| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I always thought a ring of invisibility was use-activated, that it worked automatically whenever you put it on and had an indefinate duration (short of removing the ring or attacking).
The belt does not change the type of action required to activate a ring (for example, activating a ring of invisibility is still a standard action), but allows the wearer to easily switch between the constant powers of several worn rings. While the belt is worn, wearing a ring on a foot counts toward the attunement process of certain rings (such as a ring of sustenance) even if the belt isn’t used to make that ring active during that attunement period.
Was I mistaken? I'm pretty sure I remember developers saying that they were in fact use-activated.
A ring of invisibility is activated on command. You have to periodically refresh the command to maintain the effect.
It's a standard action.
A ring of invisibility is activated on command. You have to periodically refresh the command to maintain the effect.
Alright, so it does require activation. At least that's much easier than determining the action to put on or remove a ring.
I still don't think it has a limited duration though. Like a hat of disguise, it just keeps on going.
I know a developer said as much somewhere, both v3.5 and in Pathfinder.
I recall Sean or Jason talking about why there isn't a and will never be a ring of greater invisibility. One of the reasons was to preserve the need for the standard action after every attack.
I like to think of it as a standard action rather than command word. Its kinda silly to think of an item that is meant for a stealthy character to require them to periodically say, "Poof!" to turn invisible. It tends to give away their location.
|
A ring of invisibility is activated on command. You have to periodically refresh the command to maintain the effect.Alright, so it does require activation. At least that's much easier than determining the action to put on or remove a ring.
I still don't think it has a limited duration though. Like a hat of disguise, it just keeps on going.
I know a developer said as much somewhere, both v3.5 and in Pathfinder.
"The caster level determines the item's saving throw bonus, as well as range or other level-dependent aspects of the powers of the item (if variable)." (from magic item description of caster level)
"By activating this simple silver ring, the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell. (from description of ring of invisibility)
A standard ring of invisibility is CL3. The effect is to benefit from invisibility, as the spell. The spell has duration of 1 minute / Caster Level. Therefore, the duration of a ring of invisibility is 3 minutes.
It can be reactivated as needed, meaning that a user can reactivate repeatedly within the 3 minute duration, making it effectively ongoing until such time as it isn't reactivating. The user would become visible 3 minutes after last activation. Given that command items are activated by a word, it can't be reactivated if the user cannot speak, and the command activation is audible.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There IS a ring of Greater Invisibility, the somewhat cursed, but useful "Dougal's Ring of Greater Invisibility", a rare item (only four known to exist) and they require the user spend a standard action "I AM NOW TURNING INVISIBLE, KERFLOOEY!" and then spend each round while invisible making a motorboat sound as a free action.
Few have been able to utilize it fully, as no magic-user who uses Identify on said ring can identify what a "motorboat" is. All thieves who have successfully activated the ring were captured shortly thereafter for being noisy, spitting all over everyone, and just being generally silly.
What if you use a Silence spell but still are making the motorboat sound even though it cant be heard?
Unless otherwise stated in the description all magic items are command word items that requirea standard action.
Speaking is a free action. That is unless you're saying an entire speech, but a single word is a free action.
|
|
Unless otherwise stated in the description all magic items are command word items that requirea standard action.Speaking is a free action. That is unless you're saying an entire speech, but a single word is a free action.
Yes, speaking is a free action. And, if the command word for an item is a common word, it might be triggered accidentally. And yet, activating a command word item is a standard action.
There's a bit of a disconnect here that is a legacy thing, but there it is.
In magic fantasy genres command words are not usually common words. Often they are in an obscure language or twisted pronunciation. Sometimes, there is a 'desire' component to the activation. Say the word without the desire and nothing happens. Say the word with the proper desire and something happens.
- Gauss
Howie23: I do not believe it activates since it requires a standard action. If you say the activation word as a free action without spending the standard action it fails to activate. In my mind this is an example of 'speaking the word without the desire'.
Can you show me a line that states there is chance of accidental activation?
- Gauss
Found it:
A command word can be a real word, but when this is the case, the holder of the item runs the risk of activating the item accidentally by speaking the word in normal conversation. More often, the command word is some seemingly nonsensical word, or a word or phrase from an ancient language no longer in common use. Activating a command word magic item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
However, bolded part 1 contradicts the mechanics of bolded part 2. You cannot accidentally (ie: free action) activate it because you must spend a standard action to activate it.
In any case, since the command word is up to the GM it'll never happen in any game I GM. Command words will always require a standard action and will never be a common word. Unless the item states otherwise of course.
