Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Drow

HangarFlying's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 3,111 posts (3,116 including aliases). 1 review. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 4 Pathfinder Society characters. 3 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,111 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

As previously stated, the tracking party is rolling against static DCs based on conditions, terrain, and if the quarry is actively trying to hide tracks. That being said, I wouldn't consider it unreasonable to determine success or failure based upon opposed Survival rolls (and maybe give the quarry some of the modifiers based on conditions).

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

While I see no reason for it to not be greater invisibility, ultimately I believe the distinction is irrelevant. Either a) you're unconcious, or b) have to concentrate to direct the illusions*. In either case, you're unable to attack anything.

* Yes, I do realize that the ring doesn't specify that you must concentrate, it is a reasonable assumption that you would have to do so; and no, I don't have to house rule it to make it this way**. The assumption can be found within the rules.

** It saddens*** me that I have to even make such a disclaimer in the first place.

*** No, I'm not really sad. It's just a figure of speech.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

You guys do realize that this "command word/mental activation" crap is completely irrelevant to this thread, don't you?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

I'm still not sure how the FAQ didn't answer the questions in the OP. PDT apparently feels the same way since the request was marked "no reply required".

I'm ready for the Ring of Invisibility threads to die. This is like the fourth one in the last two weeks we've all had the same conversations in.

If an item has that phrase, and it means 'unlimited uses per day', then the phrase 'at will' would be totally superfluous. You could remove it and the fact that the item says that it does X when activated, and the item doesn't mention a limit on the number of times it can be activated, means that it has unlimited uses per day.

The phrase would by completely pointless. Unlike its actual use, which is to denote activation by a silent act of will, as opposed to the phrase 'on command' which denotes activation by a spoken command, as opposed to a mental command.

If a football player has 82 on his jersey, and his teammates, opponents and officials refer to him as 'number 82', would you be satisfied that the reason they call him '82' is because that's the number on his shirt? Or would you insist that there could possibly be another reason for that nickname, that his current shirt number must be a coincidence and that anyone saying that he's called 82 because of his jersey number has no proof and therefore they must be wrong?

In the first two editions, the phrases 'at will' and 'on command' never appear together, command word items took segments to use where at will items were instantly activated, the phrase 'at will' would be wasted ink if it meant 'unlimited uses', all support the case for definate meanings of these phrases. Against which there is the claim that 'you have no proof, therefore it must be the other way', where the other way has each phrase with an uncertain meaning. Comparing these two cases, one is clearly stronger.

Malachi, the ship has sailed. You are wrong. You don't have to like the decision, nor do you have to play it that way in your own game. But, to continue to argue in the manner in which you are is...unbecoming.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Can someone show me an item in which the phrase "at will" means mental activation as opposed to "unlimited daily usage"?

Every context of "at will" that I've read has to do with frequency, not that it is mentally activated—not that something that is "at will" can't be activated mentally, just that "at will" itself doesn't mean it's mentally activated.

EDIT: clarity

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
Then people will still complain that it was a bad decision, but normally when someone says no and you keep asking they tend to say "no" in much more stern voice. That "voice" in this case will be errata if they answer it again. Anyway I am done here most likely. There is no point in debating since people are trying to change the words to say what they want them to say despite the devs saying "this is how we want this to work".

Careful, such people will call you a jerk for pointing out this very obvious fact to them.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Essentially, the paradigm has changed, but the way the players play it hasn't.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Meh, even James Jacobs recommends the wondrous item elixir route. But like you said, each GM has the discretion to do what they wish.
Citation?

Of course, now that I need to find it, I can't find it. It's in the Rise of the Runelords thread somewhere (or perhaps in the monstrous "Ask JJ Anything" thread). I'll keep hunting it down.

Essentially, it was brought up that one of the NPCs had a potion for a spell that couldn't be made into a potion (had a range of "personal"), to which he basically responded by saying to just make it a wondrous item.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Calth wrote:
Holding the charge is a function of the spell being a melee touch spell. With reach spell, it is no longer a melee touch spell, and you can no longer hold the charge, so all charges would be lost at the start of your next turn. That's even being generous with the RAW parsing of "Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn."

I can see both sides of the argument, and personally wouldn't have an issue with allowing the charge to be held over multiple rounds. Which, in that case, he would be allowed to make an AoO using the Snap Shot feat.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ryric wrote:

Allowing custom elixirs like that seems bad to me for a number of reasons. First, Craft Wondrous Item is already one of the best item creation feats - allowing it to trample all over another item creation feat's territory elevates it even more. Second, the restriction on personal spells is there for a reason. Third, most elixirs don't actually duplicate spell effects, they do other things.

