RAI (rules as intended) it's a bit more complicated.

Certainly, such an item would be powerful. But small characters with a force shield would still be affected by area effect spells (if it is not centred on the force shield) summoned creatures (who would still have to deduct the shield bonus from their attacks), gaze attacks and divination spells. Hmmm...difficult to say.

@Yuki_Akuma: ah, sorry, got the wording wrong. Diameter it is. But...where do you get those sizes from? A "heavy" shield that is only 1 foot in diameter (not in radius) seems to be more like a small shield to me.
For instance, Roman shields were like large/heavy shields and certainly measured 3 feet. Tower Shields are likely those used in medieval times by special shield bearers for crossbowmen in sieges, or by heavy 11th century norman cavalry who had long shields that extended from their shoulder all the way to their feet on one side (about 5ft long).

@Swooper: from your interpretation, if a halfling fighter picks up the heavy shield of his fallen human cleric comrade, he still gets only +2 to AC even though the shield is much larger than a "heavy" shield for his people? Does not make sense for me...now do not get me wrong; agreeing to this does not necessarily mean that you should automatically allow a tower-shield-like ring of force shield for small characters. But still...

- Giacomo

[Arbitrarity]

Extremely annoyed rant in spoiler. Read at your own risk.

No, it's obviously not by RAI!

Oooh, look at me, I have a 8.5K item that provides immunity of every concivable form of attack! This is balanced!

The "wall of force" bit is flavor text, and furthermore, it's 500 gp more expensive than the equivalent ring of protection. According to WoTC's twisted definition of "balance", do two items with nearly identical costs, one of which gives a bonus unavailable to those without animated shields, hve entirely differeing efects, wherein one can provide immunity to everything except disintegrate?

Hmmm... I don't know. Sounds like they're totally different items, and obviously WoTC intended for magic items not to resize their effects, and further intnded to write "A medium sized heavy shield, which is a tower shield for small creatures".
:smallfurious:

Warning: Extreme hyperbole and comparisons intended to be painfully obvious. Basic Translation is as follows: No.

Oh yes, and Giamoco, check your own sig.

[Joltz]

Short response: It resizes to fit the wearer

Long...

That is one of the most unusual ideas I've seen in a while. Unfortunately, it doesn't quite work that way. First, there's no listed conversion so you can just say "Oh, you found a large shield but you're small so it works like a tower shield." It also makes perfect sense to me why that is too. Shields have to be fitted to their user pretty well. When I use my friend's shield the straps are loose and it flops around a little too much (and we're the same size).

Tower shields are also a different shape from other shields. Large shields come in a variety of shapes, but tower shields are generally the same. That's because a large shield is made to cover an area, but it's also supposed to move to cover different areas. A tower shield covers every conceivable opening on a given side of the body. If you tried to use a massively oversized large shield the same way you would a tower shield you'd end up with openings around the edges because it's not shaped right.

[Matthew]

Yeah, there's no reason to think that a Heavy Shield is 1' Diameter, as far as I can see. I would have said anywhere from 2-3'. Anyway, since it is a One Handed Martial Weapon for Medium Sized Characters, I think that makes it a Two Handed Weapon for Small Characters without the appropriate Feat.

Under 3.0 Rules, this might have worked, but probably not, since a Tower Shield is not a Two Handed version of the Heavy Shield (which it probably should be, in my opinion).

[namo]

Even if you house-ruled that it works that way, why immunity ? As the part that you bolded emphasizes, targeted spells still work. You can still be dominated, blinded, and so on...

[Townopolis]

Actually, there are rules for how shields effect small creatures.

In the armor section, there is a note on the weight column saying "Weight figures are for armor sized to fit Medium characters, armor fitted for Small characters weighs half as much..."

Since this is the only place where differences between armor for small and medium characters is listed, we are left to assume that all other factors are the same. Since shields are covered by the armor section, all rules applying to armor apply to shields as well unless specified.

Therefore, the rules for a small character using a heavy shield are exactly the same as the rules for a medium character using a heavy shield, except that the small creature must use a small sized shield and the shield weighs half as much.

Since there are no rules for characters using armor not sized for them, they can't.