- Gauss
Edit: I can see a case for accidental activation if the item does not require a standard action to activate.
|
|
Doing things takes actions. It doesn't follow that characters make a decision about whether to spend the action to do it; characters don't know about actions, players do.
The action economy is something that, for all practical purposes, is only in play during initiative.
Let's say a ring of invisibility has the command word, "snowflake." Joey is wearing grandpa's old ring and runs in from outside. "Mommy! A snowflake (poof) landed on my nose! (dishes crash to floor as Mommy screams)" You now have the start of a character, an adventure, maybe a campaign.
It's pretty much a theoretical conversation. I've never seen it come up, and generally wouldn't other than for plot purposes or for comedic relief along the lines of playing Drink, Drank, Drunk.
Disclaimer: As said, this is a theoretical conversation, and nothing here is intended to suggest I would charge a standard action involuntarily to characters in a combat situation.
Standard action unless otherwise stated in the description.
Personally (I may be outside the framework of the rules too), I consider the command word (a word or sentence *) is a free action, but the activation of the effect requires a standard action to actually take effect (including action to say the command word voluntary or involuntary). Somewhat the same way a computer thinking after receiving instructions to execute, a sort of magic fancy.
* Although some phrases actually require 6 seconds which is approximately one round, but I do not think this kind of magic item requires a long sentence normally.
If it just had to "warm up" after the command word, why not just speak it as a free action and let it warm up?
No reason, it is only a personal interpretation on my part to fit into a standard action as required by the rules.
I have no problem with the "standard action" to activate, as magic is traditionally a will-working, after all. Spend a standard action and invoke the magic as the ring's creator intended.
|
|
Command Word: If no activation method is suggested either in the magic item description or by the nature of the item, assume that a command word is needed to activate it.
A invisibility ring require a standard action to use, but not all standard action activations are command words.
The text cited above say: "If no activation method is suggested ...... by the nature of the item". Going back to the One ring, it had a simple activation method: donning it. That suggest a possible alternative method of activation: donning the ring (and removing and re-donning it to reactivate it).Going back to the Arabian tales, there were magic items in them, and they where activated by "twisting" them. so a second and third method of activation are suggested:
- wearing the ring normally leave it inactive, turning it so that the gem on the head of the ring is looking toward you hand palm. Reactivating it will be achieved turning it a full circle.
- a rotating head holding the gems, so that you can rotate the gem and the ring head to activate the invisibility spell.
All those alternate activation systems have the advantage that they are
soundless, so they work better with the invisibility, and give a better reason why you are using a standard action to activate the ring.
They will not be available in a Pathfinder Society game [too complicated to keep track of different activation systems from table to table], but at your home game you can ask your GM if he will use them.
Could you not simply pay the extra cost and either make one, or have one made that worked continuously? It would be worth every gold piece!
While you could create a ring of greater invisibility, I'm not sure it would be all that great. It wasn't in the 3.5 games I've seen them used in; but then again in 3.x Invisibility doesn't grant you an incredibly stupid +20 bonus to Stealth (something I had to house rule out to retain some sanity).
The minimum cost of a continuous greater invisibility ring is 224,000 gp. Quite literally 1/8th a 20th level character's WBL. That's pretty darn amazing for something that gives similar benefits to a ring of blinking and is so easily negated. I mean, the ring would more or less be rendered useless by a variety of low-level techniques and spells (dump flour in their space, cast faerie fire, glitterdust, see invisibility, invisibility purge, dispel magic, etc), and that's not really even getting into stuff like true seeing which isn't very hard and can be fairly common at high levels (some creatures have it constant, some can cast it, some can use magic items).
Honestly by the time you could afford such a thing (even crafting it yourself for 1/2 price) it would be very unrewarding in terms of usefulness. The Invisibility Ring is kind of a fantasy trop. Bilbo donned his invisibility ring and wielded Sting against the spiders of murkwood forest. If you run it strait, it's probably not even worth the base cost of such an item.
One that you have to keep reactivating every 7 rounds is 50,400 gp. That could probably get you where you want to go. Still, if not for the stupid +20 stealth check modifier, it's just total concealment.
Ashiel hate to contradict you but:
Special: If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Hide checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Hide checks if you’re moving.
This is the exact same bonus as it currently is (since hide got folded into stealth so did the bonus). Of course, that shouldnt necessarily affect hearing based perception checks against stealth but that is part of the whole problem with hide and move silently being merged.
- Gauss
|
|
Of course, that shouldn't necessarily affect hearing based perception checks against stealth but that is part of the whole problem with hide and move silently being merged.
- Gauss
That is the whole point of Ashiel argument. I sometime have the some problem with perception and listen/spot/search.
