Ring of spell storing and caster level


Rules Questions

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

The ring of spell storing say:

PRD wrote:


A minor ring of spell storing contains up to three levels of spells (either divine or arcane, or even a mix of both spell types) that the wearer can cast. Each spell has a caster level equal to the minimum level needed to cast that spell.

I recall a ruling saying that that apply to randomly found rings with spells in them, and that if a specific spellcaster put the spell into the ring it has the caster level of that caster, but can't find ruling anywhere.

Someone know if it is a Pathfinder ruling or a old 3.X ruling?

Shadow Lodge

This is from the SRD:

A ring of spell storing contains up to 5 levels of spells (either divine or arcane, or even a mix of both spell types) that the wearer can cast. Each spell has a caster level equal to the minimum level needed to cast that spell. The user need not provide any material components or focus to cast the spell, and there is no arcane spell failure chance for wearing armor (because the ring wearer need not gesture). The activation time for the ring is the same as the casting time for the relevant spell, with a minimum of 1 standard action.

For a randomly generated ring, treat it as a scroll to determine what spells are stored in it. If you roll a spell that would put the ring over the five-level limit, ignore that roll; the ring has no more spells in it.

A spellcaster can cast any spells into the ring, so long as the total spell levels do not add up to more than 5. Metamagic versions of spells take up storage space equal to their spell level modified by the metamagic feat. A spellcaster can use a scroll to put a spell into the ring of spell storing.

The ring magically imparts to the wearer the names of all spells currently stored within it.

By what this says its minimum levels when it comes out. But it could be interpreted differently.

Liberty's Edge

No one know if it was a 3.x ruling?


Diego Rossi wrote:
No one know if it was a 3.x ruling?

3.5/d20/OGL Spell Storing, Minor: "Each spell has a caster level equal to the minimum level needed to cast that spell."

I don't know if 3.0 is different or if there's free (legal) rules text available.


I still argue that the snippet Grick quoted only applies to spells in the ring when it is found, not spells the owner casts into them.

Shadow Lodge

Look at all 3 together it might help. This is from the PathfinderSRD.

Ring of Spell Storing, Minor.
As the ring of spell storing, except it holds up to 3 levels of spells.

Ring of Spell Storing.
A ring of spell storing contains up to 5 levels of spells (either divine or arcane, or even a mix of both spell types) that the wearer can cast. Each spell has a caster level equal to the minimum level needed to cast that spell. The user need not provide any material components or focus to cast the spell, and there is no arcane spell failure chance for wearing armor (because the ring wearer need not gesture). The activation time for the ring is the same as the casting time for the relevant spell, with a minimum of 1 standard action.

For a randomly generated ring, treat it as a scroll to determine what spells are stored in it. If you roll a spell that would put the ring over the five-level limit, ignore that roll; the ring has no more spells in it.

A spellcaster can cast any spells into the ring, so long as the total spell levels do not add up to more than 5. Metamagic versions of spells take up storage space equal to their spell level modified by the metamagic feat. A spellcaster can use a scroll to put a spell into the ring of spell storing.

The ring magically imparts to the wearer the names of all spells currently stored within it.

Ring of Spell Storing, Major.
As the ring of spell storing, except it holds up to 10 levels
of spells.

The bold sentence is the only place in the description where they talk about levels of spells.


Well, our group will just house rule this so that it makes sense then. Why would I even want a ring that nerfed my stored spells? I can do better with a scroll.


Because you can give the ring to someone who doesn't cast spells.


meabolex wrote:
Because you can give the ring to someone who doesn't cast spells.

Yeah? So? Assuming it's a member of my party, that spell is going to need to be at my level to be balanced against enemies the party is fighting.

I just don't get why this would be nerfed.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Yeah? So? Assuming it's a member of my party, that spell is going to need to be at my level to be balanced against enemies the party is fighting.

There are plenty of spells that work fine at minimum caster level, especially on the hands of someone who can't otherwise cast spells. Remove paralysis, dimension door, breath of life.

You know that scrolls and wands are by default at minimum caster level also, right? Unless you pay extra to create them higher.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:
I just don't get why this would be nerfed.

Doesn't "nerfed" imply that it used to be more powerful? What edition are you basing this from?


I'm with the dragon. Reducing the caster level when refilling the ring is unnecessary.


Grick, "nerfed" in this case means MY SPELL is nerfed by casting it into the ring.

I'm just going to keep on the way we've always played. It's never even been an issue at all.

Shadow Lodge

3.5 pretty much has the same wording....so if it was nerfed it was nerfed when updated to 3.5. I dont have any earlier versions to see the word. I had always played that the spell cast into the ring as same level as the caster who cast it, spell levels were only minimum when found.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Ring of spell storing and caster level All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.