|
It's in the ACG
Fine etchings spell out the alphabets of four languages around the inside of this finely crafted silver band. The wearer gains the ability to speak and understand the four languages whose alphabets are inscribed on the ring. Normally the languages are Common, Dwarven, Elven, and Gnome. Less often, such rings are attuned to Giant, Goblin, Orc, and Undercommon, and rings with different sets of languages might also exist. The wearer retains the ability to speak in these languages even if she assumes a form normally unable to do so (such as a druid wild shaped into a wolf). [!]
and some further abilities.
|
3,500 GP
SLOT ring CL 3rd WEIGHT —
AURA faint divination
Fine etchings spell out the alphabets of four languages
around the inside of this finely crafted silver band. The wearer gains the ability to speak and understand the four languages
whose alphabets are inscribed on the ring. Normally the
languages are Common, Dwarven, Elven, and Gnome. Less
often, such rings are attuned to Giant, Goblin, Orc, and
Undercommon, and rings with different sets of languages
might also exist. The wearer retains the ability to speak in
these languages even if she assumes a form normally unable
to do so (such as a druid wild shaped into a wolf).
The ring also makes it easier for the wearer to find the
correct words to express herself, granting a +2 competence
bonus on Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Perform (oratory)
checks. Also, if the wearer is deafened and attempts to cast
a spell with a verbal component, the chance of spell failure
is reduced to 10%.
|
Time to stir the coals:
Price 30,000 gp; Aura moderate necromancy; CL 8th; Weight 5 lbs.
Often given as gifts to apprentices upon reaching the rank of master, these staves come in eight different varieties, one for each school of magic. This particular staff is for the school of necromancy. Aside from acting as a +1/+1 quarterstaff, this staff allows use of the following spells:
Ray of enfeeblement (1 charge)
Spectral hand (1 charge)
Vampiric touch (2 charges)In addition, this staff can be used to cast spells using any metamagic feats known by the wielder without increasing the spell's level. This consumes a number of charges equal to the number of spell levels increased by the feat. No more than one feat can be applied to a spell cast by the wielder in this way. Using the staff for this purpose does not increase the casting time of the spell.
So you would allow someone to show up at the table with an evocation version of this item?
|
Time to stir the coals:
So you would allow someone to show up at the table with an evocation version of this item?Price 30,000 gp; Aura moderate necromancy; CL 8th; Weight 5 lbs.
Often given as gifts to apprentices upon reaching the rank of master, these staves come in eight different varieties, one for each school of magic. This particular staff is for the school of necromancy. Aside from acting as a +1/+1 quarterstaff, this staff allows use of the following spells:
Ray of enfeeblement (1 charge)
Spectral hand (1 charge)
Vampiric touch (2 charges)In addition, this staff can be used to cast spells using any metamagic feats known by the wielder without increasing the spell's level. This consumes a number of charges equal to the number of spell levels increased by the feat. No more than one feat can be applied to a spell cast by the wielder in this way. Using the staff for this purpose does not increase the casting time of the spell.
No. Nowhere in the item does it provide guidance as to what spells would be in an evocation version of the staff of the master.
|
|
I was thinking of that myself. My counter argument was that we don't know what the stats or spell would be on such an item, whereas with the ring you swap out the languages and you know exactly what you have.Time to stir the coals:
*I AGREE THAT A VARIANT STAFF OF THE MASTER IS ILLEGAL*
The problem is that showing up with a Staff of the Master where the word "evocation" replaces "necromancy" and the spells (in order) are changed to burning hands, scorching ray, and fireball is no different than a Ring of Eloquence with Grippli, Goblin, Samasaran, and Sphinx inscribed on it. The description clearly indicates that such an item exists.
So unfortunately I think the ring has to be limited to the listed sets of languages only. I do agree it wouldn't be nearly as game-breaking.
*I AGREE THAT A VARIANT STAFF OF THE MASTER IS ILLEGAL*
|
|
are changed to burning hands, scorching ray, and fireball is no different than a Ring of Eloquence with Grippli, Goblin, Samasaran, and Sphinx inscribed on it. The description clearly indicates that such an item exists.