Obviously do as you wish in your home games but I would not allow that custom item in mine.

Meh, even James Jacobs recommends the wondrous item elixir route. But like you said, each GM has the discretion to do what they wish.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Just a Mort wrote:


Lets assume our shadow has been hiding in the wall. It's up to gm fiat if you're considered denied dex. In which you just wasted a standard action doing nothing.

Perhaps I've misread something, but I'm not seeing what would deny a character's DEX bonus by having a shadow be in a wall. Incorporeal /= invisible.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

As previously stated, creating these spells as elixers (wondrous items) are perfectly viable options.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

A book of blank paper for notes (lines optional). A book of blank paper with squares on each page (generally, 4 squares per inch).

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

While it is written from the assumption that only one person is doing the crafting (thus, "the caster" is in reference to the one crafting the item), it is possible to have another spell caster provide the spell that you do not have. For example, a wizard crafting a scroll of cure light wounds—the wizard is the one with the crafting feat, the cleric provides the spell. The wizard does not add +5 to the DC.

Conversely, if an 8th level wizard wanted to make a bane weapon, but didn't have access to summon monster I, he can forego finding someone else to cast the spell by adding +5 to the Craft DC.

EDIT: Regarding the first example, because a scroll is a spell-completion item, the wizard HAS to have the spell available to cast. He can't choose to forego it and add +5 to the DC. If no Devine caster were available, he could not make the scroll.

EDIT2: While there are ways for the wizard to get access to CLW, for the purposes of this discussion, I have omitted them.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

It's a ring in which, to gain the benefits, it must be worn and then activated. Once activated, it lasts for 3 minutes, you attack, or you take it off.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

*shakeshead* Why am I not surprised that the thread devolved?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Zwordsman wrote:

kind of.. scanned over the previous thing but wanted to input.

Order of operations.
You cast a spell. You gain the spell effects "number of rays"(depending on the spell)
you wield the spell's ray, and take a non-action attack with it (typically as part of the spell)
I remember somewhere someone saying that melee touch attacks recieve "free action attacks" but I can't remember where it makes mention of it
EDIT: Found it in Magus's spell strike.

But that would mean that since it's written the same way the same is true of ranged touch attack spells no?

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **
I've always thought it was weird people said you couldn't...

Because the rules say that ranged touch attacks can't be held:

Combat: Cast a Spell wrote:
Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn.

EDIT: Bolded the relevant part to make it easier to see.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

No, you may not cast a spell as part of an AoO. That being said, if you've already cast the spell, but are holding onto the charge, you may certainly make the touch attack for the AoO.

To the best of my knowledge, there aren't any ranged touch attack spells that let you hold onto the charge.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Huzzah!

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
thejeff wrote:

This is certainly true. But many people have said in this thread that the continuous version would need to be much more expensive. Many, including some of the same people, have also said that it's going to be very rare for the duration to have any effect.

Even rarer, btw, for items other than the ring itself.

It makes no sense to hold both positions, regardless of the pricing being more of an art.

Having an item that let's you cast (for lack of a better term) invisibility at will is pretty darned powerful. You also have to consider at what level should a character have access to such an ability—that certainly goes into setting the price.

Yes. Fine. Granted. Absolutely no argument. I am not disputing that.

You're claiming that the duration is only going to be an occasional minor limitation. Others (and possibly you) are claiming that a continual version of the Invisibility ring should be much more expensive.
That doesn't make sense. Whatever the baseline price for having invisibility at will is, if the other version is only slightly better, it shouldn't be vastly more expensive.

Please do not tell me again that invisibility is useful and should be expensive. I know that. It's the difference between the two that I'm talking about.

Well, I'm not part of the "continuous" conversation. To me that is irrelevant. Though, if one were to make a ring that didn't have a duration, it would certainly make sense that it be more expensive than the normal ring. How much more, I don't know.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

Wait. Are you saying that the free action, get a +10 to Stealth requires you to say a command word? Even though you're doing it along with a Stealth Check? Which one would normally assume meant being quiet.

The Disguise Self part certainly uses a command word.

I don't see anything that provides an exception to requiring a command word, only an exception to the amount of effort to activate it. Essentially, you activate it before you make the roll, hence no disruption to continuity.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

This is certainly true. But many people have said in this thread that the continuous version would need to be much more expensive. Many, including some of the same people, have also said that it's going to be very rare for the duration to have any effect.