[Dervag]

The 'resize' interpretation also makes sense when you consider that in 3.5 weapons are size-specific, too. If an ogre hits me over the head and takes my stuff, he can't just use my Medium longsword (read: "longsword for Medium people") as a Large short sword (read: "shortsword for Large people"). He can use it, but at a penalty.

If weapons are size-specific, armor should be size-specific too. Which means that a spontaneously resizing magic item (such this ring) should produce a spontaneously resizing suit of armor.

If the ring generated, say, a suit of banded mail made out of force, we'd all agree that the ring would resize the suit to fit small characters; the image of a halfling trying to move around in the 6' tall suit of banded mail generated by his magic ring is ridiculous.

Likewise, then, the shield generated by this ring must resize.

[Sir Giacomo]

OK, thanks for the input.

I think now I would also go with your interpretation; that is, the shield should resize as the magic item is merely meant to provide a shield-like protective item to those who cannot use shields normally (monks, arcane casters, rogues, TWF characters etc.). Hence the price.

I remember somewhere in another forum someone came up with the idea of using a force shield to block completely a small entrance (say, 3ft diameter). As a DM, I would rule that like a wall of force effect in place in that area (since the ring specifically says it is a wall of force that is created). Of course, the stability of that wall would not be absolute, so the bearer of the shield could still be bullrushed by small creatures etc...(as if holding a heavy shield). Only that magic would not go through (ah, and @namo: you cannot target someone behind a wall of force, since you need line of sight AND line of effect)).

Now, on to one post in particular...


Extremely annoyed rant in spoiler. Read at your own risk.

(...spoiler...)

Warning: Extreme hyperbole and comparisons intended to be painfully obvious. Basic Translation is as follows: No.

Oh yes, and Giamoco, check your own sig.

Now, Arbitratrity- what was that about? I come up with a suggestion of a rules interpretation and kindly ask your opinion and you get angry? Why?

On my own sig: it may have not escaped you that on these and other boards dealing with DD3.5 there is a widespread notion that magic trumps all other abilities etc, similiarly casting classes are way stronger/overpowered vs non-casters.
If one would interpret this simple force shield ring as part of a "family" of magic items like cube of force, antimagic torc and items that obsure vision almost unpenetrably like an eversmoking bottle, then an interpetation like I suggested above would counteract vs magic "overpoweredness". And thus not mean "broken" but rather "getting closer back to balance".

Additionally, such an item would not mean "protection from everything"; but it would make some npcs and/or pcs harder to hit with (most, not all!) spells (but still nicely hittable by mundane weapons).

- Giacomo

[Arbitrarity]

It's because you take a consistient and aggrivating view of everything as being designed to nerf casters, even against common sense and logic, then defend your position, as you are doing now, with "reasonable" interpretations, such as magical effects not resizing. I get really tired of some of these, particularly the inane ones.

I mean, claiming this works becuase of a non-resizing magic item (which it actually is, as magic items are said to resize, then claiming that makes it a diffrent item, because a big large shield is a tower shield (which is not supported. Anywhere), which then allows you to use something that says "wield as a large shield" as "wield as a tower shield, i.e. take total cover, etc", strikes me as being like mot of the WoTC Theroetical optimization board.

Making extremely dubious rules interpretations, with a bit of house-ruling, and ignoring common sense, to strike a minor blow against casters, and calling the result RAW, proving casters are not overpowered, aggrivates me. Just straight out house-rule nerf them. Don't call it RAW, or a "rules interpretation", if it irectly contradicts the RAW text. Try to use a bit of common sense when determining RAI.

And finally, nerf the casters. Because, like the first commandment of optimization, it can't be stressed enough.

[Sir Giacomo]

Ah I see, OK. Sorry (no irony here!).

imo if you feel in your games everything is OK, don't do a thing.
My suggestions are only if players or DMs feel that (by the core or other rules) magic and casters dominate all the time or from certain levels. Then you could try 2 things: 1) find stuff (often overlooked) that are already in the rules that counterbalance it or 2) nerf/houserule. Normally I try use the first way as much as possible, because nerfing/houserule can have adverse consequences (say, you ban all teleportation spells and means in an effort to "nerf" casters, then magic walls all of a sudden become much more powerful; say you do fighter "fixes", all of a sudden the other non-caster classes may get left behind etc.).