AH, but there is a difference. On a staff The levels of the spells involved and the number of charges they take (which are both unknown) both affect the final cost of the staff. And in the staff of the master necromancy's case, they may also have a different power than the sweeeet metamagic abilities of the staff. Staves are also grouped by theme and usually have a few duds to cancel out some good spells.
To be safe though drake you may want to take a long engagement before putting that ring on your finger
|
The difference in both item variants is the question "what is reasonable?"
It is reasonable for the ring to have different languages from those listed, because the text says so, but it is far less reasonable that secret languages - which can't even be taken with a rank in Linguistics - can be added.
It would be reasonable for the staff to have different schools of magic, but only if there are rules specified as to its mechanics - which there aren't, making it unreasonable to do anything apart from what it specifically lists.
|
|
Ah, but I very carefully picked the spells in my hypothetical staff. They are exactly the same levels and use the same number of charges as the published necromancy staff. (And no spells in either staff have expensive material components.)
Often given as gifts to apprentices upon reaching the rank of master, these staves come in eight different varieties, one for each school of magic. This particular staff is for the school of evocation. Aside from acting as a +1/+1 quarterstaff, this staff allows use of the following spells:
Burning Hands (1 charge)
Scorching Ray (1 charge)
Fireball (2 charges)
In addition, this staff can be used to cast spells using any metamagic feats known by the wielder without increasing the spell's level. This consumes a number of charges equal to the number of spell levels increased by the feat. No more than one feat can be applied to a spell cast by the wielder in this way. Using the staff for this purpose does not increase the casting time of the spell.
Anyway, my point is that it's pretty clear the staffs are equivalent in construction costs so it would be legal in a home game* so if it is not legal in PFS neither is a Ring of Eloquence with Necril, Druidic, Tanuki, and Androffen as the languages.
*
edit: "Reasonable" is a wonderful thing and I'm all for it. I'm not trying to be petty it's just that I've seen the drama caused when one GM's "reasonable" does not match the next's. For example I think that (should variant rings be legal) it's fine for the languages to include Druidic or Androffen. After all the construction requirements include comprehend languages (which is weird in and of itself, speaking a language usually requires tongues - but I digress more) and comprehend languages allows you to read things you normally are not even allowed to take ranks in. But we've already seen two people on this thread say that Druidic is a definite no-no. If a player sits at my table and asks if her 5th level character can spend a significant chunk of her gold on a ring that lets her speak secret languages and I OK it, she's going to be pretty upset if the next GM says "sorry 30% of your wealth doesn't work at this table."
|
|
Ah, but I very carefully picked the spells in my hypothetical staff. They are exactly the same levels and use the same number of charges as the published necromancy staff. (And no spells in either staff have expensive material components.)
I'd argue the perfect balance of spells in a school, even with equivalent levels and charges, create imbalance.
"Reasonable" is a wonderful thing and I'm all for it. I'm not trying to be petty it's just that I've seen the drama caused when one GM's "reasonable" does not match the next's.
That's fair, and enough people saying "no" would suggest the amount of table variance you get isn't worth the item. I've only given what I view as reasonable, and if enough people were to disagree with me, I'd probably change my own opinion as well. It's okay to find out you're either outright wrong, or at least inconclusive across a lot of tables.
Ultimately if you've got a questionable item/ability/whatever, you should always clear it with your GM before the game anyway.
|
|
That's fair, and enough people saying "no" would suggest the amount of table variance you get isn't worth the item.Actually, only one person has said 'no', so much as I can tell. The general consensus (which admittedly is currently from a small pool) seems to be that languages other than secret languages would be okay. I personally had no intentions of secret languages, but thought (for example) that the 4 elemental languages would be well fitting for a wild-shaping druid. Or, in my case, probably filling out languages that make sense for my backstory that I somehow forgot to take prior to this point.
The problem with the staff example, is that by replacing the spells to unspecified ones, you're creating a custom item. The existence of an Evocation Staff of the Master does not imply that it could have whichever spells you might want.
That said... the ring may have the same issue. If it was an individual language, perhaps not. But it talks of 'sets' of languages... which would imply potentially that there are groupings of languages that are seen together. If that's the case, we don't know what the groupings are, and couldn't make up our own.
