|
For FAQing:
Are magical items with no listed duration and no uses per day assumed to have an unlimited duration?
Take the hat of disguise and ring of invisibility, for example. Once activated, do they have indefinite duration? Or is the duration limited by the duration of their related spell effects and the caster level of the item? (Three minutes for a ring of invisibility and ten minutes for a hat of disguise in this case.)
This has come up time and time again with strong arguments on both sides. I encourage you to FAQ it and help us find an answer.
The description is different:
Hat of Disguise: This apparently normal hat allows its wearer to alter her appearance as with a disguise self spell.Ring of Invisibility:By activating this simple silver ring, the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell.
With the hat you change your appearance within the limits imposed by the spell but you don't cast the spell, no duration is listed, so it has an unlimited duration.
With the ring you cast the spell, so it has the same duration as the spell.
Same question, but for boots of levitation.
Can I levitate a few feet off the ground, then sleep for 8 hours while comfortably floating?
Same logic:
Boots of Levitation:On command, these boots allow the wearer to levitate as if she had cast levitate on herself.The boots cast the spell, so you get a levitate spell, duration included.
|
|
No, this question is a good one. The literature for ring of invisibility is the One Ring for many people. Which was... use activated? He puts it on and disappears. There's no speaking in a loud voice every 3 minutes, the ring just lets him disappear. The ring itself just says "by activating this ring", doesn't say how.
For the rest it's more balance than anything else. How useful is a hat of disguise that will only ever let you disguise yourself for 10 minutes before (obviously) recasting a spell? Well, not useful for those 11 minute meetings. "Yes sir, I'm definitely human like you. I only shout fishwaffles every 10 minutes because of a nervous tick". Using a ring of invisibility to scout would be a minute moving in, a minute scouting, and a minute running back before having to speak in a loud, clear voice that would ruin any scouting. Again. Seems easier just to make it an on/off thing.
The best argument that they're not unlimited is by determing whether they were priced as command word activation or continuous, but if you can fit ring of invisibility to the formula I'd be very surprised.
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. Command word activation means that a character speaks the word and the item activates. No other special knowledge is needed.
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.
Sometimes the command word to activate an item is written right on the item. Occasionally, it might be hidden within a pattern or design engraved on, carved into, or built into the item, or the item might bear a clue to the command word.
The Knowledge (arcana) and Knowledge (history) skills might be useful in helping to identify command words or deciphering clues regarding them. A successful check against DC 30 is needed to come up with the word itself. If that check is failed, succeeding on a second check (DC 25) might provide some insight into a clue. The spells detect magic, identify, and analyze dweomer all reveal command words if the properties of the item are successfully identified.
It say speak. Not shout, not in a strong voice. You can speak in a wisper.
A thought: if the ring of invisibility works as the spell (except only affecting the wearer) and lasts three minutes, can you make multiple people invisible, by swapping around the ring?
You got a rules citation for 3.5 that shows it works that way? I only ever saw it as a continuous item, with the invisibility suppressed when someone attacked, not as something that needed to be activated, in whatever fashion, every three minutes.
Apparently it was a blog post, I think. The old link is here, but it no longer works. It's quoted in a few places, but I can't find the original source, anymore.
Back in 3.5 WoTC had an article where they walked people through pricing the Ring of Invisibility. 2*3*1800=10800gp (command activated, unlimited charges thus no 5/charges per day). They then increased it to 20,000gp due to usefulness. The equations have not changed much since WoTC explained things.
Since I've quoted this information so much I decided to hunt for the statement. Here it is: Damn, now Im quoting WoTC material again!
This is the relevant quote:
For example, a ring of invisibility is a command-activated item that duplicates a 2nd-level spell, and its caster level is 3rd (the minimum to cast the spell). According to Table 7-33, such an item has a cost of 2 x 3 x 1,800 gp (spell level x caster x 1,800 gp). So, a ring of invisibility costs 10,800 gp, right? Wrong, it costs nearly twice that much (20,000 gp) because an endless supply of invisibility spells are worth something extra.Edit: there have been a few changes to the pricing of all of this but, the rationale for most of the pricing schemes can still be found in that article.