Even rarer, btw, for items other than the ring itself.

It makes no sense to hold both positions, regardless of the pricing being more of an art.

Having an item that let's you cast (for lack of a better term) invisibility at will is pretty darned powerful. You also have to consider at what level should a character have access to such an ability—that certainly goes into setting the price.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
The Archive wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
I see lots of rings that say "on command". Those are command word activated. Everything else is subject to interpretation.
All rings are command word unless they say otherwise.

Based on your statement, not one single ring in the Core rulebook would have a mental activation, yet, the same book has a blanket statement indicating that wearable items, such as hats and rings, are mentally activated unless "command" is the listed method of activation. Care to explain?

Also, I am now at this point more than curious to have one of you detractors of all things mental show me the math on how this ring got to 20K. I mean a lot of you are good at saying "because they said so", but some kind of reasoning behind this would be nice.

Because there are no rings in the CRB that have a mental activation component. You keep pointing out a general rule which is overridden by the specific rules for rings.

Ring of Chameleon Power. FYI. Pretty sure that qualifies for "unusual activation, as mentioned in the ring's description."

Hooray, good for you! You found an exception to the rule that is specified in the item's description! That exception being that it is a free action instead of a standard action to activate. This doesn't change the fact that it's still command word activated.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
I see lots of rings that say "on command". Those are command word activated. Everything else is subject to interpretation.
All rings are command word unless they say otherwise.

Based on your statement, not one single ring in the Core rulebook would have a mental activation, yet, the same book has a blanket statement indicating that wearable items, such as hats and rings, are mentally activated unless "command" is the listed method of activation. Care to explain?

Also, I am now at this point more than curious to have one of you detractors of all things mental show me the math on how this ring got to 20K. I mean a lot of you are good at saying "because they said so", but some kind of reasoning behind this would be nice.

Because there are no rings in the CRB that have a mental activation component. You keep pointing out a general rule which is overridden by the specific rules for rings.

EDIT: Furthermore, the devs have commented on numerous occasions that more than the simple math in the pricing guidelines goes into setting the price of the items.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

I'm speaking to the general concern and why a continuous item should be more than twice the price of this one. The theory applies to other items as well, such as the boots of levitation, I keep mentioning.

When the fight starts, you have action economy issues to consider, which is why it's important to know when the duration will expire. But I suspect you're right and the general case will be to assume it's just been reactivated and you have nearly the full 3 minutes at all times.

Of course, you're now arguing there's almost no practical difference between the limited duration item and the continuous version and at the same time that the difference is crucial and it would need to be far more expensive if continuous.

I'm not advocating that one hand-waves reactivating the item—as you said, you have to consider action economy. Obviously, in combat, it is easy to track. Out of combat, the GM needs to fairly adjudicate it. If out of combat leads to combat, the GM needs to fairly assess how much time has elapsed.

The pricing of magic items is more art than science. Numerous times have the devs commented on this as to why items don't match up with the guidelines for pricing.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Undone wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
As far as the price? Invisibility is kind of a big deal. I'm not concerned by the price.
Just as a point so is Protection from Evil and Falcon's Aim and they don't violate the cost rules this badly, just saying.

Fixed your links.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

Or levitating, which you might need to do for the whole battle - and longer. Or as I said above, it's not from the start of the battle, but from when you last activated it. Which is why you need to track, even before the fight starts.

But mostly you're right. It's not going to be common for the duration to matter. Which is why it's such a great limit that it's worth cutting the price in half.

Nothing prevents you from reactivating it before the duration expires, so if premature cancellation is a concern, just reactivate it as things get hot and heavy—wait, that doesn't sound right...

As far as the price? Invisibility is kind of a big deal. I'm not concerned by the price.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think it's reasonable to adjudicate it in such a way so that if the free or swift action doesn't involve something specifically prohibited by the condition, then it would be allowed.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Uwotm8 wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:

From a game rules design perspective, it is an objectively bad rule.

Rules that add more book keeping than influence on the game are bad rules.
Not necessarily true. Because of how command words work, you should be able to simply state a goal and let it fly with sheer roleplay. Since they can explicitly be activate by words in a simple conversation, the faintest of whispers should work. A GM that doesn't let that fly is a GM that doesn't want the item to work in the first place which means you have other issues going on.