That may be 2 saying 'no' now.... unsure. Though I suppose, that's why I asked.
It has the exact same issue IMO.
The item states that variations might exist, so there's no guarantee there are in Golarion... It would be a custom made item in my mind.
|
|
wow... I was just buying this ring with one of my PCs... and had actually thought I would take it with either the elemental languages (yeah, DrakeRoberts, that sounded cool!) or Abysal, Celestial, Infernal and... something else... suggestions?).
Now I may have to go pull it from the ITS and line it out on the Chronicle... depending on the "general consensus"... or maybe just ask the judge each game.
Draconic.
|
Normally the languages are Common, Dwarven, Elven, and Gnome. Less often, such rings are attuned to Giant, Goblin, Orc, and Undercommon, and rings with different sets of languages might also exist.
The general rule in PFS has always been that if something "might" exists and/or needs a GM to decide if it does, then it doesn't. I would argue that in PFS there is only one form of Ring of Eloquence, and it has Common, Dwarven, Elven, and Gnome.
|
|
I think you would lose that argument (barring campaign management stepping in/FAQ/AR changes) based on the fact that the Giant, Goblin, Orc, and Undercommon ring is explicitly stated as being an existing configuration for the ring. Such rings, it notes, are less common. But the "might also exist" part refers to "rings with different sets of languages [beyond the 2 sets mentioned]".Normally the languages are Common, Dwarven, Elven, and Gnome. Less often, such rings are attuned to Giant, Goblin, Orc, and Undercommon, and rings with different sets of languages might also exist.The general rule in PFS has always been that if something "might" exists and/or needs a GM to decide if it does, then it doesn't. I would argue that in PFS there is only one form of Ring of Eloquence, and it has Common, Dwarven, Elven, and Gnome.
Yeah, I can't see not allowing the specifically mentioned versions of the ring. However, a ring beside the two listed I still think would be a no go for PFS.
|
|
ok, looks like I need to pull this ring from my PC. To many variations on how it will work...
I haven't played the PC sense I bought it - but it is marked on the ITS and Chronicle... so do I scratch it out and add back in the full money for it, or sell it off for half?
I'd say you haven't left the store with it yet- full refund.
|
|
I'd say you haven't left the store with it yet- full refund.ok, looks like I need to pull this ring from my PC. To many variations on how it will work...
I haven't played the PC sense I bought it - but it is marked on the ITS and Chronicle... so do I scratch it out and add back in the full money for it, or sell it off for half?
I'd say this as well.
The languages (since they were different than what was in the book originally) should have been notated somewhere on the purchase. That makes it, potentially, a non permitted item for purchase. Since it, potentially, would not have been allowed in the first place the transaction just gets reversed.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I could see either ring definitely existing but I am not sure whether to compare this the staff of the master (necromancy) vs. the skill choice for an Int headband. In the first case I could see that mechanically you could not figure out which spells for what cost should go into that version, therefore a flat no in PFS.
On the other hand, we have 4 language skills. This is not unlike the skill you have the option of placing in a headband of intellect or more skills with higher pluses. If you use that as an example than I could see whatever languages you wanted to put into them, provided you could learn them normally.
Not sure if that is legal but that is at least one option that I think is more similar in PFS than the staff of the master.
|
|
FWIW the primary example would be allowable langues to gnomes or halflings, both have a racial Charisma bonus. The second example would be allowable languages to dwarves, which has a racial Charisma penalty. (EDIT: I only mention Charisma because of the bonuses on the secondary power of the ring.) In a home game I would make the other examples follow the core races, but in PFS I say it is only the two. (hmmm.... future boon with other options?)
An illegal option should be corrected to legal, so unless you bought one of the aforementioned configurations Nosig: full refund is my take.
|
|
The key thing to remember here is that between the two items, the ring's "choose anything" variant doesn't throw out the balance of the game, while the staff's "choose anything" variant throws it out significantly.
With languages, you're talking about a bit of a hit and miss situation with what you might encounter. The languages mentioned are even relatively related to each other in the first example (common, elven, dwarven, gnome) and not so much in the second example (giant, goblin, orc, undercommon).