- Gauss
"a ring of invisibility is a command-activated item that duplicates a 2nd-level spell, and its caster level is 3rd (the minimum to cast the spell). According to Table 7-33, such an item has a cost of 2 x 3 x 1,800 gp (spell level x caster x 1,800 gp). So, a ring of invisibility costs 10,800 gp, right? Wrong, it costs nearly twice that much (20,000 gp) because an endless supply of invisibility spells are worth something extra."
-----
Oh, and the main reason a ring of greater invisibility would be expensive as all get out is that it circumvents one of the few weaknesses of a regular ring of invisibility, going visible when attacking.
Well, yeah. But it'd be a command word item, like the Ring of Invisibility, so it would only last 7 levels. Regardless, that's more than enough for just about every single combat you'd be in. So, it's essentially permanent greater invisibility - really powerful to say the least.
No, having to reactivate a hat of disguise every 10 minutes is definitely against the spirit of the item, and should be something mentioned in its write-up, since that would be a fairly significant curb on its use, even above and beyond using the head slot.
I didn't mention Hats of Disguise. However, it does hold to the same structure as Rings of Invisibility; it functions "as [relevant spell]". While this argument is persuasive for the Hat of Disguise, it isn't determinative. However, the discussion from the GameMastery Guide makes it abundantly clear that PF's Ring of Invisibility is intended to function as a command word item.
And this discussion has come up with the ring of feather falling. How does that work? Is it a duration, with additional activations each X rounds, if you haven't landed yet? Or does it just go off when you fall more than X feet, and stay active until you land?
The Ring says it functions just like the spell. So, when you fall for more than 5', the Ring automatically activates (because that's what the item says it does). You fall 60' for one round, because it's CL1 and the spell has a duration of 1 round/level. If you've reached the ground by then, we're done. If you haven't reached the ground by then, you resume falling at a normal rate of speed (as per the language of the spell). Once you fall more than 5', the Ring kicks in again, because you've once again tripped the trigger for its function. Lather, rinse, repeat until you're no longer falling or dead from old age.
Do any of the Pathfinder novels/comics have any similar items? Do they have to be re-activated every few minutes? That might give us an indication of intent.
What we have is people trying to use unwritten rules in items text to make powerful items even more powerful than they are.
To be fair, there isn't a huge difference between having to activate it every ten minutes, and it just going on and on. It's only in specific scenarios that it becomes problematic.
(This may well vary though, depending on the manner of re-activation; saying a command word while invisible is likely a dead giveaway, for example. A mental action, on the other hand would likely be glossed over by the players and simply assumed to have happened in a round where the player wasn't doing much of anything anyways.)
Do any of the Pathfinder novels/comics have any similar items? Do they have to be re-activated every few minutes? That might give us an indication of intent.
What we have is people trying to use unwritten rules in items text to make powerful items even more powerful than they are.To be fair, there isn't a huge difference between having to activate it every ten minutes, and it just going on and on. It's only in specific scenarios that it becomes problematic.
(This may well vary though, depending on the manner of re-activation; saying a command word while invisible is likely a dead giveaway, for example. A mental action, on the other hand would likely be glossed over by the players and simply assumed to have happened in a round where the player wasn't doing much of anything anyways.)
That's where the arts of misdirection, stealth, bluff, and distraction come into play. And sometimes the mundane methods are simply better. In a Pathfinder scenario, our group had to do a bit of skullduggery in the Chellish Embassy. Now fortunately we had a bard ally who was keeping a certain ambassador distracted which gave us a total of an hour to get the job done and out. After sneaking about a bit, we came into a supply closet with servant's uniforms and the rest of our job was simply a matter of not hanging around long enough in one spot for anyone to ask questions.
As much magic as my arcane trickster commands, he's not forgotten the plain utility of the mundane skills of stealth, bluff, and disguise.
I don't think that story had anything to do with the discussion at hand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is why I've never bought a Hat of Disguise, and I never understood why everyone thought so highly of them. The duration makes it an undesirable item, since, for one round every 10 minutes, your disguise is blown.
It's for the true master of disguise. You use a mundane disguise to mask your true appearance. Then the Hat of Disguise allows you to drop magical disguises on top of your mundane disguise. That way, even when people see thru your disguise, they are simply seeing another disguise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No reason to not reactivate the Hat early. The durations overlap.
