Topic: Does a shield from a spell need to "carried"

[alloowishus]

It says it creates a force field that functions like a shield, does that also include that it needs to be held? Or is it just that it can't be stacked with a normal shield? In other words can the shield spell be used with two-handed weapons? WHat is the general ruling on this? Thanks.

[pantsorama]

It does not need to be carried.  AFAICT, such a requirement is never mentioned anywhere.

[alloowishus]

Ok I was just confused about the wording when it says it functions like a normal shield. I think they probably meant in terms of flanking and elemental attacks? I know of at least one other GM who interpreted it as meaning you need to hold in your hand, but I usually don't play that way.

[nash]

The RMU version specifically says it does not:

2. Shield * – Creates an invisible force shield in front of the caster; it subtracts 25 from up to 3 attacks per round from the caster’s front. This does not occupy a hand, but is not usable with a physical shield (nor does it benefit from the Shield skill).

[jdale]

Likewise RMSS is explicit that it does not take a hand. I think that was always the intent, they just did not think to spell it out in RM2.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

The RM2's wording is, honestly, very open to interpretation, as it merely says that such a shield "functions as a normal shield". A GM may consider it means it works in all aspects as a normal shield, except that it was created by a spell and is invisible, so, once created, it encumbers as a shield would, including the need to be held.
As far as I'm concerned, it's how I play as a shield that doesn't need to be held, thus may be used with a polearm or a two-handed weapon, is a bit too powerful for a level 2 spell that is omnipresent in spell lists IMO.

[alloowishus]

Yeah, or you could cut down the duration to 1 rnd/lvl. Also keep in mind that they can be dispelled, as opposed to a normal shield.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

But a normal shield may be broken, even if you're not playing with the breakage rules, as it's a result in some critical tables. An invisible force shield, OTOH? Probably not.
That, and dispelling spells are way rarer than shield spells.

[Jengada]

I note that the RMU version specifically says it applies to up to 3 attacks per round, while RM2/RMC versions don't add that number. A normal shield can only be used against 1 attacker in a round, so this is a change. Personally I have treated it more like That Other System's "shield" spell and it applies to any melee or missile attacks on the caster in that round.

[Hurin]

The original wording of the Shield spell is a bit ambiguous, but it is pretty clear that the intent was that it did not occupy a hand.

The change in RMU is indeed a change insofar as RMU now specifies the total number of attacks a Shield can be used against in a round (whereas in previous editions it applied to the attacks from only 1 attacker, though the bonus applied versus all the attacks from that attacker).