What I found odd about this force shield thing is that such an item would become roughly available when most of the posters on this and other boards would say the true power of casters gathers steam. Now it MAY be too powerful or have odd consequences (like also casters using it extensively vs other casters, making magic duels much more indirect, players choosing more often small characters or try to get small by that level), but I am a bit suprised by objections saying it's way too broken at levels when clerics can achieve for a limited time period the combat strength of full BAB classes and casters get no-save/no-SR solid fog and black tentacles (which all would, btw, still work vs the force shield).

- Giacomo

[Seffbasilisk]

ORRRRRRRR you could just go with #1, and instead of deliberatly bending and misinterpreting things to try to achieve your precious 'balance' you could just, y'know, stick with the rules, and throw life at them?

"Hmmm. The last three goblin tribes we used to trade with have been destroyed. Our scouts saw that fellow in a dress down there reading from his book before and after the battle...he even pulled a page out in one case and read that in the MIDDLE of the fight...That book's important. I'm guessing he's a Wizard! Scouts! Steal me that book, if you can't steal it, destroy it. I don't care the cost."

Edit: And aye, twinked casters are unbalanced, but 1) not everyone twinks 2) not everyone WANTS twinks in the party 3) IF everyone twinks, then you probably have a Leap-Attacking barbarian aiming for FB.... what's next? No rules on how greataxe heads are attached! If you do more then sixty damage in a blow your axe breaks!!!!!!! Not so much. If you want to houserule, houserule. Just don't screw with the game and claim it as RaW.

Edit2: Sorcerer with a readied action to Dispel Magic. Tah dah!

and don't let this whole thing put you off Ring of Force Shield. It is NOT immobile when activated (that would really suck), but it IS indestructible aside from a few things like disintegration..... So if you have the caster fireball through an hole into the cave, and fire off your readied action to stick your fist into the hole and activate the ring to keep the blast contained.....

Be sure to wedge it good, or have tough enough people holding it down.

[Arbitrarity]

Meh, I'm sorry. I just find really twisted interpretations of RAW to the point of house ruling annoying.

Actually, I'm putting that in my sig. I say it enough :smallsigh:

[Damionte]

One of our players had this idea this weekend at the table as well. Not the small person idea, that's a bit lame. Just the whole, it's a wall of force thus making me invulnerable to dragon breath idea.

We shot him down but I may think abou tit in the future.

[Fax Celestis]

Be sure to wedge it good, or have tough enough people holding it down.

...or use an immovable rod.

[Seffbasilisk]

...or use an immovable rod.


Immovable Rod: This rod is a flat iron bar with a small button on one end. When the button is pushed (a move action), the rod does not move from where it is, even if staying in place defies gravity. Thus, the owner can lift or place the rod wherever he wishes, push the button, and let go. Several immovable rods can even make a ladder when used together (although only two are needed). An immovable rod can support up to 8,000 pounds before falling to the ground. If a creature pushes against an immovable rod, it must make a DC 30 Strength check to move the rod up to 10 feet in a single round.

Moderate transmutation; CL 10th; Craft Rod, levitate; Price 5,000 gp.

DC 30 Strength check. It can be moved. Though Immovable Rods with rings of force shield slid over them and set there with little piece of wood or somesuch..... Very expensive, but there's a mobile wall.

[Fax Celestis]

DC 30 isn't exactly easy. And anyway, spells don't (usually) exert force in such a way as to force Strength checks like that. I can think of a few (some Bigbys', for instance) that would, but they're not very common.

[Yechezkiel]

DC 30 Strength check. It can be moved. Though Immovable Rods with rings of force shield slid over them and set there with little piece of wood or somesuch..... Very expensive, but there's a mobile wall.

So which is activating the Force Shield rings, the little bits of wood or the Immovable Rod?

[Seffbasilisk]

So which is activating the Force Shield rings, the little bits of wood or the Immovable Rod?

You activate them before placing them on the Immovable Rod. The little bits of wood are used to make sure the ring doesn't rotate and keeps the shield protecting the rod as well.

[Yechezkiel]

You activate them before placing them on the Immovable Rod. The little bits of wood are used to make sure the ring doesn't rotate and keeps the shield protecting the rod as well.