Life happens, I guess.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You got a rules citation for 3.5 that shows it works that way? I only ever saw it as a continuous item, with the invisibility suppressed when someone attacked, not as something that needed to be activated, in whatever fashion, every three minutes.Apparently it was a blog post, I think. The old link is here, but it no longer works. It's quoted in a few places, but I can't find the original source, anymore.
I have better search-fu :)
Making Magic Items (Part Seven) by Skip WilliamsI don't see any real difference here. if it says AS the spell, it means it operates AS the spell. The items have spell effects and caster levels built in. Ipso Quacko Dotto.
It clearly is not casting, as Dispel could then target its activation.
Boots of Haste: 1 minute broken up into 10 individual rounds. You get the price of 1/day Haste @ 10th, but the duration is split. This clearly is also not casting.
My understanding of "A as B" is for the mechanical effect of what something does, not how it comes into being or how long. The Ring of Invisibility gives you the same effects as the spell, which are being unseen with a break clause; bonus to miss chance; ability to sneak attack; and so on. Lasting 1 minute per level is not a mechanic, and so is not part of what you get with the "A as B" wording.
While I see the argument that the ring's CL 3 means 3 minutes, I also see the RAI legacy: Until Broken -> 24H or Broken -> 3.X => PF. The 24H limit was rationalized as a wearer being unable to not attack a bothersome fly or some such for more than 24H. Since that limit did not cause problems in play, it was generally ignored as "OK...Reactivate" and you are briefly visible after attacking that fly. In combat, you know to ignore the fly, so no chance of that accidently making you visible.
/cevah
|
|
The whole legacy argument for the ring of invisibility forget something: with the AD&D 1st edition version if you broke your invisibility attacking you were unable to reactivate the ring for 10 minutes. 1st and 2nd editions gave you what is now the invisible condition, there was nothing in the description about casting the spell.
The 3.x version say "benefit from invisibility, as the spell.", a big change from the earlier versions. As 3.x has the invisible condition it would have been very simple to say "make you invisible", without the need to add "as the spell".
BTW, the One Ring is a ring of improved invisibility, it allow you to attack and remain invisible.
You got a rules citation for 3.5 that shows it works that way? I only ever saw it as a continuous item, with the invisibility suppressed when someone attacked, not as something that needed to be activated, in whatever fashion, every three minutes.Apparently it was a blog post, I think. The old link is here, but it no longer works. It's quoted in a few places, but I can't find the original source, anymore.I have better search-fu :)
Making Magic Items (Part Seven) by Skip Williams
Nice. Didn't even think about archive.
I don't see any real difference here. if it says AS the spell, it means it operates AS the spell. The items have spell effects and caster levels built in. Ipso Quacko Dotto.It clearly is not casting, as Dispel could then target its activation.
Boots of Haste: 1 minute broken up into 10 individual rounds. You get the price of 1/day Haste @ 10th, but the duration is split. This clearly is also not casting.
My understanding of "A as B" is for the mechanical effect of what something does, not how it comes into being or how long. The Ring of Invisibility gives you the same effects as the spell, which are being unseen with a break clause; bonus to miss chance; ability to sneak attack; and so on. Lasting 1 minute per level is not a mechanic, and so is not part of what you get with the "A as B" wording.
While I see the argument that the ring's CL 3 means 3 minutes, I also see the RAI legacy: Until Broken -> 24H or Broken -> 3.X => PF. The 24H limit was rationalized as a wearer being unable to not attack a bothersome fly or some such for more than 24H. Since that limit did not cause problems in play, it was generally ignored as "OK...Reactivate" and you are briefly visible after attacking that fly. In combat, you know to ignore the fly, so no chance of that accidently making you visible.
/cevah
The only difference in how the Boots of Speed function and Haste functions is in how the duration is broken up. I don't see why there's a limit to the mechanical benefit, though. Are there noncontinuous magical items where the duration doesn't match up to the CL and spell duration (without the difference being explicitly stated in the item's entry)?
The bigger issue for me is that legacy (pre-3.0) is irrelevant in the case of the Ring of Invisibility. For one thing, (as noted by Diego) the legacy argument is ignoring the restriction on reactivation time. For another, the GMG from Paizo and the quote you found the source for from WotC unequivocally demonstrate that the intent of the developers of 3.X was for the Ring to be a command word item, not a continuous one. I honestly don't know how you can argue around that.