But since you explicitly have to activate it every three minutes or it turns off, at any time when it might be important when you become visible (or stop levitating, or lose your disguise or anything else), you need to know when it was last activated, which means you need to be tracking rounds.

Or just handwave/roleplay it and assume it's just working.

In which case, it's not a limitation and shouldn't be priced as one. It's either adding more book keeping or having less influence on the game.

Well, realistically, how many battles last 30 rounds? Or, at the very least how often are you going to actually remain invisible for the duration of the spell when it's important for you to be actually invisible? In a very large majority of cases , the time of need is much shorter than the actual duration. Sure, we can come up with examples in which one would need to be continuously invisible for more than 3 minutes, but I would argue that those situations are not the norm.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Uwotm8 wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:

From a game rules design perspective, it is an objectively bad rule.

Rules that add more book keeping than influence on the game are bad rules.
Not necessarily true. Because of how command words work, you should be able to simply state a goal and let it fly with sheer roleplay. Since they can explicitly be activate by words in a simple conversation, the faintest of whispers should work. A GM that doesn't let that fly is a GM that doesn't want the item to work in the first place which means you have other issues going on.

Also, is there a source for that being how command words work?

Without such, I'd have to assume that, like spell casting and some other verbal magical effects, they have to be spoken in a fairly loud, clear manner.

Fair point, and without further evidence, I would say is a reasonable assumption.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:


If Ravingdork was 'you all' as referred to by HF, then the comment might be justified. Again, why make it personal? 'butt-hurt'? Really? What are we all, twelve? 'Crappy attitude'? Simply no need for this.

If I wasn't on my phone, I would direct your attention to the Monk FoB thread, the countless number of Bastard Sword threads, the THW and TWF with spiked gauntlets thread, and numerous others to show you that it's a systemic issue for the camp that disagrees with the PDT to give a crappy attitude and show much butt-hurt.

So here in this thread we have people calling it a stupid rule and other such childish comments and I call you all out on it and I'm the one with the childish behavior?

It's clockwork. It's a safe bet that there will be people who disagree with a ruling in a manner that shows they are butt-hurt by the ruling and then . And you can always tell who those people are by the way they argue their position in the thread leading up to the decision.

So, my comments are justifiable, and they are based upon observable fact.

Calling something a stupid rule is a matter of opinion, it's not a personal attack on anyone.

Calling someone butt-hurt because you disagree with their opinion is juvenile, insulting, and unnecessary. Doubling-down and defending such behavior instead of apologizing and moving on just highlights your character all the more. If you can't see that by now, well I doubt anyone will be able to convince you otherwise. Good day.

I'm not saying that someone is butt-hurt because I disagree with their position, I'm saying that their tone and the manner in which they voice their displeasure indicates their level of butt-hurtitude. There is a difference, and it's something that you apparently didn't pick up on.

Except that you were applying it to everyone in general.

Quote:
No, you all are unhappy because you're used to playing it in a way that didn't
...

Yeah, and? Generally, the detractors in this thread weren't happy with the "house rule it if you disagree" response. "You guys" continued with why "you" felt that the PDT was wrong.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

Is "stupid rule" inherently a "childish comment"? Are all rules equally non-stupid by their inherent rules nature? Are stupid rules even possible?

I've also explained at some why I thought it was a stupid rule, but have gotten mostly silence in response.

Also, if you're going to draw in other threads and use them to categorize everyone taking a position on a particular issue as a "camp", it might be a good idea to see if it's actually the same people or if you're assuming that there is a camp of people who disagree with the PDT in all the threads, or if different people disagree on different issues and there is no such childish camp.

The "camp" I am referring to doesn't mean "the same people are always disagreeing", rather the "camp" is in reference to those people that disagree in a vitriolic manner. Saying things along the line of "this is stupid" puts you squarely in that camp.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:


If Ravingdork was 'you all' as referred to by HF, then the comment might be justified. Again, why make it personal? 'butt-hurt'? Really? What are we all, twelve? 'Crappy attitude'? Simply no need for this.

If I wasn't on my phone, I would direct your attention to the Monk FoB thread, the countless number of Bastard Sword threads, the THW and TWF with spiked gauntlets thread, and numerous others to show you that it's a systemic issue for the camp that disagrees with the PDT to give a crappy attitude and show much butt-hurt.

So here in this thread we have people calling it a stupid rule and other such childish comments and I call you all out on it and I'm the one with the childish behavior?

It's clockwork. It's a safe bet that there will be people who disagree with a ruling in a manner that shows they are butt-hurt by the ruling and then . And you can always tell who those people are by the way they argue their position in the thread leading up to the decision.