Rings work when you have taken them off? Sounds wrong.

[Fax Celestis]

Rings work when you have taken them off? Sounds wrong.

No reason they don't. A thrown flaming weapon doesn't stop flaming when it leaves your hand. Similarly, an electric razor still shaves even when you put it down.

[Seffbasilisk]

No reason they don't. A thrown flaming weapon doesn't stop flaming when it leaves your hand. Similarly, an electric razor still shaves even when you put it down.

Hence why you must be careful when putting the razor down, otherwise your precious bunny slippers may be destroyed!

Edit: Fluffy....Mr. Bun-Bun....:smallfrown: the world will never see your likes again.....

[Yechezkiel]

No reason they don't. A thrown flaming weapon doesn't stop flaming when it leaves your hand. Similarly, an electric razor still shaves even when you put it down.

I don't see an explanation for that interpretation. How does that work?

P.s. I can see the flaming weapon rationale, I'm questioning the rings.

"RINGS
Rings bestow magical powers upon their wearers. Only a rare few have charges. Anyone can use a ring.

A character can only effectively wear two magic rings. A third magic ring doesn’t work if the wearer is already wearing two magic rings."

[Seffbasilisk]

I don't see an explanation for that interpretation. How does that work?

"RINGS
Rings bestow magical powers upon their wearers. Only a rare few have charges. Anyone can use a ring.

A character can only effectively wear two magic rings. A third magic ring doesn’t work if the wearer is already wearing two magic rings."


Activation: Usually, a ring’s ability is activated by a command word (a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity) or it works continually. Some rings have exceptional activation methods, according to their descriptions.


Force Shield: 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). 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.

Moderate evocation; CL 9th; Forge Ring, wall of force; Price 8,500 gp.

Requires a free action to turn it off. Without that, it doesn't turn off.

[Arbitrarity]

Anyway, (not literally RAW here) the ring produces the effect. It's not a part of you powering the effect or anything, it's an intrinsic ability of the ring to produce that field. Since this is independant of a wearer, no reason it can't put up the field, so long as it's activated, apparently by a wearer.

Wait.. that's what Fax said. :smallsigh:

[Yechezkiel]

It's just odd. From what I see it's the only ring in the DMG that wouldn't have to be worn to have an effect.

[Arbitrarity]

That's because it produces an effect that does not directly affect the wearer, which simultaneously is of an infinite duration.

[Seffbasilisk]

Counterspells
Elemental Command

[Arbitrarity]

Counterspells
Instead, should that spell ever be cast upon the wearer, the spell is immediately countered, as a counterspell action

Elemental Command quite clearly has an effect on the wearer, like a ring of freedom of movement.

Or was your comment directed somewhere else? It's rather unclear.

[Devils_Advocate]

The text hardly explicitly says that the ring requires a free action to turn it off. It doesn't say "It can be activated and deactivated only at will as a free action."

On the other hand, the text that Yech quoted doesn't say "Rings only bestow magical powers upon their wearers", either. My guess is that this is one of those cases where there are multiple valid interpretations that conflict with each other. (Such cases come up more often than some folks seem willing to acknowledge.) Perhaps there's something that clarifies the issue somewhere, though.

[Sir Giacomo]

OK, although the current direction of the discussion is also quite interesting, I feel I have to correct some misperception about why I did the original post, alongside of what Seffbasilisk has said:


ORRRRRRRR you could just go with #1, and instead of deliberatly bending and misinterpreting things to try to achieve your precious 'balance' you could just, y'know, stick with the rules, and throw life at them?

How can looking at a magic item in a new way be automatically "deliberately bending and misinterpreting things" - this basically means you suggest that I deliberately spread falsehoods around here.
The Ring of Force Shield is a (core!) item that creates a small wall of force effect. Is it too far-fetched to think about the consequences of this? I feel you are overreacting here. Or, would you also react this way if someone says "wizards can cast Magnificent Mansion and can not be harmed there" because they interpret "extradimensional" as not able to be reached by plane shift spells etc.? (there are no rules on this that cover this special case, similar to medium-size shields effects for small characters)
It is a possible interpretation, and then you can think about what it actually entails. A spell that makes you 100% safe from everything else in the game is boring/broken. An item that you wear that makes you quite (but not 100%) safe from targeted spells (and thus not all spells, and not from normal non-spell attacks!) if you are small is not boring/broken.
It is not "my" precious balance, but I simply react to the widespread notion around here that there IS a misbalance in the rules favouring casters. You can bet that in campaigns that I DM I follow exactly the plot techniques that you outlined (basically stuff that counterbalances the power of magic):