Even if one thinks the RAW is ambiguous, the RAI is abundantly clear; the developers intended for this item to be use-activated, not a continuous effect. Unless there's commentary from somewhere undercutting that intent (so, demonstrating that the alternative interpretation of RAW is equally legitimate), I don't see how the continuous effect argument can be correct.
Perhaps I was confused. I distinctly remember developers of old stating that the ring of invisibility and the hat of disguise were intended to work continuously. I imagine the contradictory FAQ entry came later.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The whole legacy argument for the ring of invisibility forget something: with the AD&D 1st edition version if you broke your invisibility attacking you were unable to reactivate the ring for 10 minutes. 1st and 2nd editions gave you what is now the invisible condition, there was nothing in the description about casting the spell.
The 3.x version say "benefit from invisibility, as the spell.", a big change from the earlier versions. As 3.x has the invisible condition it would have been very simple to say "make you invisible", without the need to add "as the spell".
I just checked my copies of the 1st and 2nd edition DMGs. Both have the same description:
The wearer of an invisibility ring is able to become invisible at will, instantly. This nonvisable state is exactly the same as the wizard invisibility spell, except that 10% of these rings have inaudibility as well, making the wearer absolutely silent. If the wearer wishes to speak, he breaks all silence features in order to do so.
Absolutely nothing about having to wait to reactivate. And it very clearly stats it works as the spell.
I can see way some people may have believed the ring was active constantly, because Invisibility had a duration of 24 hours in 2nd edition. It wasn't active constantly, it just seemed like it with such a long duration.
The only difference in how the Boots of Speed function and Haste functions is in how the duration is broken up. I don't see why there's a limit to the mechanical benefit, though. Are there noncontinuous magical items where the duration doesn't match up to the CL and spell duration (without the difference being explicitly stated in the item's entry)?By definition there are not, unless I'm misunderstanding you. You only know the duration doesn't match the CL and spell duration, if it explicitly states it in the item's entry.
The Cloak of Etherealness works for up to 10 minutes per day in 1 minute increments. It's a CL 15 and the duration of the referenced spell is 1rd/level = 15 rds.
That's basically my point: noncontinuous magical items that don't follow the restrictions of the spell with regard to duration and the like explicitly tell you that they don't.
There's also a difference between "at will, instantly" and "Command word activated". Even if the duration were shorter, all you'd have to do is think "invisible" every once in awhile, rather than find a secluded spot where you can say "abracadabra" again every 3 minutes.The whole legacy argument for the ring of invisibility forget something: with the AD&D 1st edition version if you broke your invisibility attacking you were unable to reactivate the ring for 10 minutes. 1st and 2nd editions gave you what is now the invisible condition, there was nothing in the description about casting the spell.
The 3.x version say "benefit from invisibility, as the spell.", a big change from the earlier versions. As 3.x has the invisible condition it would have been very simple to say "make you invisible", without the need to add "as the spell".
I just checked my copies of the 1st and 2nd edition DMGs. Both have the same description:
The wearer of an invisibility ring is able to become invisible at will, instantly. This nonvisable state is exactly the same as the wizard invisibility spell, except that 10% of these rings have inaudibility as well, making the wearer absolutely silent. If the wearer wishes to speak, he breaks all silence features in order to do so.Absolutely nothing about having to wait to reactivate. And it very clearly stats it works as the spell.
I can see way some people may have believed the ring was active constantly, because Invisibility had a duration of 24 hours in 2nd edition. It wasn't active constantly, it just seemed like it with such a long duration.
Then it certainly makes sense why legacy players might have thought the Ring of Invisibility in 3.X would have been continuous. I think it's clear now that the intent changed, but that wasn't made particularly clear at the time.
How that impacts Hats of Disguise is up for debate. My take is that they should operate just like Rings of Invisibility do (command word), largely because of the similar construction of the entries and the lack of language stating they don't follow the restrictions of the spells. But that likely has to do with how I thought about the items coming into this (which is that they aren't continuous).
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't a binary choice between 'continuous' and 'command-word activated'. 'Continuous' implies that whenever you don the hat or ring then it affects you whether you like it or not, and neither item works like that.
But 'Command-word activated' could work in one of two ways:-
• activate it and it casts the spell on you (as an SLA), and has the normal duration of the spell (using the CL of the item)
• activate it, then it lasts until you de-activate it, or until you remove the item
I've played with some DMs who ruled one way, and some who ruled the other.