So, my comments are justifiable, and they are based upon observable fact.

Calling something a stupid rule is a matter of opinion, it's not a personal attack on anyone.

Calling someone butt-hurt because you disagree with their opinion is juvenile, insulting, and unnecessary. Doubling-down and defending such behavior instead of apologizing and moving on just highlights your character all the more. If you can't see that by now, well I doubt anyone will be able to convince you otherwise. Good day.

I'm not saying that someone is butt-hurt because I disagree with their position, I'm saying that their tone and the manner in which they voice their displeasure indicates their level of butt-hurtitude. There is a difference, and it's something that you apparently didn't pick up on.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:


If Ravingdork was 'you all' as referred to by HF, then the comment might be justified. Again, why make it personal? 'butt-hurt'? Really? What are we all, twelve? 'Crappy attitude'? Simply no need for this.

If I wasn't on my phone, I would direct your attention to the Monk FoB thread, the countless number of Bastard Sword threads, the THW and TWF with spiked gauntlets thread, and numerous others to show you that it's a systemic issue for the camp that disagrees with the PDT to give a crappy attitude and show much butt-hurt.

So here in this thread we have people calling it a stupid rule and other such childish comments and I call you all out on it and I'm the one with the childish behavior?

It's clockwork. It's a safe bet that there will be people who disagree with a ruling in a manner that shows they are butt-hurt by the ruling and then . And you can always tell who those people are by the way they argue their position in the thread leading up to the decision.

So, my comments are justifiable, and they are based upon observable fact.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

It's questions like these that turn members of the PDT into alcoholics. Though, I did hit the FAQ just so I can have the opportunity to say "FIRST"! That, and to be able to drink the tears of sorrow from those who are wrong.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
fretgod99 wrote:
No, the phrasing implies that the usually is likely limited to command word. If it's not command word, it's continuous. In the rare event that another activation method is relevant, that method will be specified.

Um, yeah, pretty much this. Do we need to bring in the English teacher to do a sentence diagram?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Continuous items are, so it's not. Just because I'm not taking your bait doesn't mean you have to be a jerk.

What's wrong? You don't like the taste of your own medicine?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The CRB was written under the paradigm that ayers would be playing normal humanoid races, hence the reason why there isnt any language regarding 3 or more armed PCs in the rules. The GM is going to have to adjudicate more and actually make his/her own decisions when it comes to things that fall outside this scope.

That doesn't mean that we don't have anything to offer us guidance in order to come to a reasonable conclusion.

The MWF from the Bestiary, as others have already pointed out, is a strong clue as to how we should go.
There is also a three-armed creature in the RotRL AP that has an extra off-hand attack due to its third arm.
If we dig hard enough, there will be other examples, too.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
graystone wrote:
No, I just have no need to go off topic. Duration IS the topic and the others aren't.
Yes, duration is the topic. But if the complaint is it doesn't work like other items in literature in regard to duration, my response is that it doesn't work like other items in literature for other reasons, too. So why would you expect the duration issue to be the same as other sources when other issues aren't, either?

How invisibility works in the game and the duration of the item are indeed to different issues. My like or dislike for the other factors being the same or different than the classic examples of invisibility items have nothing to do with my opinion of it's current duration.

Please keep on topic.

I'm sure you're aware of what the point he is trying to make is, you seem to be willfully ignorant and avoiding his comments—which are relevant to the discussion.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Cevah, you quoted the general rule for magic items, the rule for rings is specific in that it calls out a command word unless otherwise described.

The ring specific rule trumps the magic item general rule.
The ring description trumps the general ring rule.
Since ring of invisibility doesn't have a specific activating requirement, you fall back to the ring general rule in that it requires a command word to activate. This is supplemented by the "use activated" rule in which it says it needs to be worn in order to be activated (and remember, the use activated rule does allow for command word activation, of which the ring rule specifies).

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:

Dude, how about you stop with the insults and inventing other people's motivations for the discussion. It's a real dick move. You don't know me, and you don't know the other people in the discussion, so how about you just focus on the arguments instead of making it personal.

I'm not make it personal. I was making a statement of observable fact. Though it does sound like someone else is making it personal.

_Ozy_ wrote:

I don't play with the ring the way it is, and I don't play with it the way I thought it was. It's just not a good enough item to spend the gold on, command word or not.