With schools of magic, the amount of possibilities of imbalance are endless, and the suggestion of even the 3 fire spells for evocation are immediately, noticably, questionable. The text of the staff even mentions "this particularly staff is for necromancy". As in, this is the only staff for necromancy. There are no other combinations for that school, because to do so would create an unbalanced item.
We're talking about a combination of languages vs arcane spells - that's a huge difference. It won't break the game.
|
|
Right. Compare these two items
Price 30,000 gp; Aura moderate evocation; CL 8th; Weight 5 lbs.
Grease (1 charge)
Glitterdust (1 charge)
Haste (2 charges)
In addition, this staff can be used to cast spells using any metamagic feats known by the wielder without increasing the spell's level. This consumes a number of charges equal to the number of spell levels increased by the feat. No more than one feat can be applied to a spell cast by the wielder in this way. Using the staff for this purpose does not increase the casting time of the spell.
Price 30,000 gp; Aura moderate evocation; CL 8th; Weight 5 lbs.
No one is sure why this staff exists. Rumors say it involves the accidental gods second best practical joke ever
Sleep (1 charge)
Magic Mouth (1 charge)
Flame arrow (2 charges)
In addition, this staff can be used to cast spells using any metamagic feats known by the wielder without increasing the spell's level. This consumes a number of charges equal to the number of spell levels increased by the feat. No more than one feat can be applied to a spell cast by the wielder in this way. Using the staff for this purpose does not increase the casting time of the spell.
mechanically cost the same, but BIG difference in the power levels. I can't see what languages you get changing the power all that much.
I can see the ruling going the other way though, just because they don't want to build up a huge pile of exceptions.
I wouldn't have an issue with the ring having other languages.
I was already thinking along the lines of Louis about the headbands (which allow you to choose the skill and language - which seems to nullify part of the "no" argument).
And I find that I like the idea that Pathfinders have rings to help them explore old ruins (a ring with 4 dead languages) or explore in Tien areas (a ring with 4 languages from the other side of the world) or explore in the north (a ring with four of the languages of the north) or etc..
|
While I can see how the Ring of Eloquence would be useful for a wildshaped druid (It's basically a lite version of the Wild Speech feat.)
Isn't it quite a costly item for an animal companion?
You would first have to get your animal companion to Int 3 (Just because you can speak a language, doesn't mean you are smart enough to do so.), spend a feat for the ring slot and then buy this ring?
That is 1 level stat up, 1 feat slot and 3500gp just so your animal companion can report back after scouting or scream for help in the middle of battle.
|
|
The only thing i see wild speech doing that ring doesn't is let you speak with critters of your kind for a limited amount of time in critter form which... i don't think the author read wildshape carefully enough
A druid loses her ability to speak while in animal form because she is limited to the sounds that a normal, untrained animal can make, but she can communicate normally with other animals of the same general grouping as her new form
|
While I can see how the Ring of Eloquence would be useful for a wildshaped druid (It's basically a lite version of the Wild Speech feat.)
Isn't it quite a costly item for an animal companion?
You would first have to get your animal companion to Int 3 (Just because you can speak a language, doesn't mean you are smart enough to do so.), spend a feat for the ring slot and then buy this ring?That is 1 level stat up, 1 feat slot and 3500gp just so your animal companion can report back after scouting or scream for help in the middle of battle.
most persons with animal companions will want to raise the INT anyway...
and the requirement for the feat can be bypassed with a hand in the neck slot to give an extra ring slot... or heck, just burn the feat. Looks like you would be burnning a feat for being able to talk! works for me.|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given that an animal companion that can talk still needs to use tricks in combat, I don't see this item as broken.
There would likely be some headache for GMs when players start assuming that just cos their pets can talk, those pets can also follow complex commands in combat.
wait... we already have that problem now! even when they CAN'T talk.
I often see players/judges assuming the AC can do all sorts of complex things. At my local shop, persons running PCs with ACs normally just avoid playing them at my table - otherwise they have to do things like create a list of "tricks" and all that...
But having an AC that can talk?! think of the Role Playing chances!
Judge as AC: "Does this saddle make me look fat?"
Druid player: "...there is no safe answer to that question..."