Imagine you wanted a ring that worked the second way. How does the invisibility work exactly? As the spell. This doesn't mean you intend it to stop working after so many rounds! You'd still write 'as the spell'. This phrase doesn't help us determine which way it works. There are phrases that would be clear: '...cast at CL3' would be clear because the only difference CL would have here is duration. '...be invisible (as the spell) until you will yourself visible (or remove the ring)' would also be clear. But ...'as the spell' could be interpreted either way.
My first ever D&D character was in 1st ed, and my DM had the ring work at will and I'd stay invisible until I chose to end it, or until I removed the ring, even if I attacked!. Looking back, he was almost certainly wrong about the last bit. : )
BTW, the One Ring worked as soon as you put it on whether you liked it or not (or made a pretty hard Will save), because 'Evil Artifact'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My first ever D&D character was in 1st ed, and my DM had the ring work at will and I'd stay invisible until I chose to end it, or until I removed the ring, even if I attacked!. Looking back, he was almost certainly wrong about the last bit. : )
As far as I can tell, by 1E RAW you'd appear if you attacked, but the ring would always allow you to disappear immediately after the attack.
BTW, the One Ring worked as soon as you put it on whether you liked it or not (or made a pretty hard Will save), because 'Evil Artifact'.
It made the hobbits invisible. It didn't do that for Sauron (not in the films, anyway). I assume it would work differently depending on species/class/personality type.
It isn't a binary choice between 'continuous' and 'command-word activated'. 'Continuous' implies that whenever you don the hat or ring then it affects you whether you like it or not, and neither item works like that.
But 'Command-word activated' could work in one of two ways:-
• activate it and it casts the spell on you (as an SLA), and has the normal duration of the spell (using the CL of the item)
• activate it, then it lasts until you de-activate it, or until you remove the item
I've played with some DMs who ruled one way, and some who ruled the other.
Imagine you wanted a ring that worked the second way. How does the invisibility work exactly? As the spell. This doesn't mean you intend it to stop working after so many rounds! You'd still write 'as the spell'. This phrase doesn't help us determine which way it works. There are phrases that would be clear: '...cast at CL3' would be clear because the only difference CL would have here is duration. '...be invisible (as the spell) until you will yourself visible (or remove the ring)' would also be clear. But ...'as the spell' could be interpreted either way.
My first ever D&D character was in 1st ed, and my DM had the ring work at will and I'd stay invisible until I chose to end it, or until I removed the ring, even if I attacked!. Looking back, he was almost certainly wrong about the last bit. : )
BTW, the One Ring worked as soon as you put it on whether you liked it or not (or made a pretty hard Will save), because 'Evil Artifact'.
Eh, it's hard to stretch "as the spell" to mean "of infinite duration", particularly when the intent for the Ring of Invisibility is clearly to be a command word item. If it were command word but of infinite duration, it might as well be at will or at least continuous, for practical game situations, anyway.
If it duplicates the spell in question (which is also what the WotC quote demonstrates), it stands to reason that it is supposed to be limited in the same way the spell is limited, unless specifically told otherwise. Since the magic items that provide spell-like benefits but don't comport with the relevant spell's duration limitations generally specifically tell you that, it seems to me that the most logical assumption is that if you are not told that the duration for an activated magic item's spell-duplicating effects is different than the relevant spell, you are limited by that spell's duration.
After all, if something is an exception it is generally called out as an exception. You don't call out things that work like everything else ordinarily does.
There is no instance I know of where an item with infinite uses is called out as having a duration. And it seems really pointless to me, since you can just reset the duration anytime you want, without letting it expire. Sure, it imposes minor limitations on the items, in terms of action economy or having to reactivate it secretly. Most of the time, those would be more annoying than anything. You'd have to track any stealth missions round by round to know when he'd have to reactivate them, but unlike a spell version, those missions could last as long as you want.
That's sort of the point, though. Whether the item is limited in duration only really matters in specific circumstances, like when you're closely tracking actions (i.e., in combat). But in those settings, the action economy necessary to use the item (particularly something like a Ring of Invisibility) is actually really important.
There is a huge difference between having to reactivate your Ring to go invisible by using a standard action (which is what is intended by the developers) and simply having it turn you invisible (?) if it's a continuous effect item. And I've not seen a good explanation for when and how such a ring renews its effect after you attack with it.