I'm confused, so how did you play with the ring, or was it just never in any of your games.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:

Even if you ignore all of literature and many players' expectations that stem from said literature, it just doesn't make logical sense for someone to create a ring that is more likely to get you caught then if you didn't have it in the first place. Why would anyone ever make such an item? Unless they were made, or the itme cursed, they generally wouldn't.

That's a big part of why a lot of us are unhappy with the ruling. There is a serious logical disconnect there.

No, you all are unhappy because you're used to playing it in a way that didn't actually comport with the language in the rules, and when that is finally pointed out, you collectively get butt-hurt.

No one said you had to play it that way. It's the crappy attitude that comes along with the complaints that's a problem.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
And how many of those items do not follow the same limitations as PF's ring of invisibility? Do they all break their enchantment upon attack? Are they all limited to only one benefactor? Are there other means of detecting the invisible wearer?

My point was that there are far more examples of continuous use invisibility items than JUST Tolkiens ring. And none I could find that where limited to a few minutes.

And to be clear, we're having a debate on the feature of the ring that was FAQ'd. The duration. If a FAQ of one of those other features you talked about shows up, I'd debate on those too.

Well that's pretty convenient then isn't it? "I'm going to complain that Pathfinder's ring only lasts 3 minutes because that's not what those others do, but I'm not going to complain that the invisibility ends when I attack because that's not what those others do".

Selective hearing at its finest.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
thejeff wrote:
No. The ring (and the hat and the boots and anything else that works that way) is stupidly limited because the limitation of being able to use the item indefinitely as long as you turn it on every few minutes is inherently stupid. Especially with the other items, it doesn't limit anything except in the most extreme of edge cases, but it still justifies a huge price difference.
The rule isn't stupid. You just don't like it because it goes against your preconceived notions of what it should be—whether you played older editions or you are influenced by other sources. And that is fine, just house rule it to be the way you want it to be. But that doesn't make the rules as they are written wrong or stupid. It's just a different paradigm.

The rule is stupid. Look at it for the boots of levitation: What limit does it actually provide? How does that justify it being less than half the price of a continuous pair of boots?

In fact, I'd argue that the reason the Ring needed the price bump was that the price bump brings it inline with the continuous item it really should be.

No, you think it's stupid. That doesn't mean the rule is stupid. It goes against your preconceived notions about what you think it should be and you're upset about it.

Being invisible has a greater impact than being able to levitate, that likely explains the price difference, don't you think—I mean, if you look at it objectively...if you're willing to do that.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
No. The ring (and the hat and the boots and anything else that works that way) is stupidly limited because the limitation of being able to use the item indefinitely as long as you turn it on every few minutes is inherently stupid. Especially with the other items, it doesn't limit anything except in the most extreme of edge cases, but it still justifies a huge price difference.

The rule isn't stupid. You just don't like it because it goes against your preconceived notions of what it should be—whether you played older editions or you are influenced by other sources. And that is fine, just house rule it to be the way you want it to be. But that doesn't make the rules as they are written wrong or stupid. It's just a different paradigm.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
The Archive wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
What's with all of this "you can't have your cake and eat it" crap?

That was due to you saying the quote was both relevant and irrelevant for different portions of your post.

You started with: 'this could be relevant for the debate over removing the ring' and ended with: 'this doesn't matter.'

That the ring has to be worn doesn't mean that they can't require to be activated by a command word. They are not mutually exclusive.

People admit that rings have to be worn, yet must require "mental" activation to gain the effects. So they acknowledge that some type of activation beyond merely just putting it on is required. Why is it so difficult to acknowledge that the required activation is a spoken command word?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

What's with all of this "you can't have your cake and eat it" crap?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
The Archive wrote:
So, out of question, how do you look at Malachi's earlier quote from 3.5 that uses the ring of invisibility as an example of a use activated item that requires further activation? If you have addressed it already, sorry, I must have passed over it.

The fact that the ring has to be worn to gain its effects was never in question. In fact, this lends further support to the understanding that if you take the ring off, its effects end immediately.

Malachi's quote doesn't do anything to change the specific rules in the "Rings" section that says that they are Command Word activated (unless the ring has some other unusual activation method which is mentioned in its description).

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
I think the official version is wrong. It happens

There, fixed that for you.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Shiroi wrote:

It feels clear to me based on this sentence, that there are THREE options for how the activation presents.

1. Command Word
2. Continual
3. Other/Unusual/Described

I couldn't help chuckle at your post, considering this is how I interpret it as well.

1 to 50 of 3,111 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.