"Distance to the source, object, or creature +1 DC every 10 feet"
Generally right is you are listening or you are searching an area, excessive if you are scanning the horizon.
A guy that is good at finding items in a small area isn't necessarily good at spotting a hawk flying so, sometime, a general purpose spotting perception skill isn't right.
I see why, rule wise, Paizo has made the change introducing stealth and perception but it has introduced some new problem in the game.
A guy is on the other side of a closed door. If he is invisible he get a +40 to his stealth check .... why? I already have no chance to see him.
The difficult to hear him is the same, invisible or not.
I simply removed the +20/+40 to Stealth from it. It wasn't needed in 3.0 and 3.5, and it's not needed in Pathfinder. Is more or less blatant immunity to sight-based perception not enough? I mean, Stealth didn't give +20 to +40 to hide checks in 3.x. So why here? It creates stupid scenarios very easily, and has turned Invisibility from a good 2nd level spell to an overpowered spell (overpowered in the sense that there is no way to beat someone's Stealth checks while it's active; making Strike-Vanishing way better than it sued to be).
In my group, we just use invisibility more or less as it was in 3.x. You're invisible. People might be able to notice you by hearing you (so still you get your Stealth vs Perception), but you can walk right into a room and wave your hand in someone's face without them noticing.
I simply removed the +20/+40 to Stealth from it. It wasn't needed in 3.0 and 3.5, and it's not needed in Pathfinder. Is more or less blatant immunity to sight-based perception not enough? I mean, Stealth didn't give +20 to +40 to hide checks in 3.x. So why here? It creates stupid scenarios very easily, and has turned Invisibility from a good 2nd level spell to an overpowered spell (overpowered in the sense that there is no way to beat someone's Stealth checks while it's active; making Strike-Vanishing way better than it sued to be).
In my group, we just use invisibility more or less as it was in 3.x. You're invisible. People might be able to notice you by hearing you (so still you get your Stealth vs Perception), but you can walk right into a room and wave your hand in someone's face without them noticing.
Ashiel, invisibility DID give +20/+40 to hide checks in 3.x.
Special: If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Hide checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Hide checks if you’re moving.
- Gauss
I simply removed the +20/+40 to Stealth from it. It wasn't needed in 3.0 and 3.5, and it's not needed in Pathfinder. Is more or less blatant immunity to sight-based perception not enough? I mean, Stealth didn't give +20 to +40 to hide checks in 3.x. So why here? It creates stupid scenarios very easily, and has turned Invisibility from a good 2nd level spell to an overpowered spell (overpowered in the sense that there is no way to beat someone's Stealth checks while it's active; making Strike-Vanishing way better than it sued to be).
In my group, we just use invisibility more or less as it was in 3.x. You're invisible. People might be able to notice you by hearing you (so still you get your Stealth vs Perception), but you can walk right into a room and wave your hand in someone's face without them noticing.
Because the magic is somewhat flawed and someone with a very sharp eye can see past that.
I simply removed the +20/+40 to Stealth from it. It wasn't needed in 3.0 and 3.5, and it's not needed in Pathfinder. Is more or less blatant immunity to sight-based perception not enough? I mean, Stealth didn't give +20 to +40 to hide checks in 3.x. So why here? It creates stupid scenarios very easily, and has turned Invisibility from a good 2nd level spell to an overpowered spell (overpowered in the sense that there is no way to beat someone's Stealth checks while it's active; making Strike-Vanishing way better than it sued to be).
In my group, we just use invisibility more or less as it was in 3.x. You're invisible. People might be able to notice you by hearing you (so still you get your Stealth vs Perception), but you can walk right into a room and wave your hand in someone's face without them noticing.
Ashiel, invisibility DID give +20/+40 to hide checks in 3.x.
Special: If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Hide checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Hide checks if you’re moving.- Gauss
Oops, I meant Listen. I guess that's why ranting is bad. One tends to babble on. XD
It worked better in 3.x because it didn't make you harder to hear. Since they merged Hide & Listen, it seems to me that it makes it more appropriate to just let you be invisible (total concealment, can't find you, and all that sort of thing). Honestly, I just feel like there should be no difference between being invisible and having total concealment, since they are effectively the same thing.
Ashiel, I understand. Personally I use stealth in two ways. Visual and auditory. Tonight one of my players couldn't be seen by the bad guy but he could be heard. The bag guy knew the invisibile PC was in the room but not where he was (until the PC smacked into a table because he was walking around blind..LOL). Not quite RAW...but then again I dont play in PFS.
- Gauss