While the duration bit might not be the most important part (because for the most part you can probably handwave it), the activation certainly matters. But duration also matters for entering into combat as well. "I go invisible first thing in the morning" means surprise rounds and the like might be handled completely differently than going invisible at the first sign of trouble. It also changes the scouting out the enemy's position style mission. If you know you're only guaranteed invisibility for a short duration, is your stealthy character going to go traipsing through the middle of the courtyard of the enemy's fort to figure out precisely where all the bad guys are?
So I don't think the duration is pointless, even if it's not as important as the activation of the magic item's power.
Can anyone point to an infinitely usable item with a specified duration limit? Or one with an unusable short limit, if you go by CL/spell duration? A CL1 round/level item wouldn't be much use, for example.
Ring of Feather Falling. That's the only one immediately coming to mind, anyway.
EDIT: Well I suppose that the duration on that isn't specified. My bad. I failed.
Compare to the Ring of Freedom of Movement. That Ring allows the wearer to act "as if continually under the effect of a freedom of movement spell." Here's an effect they clearly wanted to be continuous, so they specifically state that.
Also, the Boots of Levitation allow unlimited use. They allow "the wearer to levitate as if she had cast levitate on herself." I don't think much argument can be made here that there is a limited duration. It explicitly calls out that the wearer essentially "casts" the spell. The item's CL would provide the relevant duration (three minutes). But this can be done however many times the wearer wishes in a day. I can't really see an argument in this case for a limitless duration on levitation.
So I guess the question is whether people think "as if she had cast [relevant spell] on herself" is really any different than "the wearer benefits from [relevant effect], as the spell". I don't see why these should be treated any differently.
As for reactivating after attack, I'd make that take the standard action, either for a command or to take it off and put...
I don't think so. I think it's a pretty safe assumption that the effect created by a magic item lasts as long as the equivalent spell would at the relevant caster level.
For instance, how long does the paralysis effect of an Alluring Golden Apple last? The subject is paralyzed "as if by hold person". This is actually quite similar to the phrasing of the Ring of Invisibility. Is the paralysis effect indefinite, or is it 4 rounds (1 round/CL with a CL of 4)?
Compare: Broom of Flying (usable as if affected by Overland Flight up to 9 hours per day, but in any combination - CL 9); Carpet of Flying (usable as if affected by Overland Flight of unlimited duration); and, Cauldron of Flying (usable on command, as if affected by Overland Flight, no duration given - CL 10).
What do you believe is the duration limit, if any, of the Cauldron of Flying's power? It's clear that when they intend for an effect to be infinite in duration, they can and do spell it out. It's also clear that when the effect has a duration that departs from the equivalent spell's duration (or can be broken up differently), they can and do spell it out. So what happens when they don't spell out what the duration should be? It stands to reason that it functions as if that spell had been cast, using the items CL to calculate the effect.
Similarly, what is the duration for a Cauldron of Seeing? Is it limitless, or is it ten minutes (1 minute per level, CL 10)? It functions like a Crystal Ball. What is the limit of the duration of its power? We know there must be a limit on the duration because it is usable an unlimited times per day (with the ability to scry on the same target multiple times). However, the DC to resist gets easier with each use. Likely then, there is a time limitation on the power.
I have to run. There may be other examples to compare. But to me it seems a pretty safe bet that if there's a noncontinuous magic item that grants an effect that mimics a spell, unless a specific duration of the effect is provided, the duration is the same as it would be had the spell itself actually been cast.
Whether something is a rule and whether you choose to enforce that rule are two separate questions. Seems like since someone asked in the rules forum whether these items have a specific duration and how these things are activated, this would be an appropriate time to discuss whether the rule exists.
Your desire to enforce that rule or not, assuming it is one for the sake of argument, is irrelevant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If there is an intention to limit something like a Hat of Disguise, you don't do it by forcing someone to use a Command Word every 11 minutes...all day long. That's not silly, that's retarded. The collective intelligence at WotC/Paizo isn't that stupid (I'm hoping). Only a GM trying to nerf a player/item would try to interpret an item working like that.
But WotC did intend for it to have the same duration as the spell, as shown in the 3.5 FAQ.
What is the duration of the invisibility granted by a ring of invisibility?