"Hmmm. The last three goblin tribes we used to trade with have been destroyed. Our scouts saw that fellow in a dress down there reading from his book before and after the battle...he even pulled a page out in one case and read that in the MIDDLE of the fight...That book's important. I'm guessing he's a Wizard! Scouts! Steal me that book, if you can't steal it, destroy it. I don't care the cost."

Well, that is how I would (depending on the circumstances, i.e. do those goblins know anything at all about wizards?) also go about it. But you can bet that such a suggestion posted by me elsewhere would have caster supporters up in anger immediately saying I would "nerf" casters. Stealing (or, only the risk of stealing) caster's spellbooks by npcs or monsters is "DM fiat" for them.



Edit: And aye, twinked casters are unbalanced, but 1) not everyone twinks 2) not everyone WANTS twinks in the party 3) IF everyone twinks, then you probably have a Leap-Attacking barbarian aiming for FB.... what's next? No rules on how greataxe heads are attached! If you do more then sixty damage in a blow your axe breaks!!!!!!! Not so much.

1)-3) completely agree. However, everyone has an individual opinion on what is "twinking". There are many around here on the boards who believe that you should not play an evocation-based wizard and should instead concentrate on the typical logicninjanosavenoSRandsuck-strategies, or you would fail at playing an intelligent character (wizard) who would of course optimise smartly his spell choice.
If you have someone in the group who wants to "win" the game by playing the absolute best optimised character (which is different from normal optimisation to achieve your character concept in the best way while taking into account what the other players do) you can stop this as a DM with balancing acts, but you have to do something else to actually convince that player that such behaviour is not in the spirit of the (group) game.
My suggestions are, however, for those who feel the game is inherently not balanced and would wish to play a character within the rules without spellcasting ability and still be able to contribute.


If you want to houserule, houserule. Just don't screw with the game and claim it as RaW.

??? I never claimed my interpretation of the force ring is RAW. I found some RAW entries and then asked for opinions since I knew it would be up to a DM's decision. Answers might well have also incluced "ach, it's old hat. We already tried that out and it worked nicely/failed/whatever..." or "...it has already been erratae'd, FAQed, dealt with in a dragon article" or whatever.


Edit2: Sorcerer with a readied action to Dispel Magic. Tah dah!

? Is that meant to be an anti-caster tactics? anti-force shield ring tactics? Yes, counterspelling is a method to stop casting; the anti-force shield ring could also be suppressed in this way (wall of force could not, but a magic item would and I guess in that case the magic item rules take precedence). A quickened targeted dispel magic at the ring, plus the usual spell volley at the ring wearer and the ring looks even less "broken" if interpreted in my original suggestion.


and don't let this whole thing put you off Ring of Force Shield. It is NOT immobile when activated (that would really suck), but it IS indestructible aside from a few things like disintegration..... So if you have the caster fireball through an hole into the cave, and fire off your readied action to stick your fist into the hole and activate the ring to keep the blast contained.....

Be sure to wedge it good, or have tough enough people holding it down.

Yep, thanks! Those are good ideas. It might even be that you do not need to ready the action to bring up the force shield since it is a free action (which you can also do when it is not your turn).
The funny thing is that disintegrate only destroys the wall of force effect which can be brought up again as a free action- so quickened dispel first, than shatter/disintegrate on the ring (if you spot the ring in the first place btw, but beforecast detect magic/arcane sight will locate it easily).

- Giacomo

[Armads]

Now it MAY be too powerful or have odd consequences (like also casters using it extensively vs other casters, making magic duels much more indirect, players choosing more often small characters or try to get small by that level), but I am a bit suprised by objections saying it's way too broken at levels when clerics can achieve for a limited time period the combat strength of full BAB classes and casters get no-save/no-SR solid fog and black tentacles (which all would, btw, still work vs the force shield).