In general, you should assume that any spell effect mimicked by a magic item treats all variables of the effect as if it were the spell cast with the item’s caster level. In this case, the duration of the ring’s ability is the equivalent of an invisibility spell cast by a 3rd-level caster (the ring’s caster level): 3 minutes. Of course, nothing prevents a character from activating the ring’s power more frequently than this (thus ensuring a constant invisibility), as long as he’s willing (and able) to spend the actions to do so.
And
I’m looking at the descriptions for the various command activated magic rings in the DMG, and I can’t find any mention of how long these powers actually last once activated. For example, how long do you blink when you activate a ring of blinking? How long can you turn spells when you activate a ring of spell turning? What happens if I activate a ring twice? Do the durations stack?
In the case of a ring (or any other item) that duplicates a spell effect, one activation functions for the same duration as the duplicated spell cast by a character of the ring’s caster level. For example, when you activate a ring of blinking you will blink for up to 7 rounds since the ring’s caster level is 7th. Since blink is a dismissible spell, you can use a standard action to deactivate the effect sooner if you like. In some cases, an item’s description specifies a different duration for a spell effect. For example, when you activate a ring of spell turning, the ring turns the next nine levels of spell cast on you, no matter how long that takes.
If you activate an item again before a previous activation runs out, the two durations overlap, they do not stack. For example, of you active a ring of blinking and blink for 3 rounds, then activate it again, you wind up blinking for 10 rounds in total. In the case of a ring of spell turning, a new activation would mean the ring would turn the next nine levels of spells cast on you after the second activation (any unused turning from the previous activation would be lost).
Whelp, there you go.
My take would be you lose the benefit of the spell once you take the ring off. It's not something specifically addressed by the rules, but I think it's fair to say that's not the intent (passing the ring around).
And you can't benefit from more than two rings at a time (barring specific rules otherwise), so the item switching usn't a problem even if people want to force the issue on passing the ring around.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My take would be you lose the benefit of the spell once you take the ring off. It's not something specifically addressed by the rules, but I think it's fair to say that's not the intent (passing the ring around).
That fails to address the fact that they are affected as if "by the spell" - which, since we're running with that (and it makes sense), given that the spell doesn't have a focus (ring) as a prerequisite makes it an intentional nerf on your part.
And you can't benefit from more than two rings at a time (barring specific rules otherwise), so the item switching usn't a problem even if people want to force the issue on passing the ring around.
This... doesn't show insight into the endless creativity of players.
Operation:
- gain benefits (as the spell)
- remove ring
- put on a +1 instead
- keep your other ring
Voila - they are now not benefiting from three rings (directly), but rather, from two rings and a spell.
While it's up to interpretation (and, of course, you are free to read it however you like), to me (as a GM) it feels very disingenuous to claim, "No, see, it's totally just casting a spell, then they benefit from the spell." in one breath and "No, see, they're benefiting from the ring, 'cause it's a ring." in the other.
If I run with it as "it casts the spell", then, for my own conscious, I'd need to let it function as the spell (e.x. "range: touch" doesn't mean the wizard has to continue to touch you the whole time, and thus the ring doesn't either).
Otherwise, it's an arbitrary restriction and makes an item suck pretty badly.
I get why people like to nerf magic items - I even get that it's the intent, based on the other quotes.
To me, as a GM, I find it lame. I don't like giving my players things that will annoy them. Alas. :/
(And still, nobody ever uses wishes in my game due to paranoia, or, if they do, they do so in really weird ways.)
I know why players want to try it. I also know it's probably directly against the intent of the items to do this.
This is one of those, "Seriously? This game is completely stacked in your favor. You know it's not supposed to work like that." dituations for me.
Rings of Invisibility are command word items. There's no indication that they work differently than 3.5 where they had a duration of 3 minutes, limited by the relevant spell and the item's CL (as do all noncontinuous magic items that don't otherwise specify a duration). That the rules never specifically spoke to the ring swapping idea is of no moment to me.
Also, I don't know that the Ring casts the spell; it provides the same effect as the spell, subject to the same limitations (including duration). If you like to think of that as casting the spell, I honestly don't care. The power is intended to be tied to the ring. Take it off, you lose the power. And each activation lasts for at most 3 minutes.
If people want to handwave the reactivation outside of combat, that's cool. Seems like a perfectly fine way to handle things. In the grand scheme of things, it likely won't change much.