Wait, so would you rather be immune to pretty much all targeted spells (with a few exceptions like disintegrate), or have full BAB for 1 round/level?

What you can do with Full BAB:
Run around and power attack for 5 more points of damage, or 10 more if using a 2 handed weapon, or more if you use ridiculous power attack multipliers! Maybe get a +5 to attack rolls! Broken beyond all reason!

What you can do with being immune to spells that cannot pass through the wall of force:
Oh, a disintegrate? Blocked! A finger of death? Immune! A ray of stupidity? Blocked! A Twinned Split Ray Repeated Sudden Maximized Sudden Empowered Scorching Ray? Nope, blocked.



It is not "my" precious balance, but I simply react to the widespread notion around here that there IS a misbalance in the rules favouring casters.

Wait, you're denying that casters are more powerful than meatshields? Casters ARE favoured at higher levels. Have you realised that most of the "Caster Counters", like Death Ward, Mind Blank, Antimagic Field, are actually spells, not some innate fighter-type ability?



The funny thing is that disintegrate only destroys the wall of force effect which can be brought up again as a free action- so quickened dispel first, than shatter/disintegrate on the ring (if you spot the ring in the first place btw, but beforecast detect magic/arcane sight will locate it easily).

Dispel magic wouldn't work, as it'll be a targeted effect, which is blocked by the ring, and walls of force can't be dispelled.

[Sir Giacomo]

Wait, so would you rather be immune to pretty much all targeted spells (with a few exceptions like disintegrate), or have full BAB for 1 round/level?

What you can do with Full BAB:
Run around and power attack for 5 more points of damage, or 10 more if using a 2 handed weapon, or more if you use ridiculous power attack multipliers! Maybe get a +5 to attack rolls! Broken beyond all reason!

What you can do with being immune to spells that cannot pass through the wall of force:
Oh, a disintegrate? Blocked! A finger of death? Immune! A ray of stupidity? Blocked! A Twinned Split Ray Repeated Sudden Maximized Sudden Empowered Scorching Ray? Nope, blocked.

Well, let us try to look at it this way: how can you stop the menace of a divine power? Only by magic. Non-casters have problems. If you do not have the magic, you cannot prevent it.
How do you stop the halfling with the force shield? This time only by mundane means (smash him with a melee attack/s). Casters have problems. If you cannot fight in melee, you have a problem defeating that halfling.
Where is the difference here?

Note: casting the divine power helps clerics overcome the force shield since they simply walk up to the (likely slower) small character and use melee superiority then.



Wait, you're denying that casters are more powerful than meatshields? Casters ARE favoured at higher levels. Have you realised that most of the "Caster Counters", like Death Ward, Mind Blank, Antimagic Field, are actually spells, not some innate fighter-type ability?

Yes, I realise that most magic can be overcome with magic which is accessible to all classes via UMD (scrolls) and magic items. The "innate fighter-type" abilities come on top (ranged weapons, feats that optimise AoO, outside core anti-mage feat trees, ToB maneuvers).


Dispel magic wouldn't work, as it'll be a targeted effect, which is blocked by the ring, and walls of force can't be dispelled.

Yes, you are correct, my bad. Guess this makes overcoming the force shielded halfling with magic a bit tougher.
But there are still area spells, gaze attack spells, buffing spells (and CoDzilla the halfling) and summoning tactics while building up your own defenses vs the halfling's attacks.
A problem for casters? Yes. Broken/unsurmountable? No. More powerful than some spells/spell combos the other way round? Certainly not.

- Giacomo

PS/edit: note that I no longer defend my original idea; I admitted further above that the rules interpretation that the force shield ring emulates a heavy shield effect for all sizes of wearers is likely correct. I only object to the notion/reproach that putting up the original idea was trying something "broken" or "twisted", at the same time when there are plenty of (unchallenged) threads on great spell combos around which are way more powerful than this interpretation of a magic item.

[Arbitrarity]

Technically, disintegrate would temporarily take out the wall, but it would be up again next round.

Disintegrate! Waves of exhaustion! Imbue Familiar with spell like ability cast maximised ray of enfeeblement! Do you have > 17 strength?

I was using the term "twisted", to mean convoluted. Particularly with some questionable steps, as specific techniques could be called convoluted, most of which exist on the TO board.