| 33 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a spinoff from the thread concerning CL affecting magic item effect duration comes a new question.
Do magical effects with a specified duration, activated from command word magic items terminate before the duration is up if the magic item 1) leaves the possession of the activator for non-slotted items or 2) is removed from the worn slot for slotted items.
1) would be like the previously proposed orb that bestows a 1 hour mage armor 5/day
2) would be like the 3 minute invisibility from the ring of invisibility, or the 1 hour temporary hit points from the vampiric gloves
For the purpose of this question we are not counting staves, or wands since they actually cast spells.
Temporary hit points as a result of a successful use of vampiroc touch (even from the gloves) is a separate matter. It's not particularly analogous. It's more along the lines of damage from a fireball necklace, etc. It shouldn't be impacted by removal of the relevant item.
As for the primary question, no you should not be able to pass around a Ring of Invisibility. Hopefully we can get a quick response and put this to bed.
Temporary hit points as a result of a successful use of vampiroc touch (even from the gloves) is a separate matter. It's not particularly analogous. It's more along the lines of damage from a fireball necklace, etc. It shouldn't be impacted by removal of the relevant item.
As for the primary question, no you should not be able to pass around a Ring of Invisibility. Hopefully we can get a quick response and put this to bed.
I agree with this. I might need to add something to separate special cases like vampiric touch from spells with a normal duration.
I understand there will be corner cases. Hopefully the PDT sees that and sets up some general guidelines for when to make exceptions so people don't get confused.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FAQd. Totally FAQd.
I'm pretty solidly of the opinion that slot-items need to be worn in the slot to function (the ring of invisibility generates the invisibility, it doesn't "cast" invisibility on the wearer), which I think follows naturally from the rules for wearing items, but I can guarantee that there are corner-cases where it doesn't work like that.
Can you dispel temporary hit points? Damage from a fireball is also a magical benefit.
Temporary hit points are not analogous to a continued state like invisibility or alter self. Temporary hit points are the result of the magic effect, like damage. Invisibility is the effect itself.
*shrug*
Ok, I stand corrected. Temporary hit points go away if you remove the glove. Works for me.
Edit: Feels a bit odd because the hit points are coming from an instantaneous effect. So while you couldn't dispel them after casting the actual spell, I think it makes sense to dispel them if the gloves granting the attack grant the effect.
That being said, I'm still of the opinion that the gloves actually let the wearer cast the spell. So there's that. But ultimately it's probably easier to get rid of that distinction (assuming it exists) and treat them all the same. So glove off, no hit points. Ring off, no invisibility.
Can you dispel temporary hit points? Damage from a fireball is also a magical benefit.
Temporary hit points are not analogous to a continued state like invisibility or alter self. Temporary hit points are the result of the magic effect, like damage. Invisibility is the effect itself.
You can dispel temporary hit points created by spell effects.
Certain effects give a character temporary hit points. These hit points are in addition to the character's current hit point total and any damage taken by the character is subtracted from these hit points first. Any damage in excess of a character's temporary hit points is applied to his current hit points as normal. If the effect that grants the temporary hit points ends or is dispelled, any remaining temporary hit points go away. The damage they sustained is not transferred to the character's current hit points.
When temporary hit points are lost, they cannot be restored as real hit points can be, even by magic.
You can dispel a false life spell and the temp hp from vampiric touch.
You could not dispel an undead's temp hp from their (su) energy draining, for an example of non spell temp hp.
Well, I don't think you actually can dispel the temporary hit points from Vampiric Touch. The language is "If the effect that grants the temporary hit points ... is dispelled". Vampiric Touch is an instantaneous effect, which you cannot dispel after the fact. That the hit points have a duration doesn't matter, I don't think. What matters is the effect that grants them. If it has an ongoing duration and is subject to being dispelled, then so too are the temporary hit points.
False Life has a longer duration, so that would obviously be subject to getting dispelled.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I don't think you actually can dispel the temporary hit points from Vampiric Touch. The language is "If the effect that grants the temporary hit points ... is dispelled". Vampiric Touch is an instantaneous effect, which you cannot dispel after the fact. That the hit points have a duration doesn't matter, I don't think. What matters is the effect that grants them. If it has an ongoing duration and is subject to being dispelled, then so too are the temporary hit points.
False Life has a longer duration, so that would obviously be subject to getting dispelled.
Reread Vampiric Touch.
The duration is not just instantaneous. It is instantaneous/1 hour + see text. It does damage on a touch (instantaneous) and gives temp hp for 1 hour (ongoing spell duration for the magical temp hp).
Vampiric touch
School necromancy; Level sorcerer/wizard 3
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range touch
Target living creature touched
Duration instantaneous/1 hour; see text
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes
You must succeed on a melee touch attack. Your touch deals 1d6 points of damage per two caster levels (maximum 10d6). You gain temporary hit points equal to the damage you deal. You can't gain more than the subject's current hit points + the subject's Constitution score (which is enough to kill the subject). The temporary hit points disappear 1 hour later.
Not much to differentiate it from false life.
False Life
School necromancy; Level sorcerer/wizard 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (a drop of blood)
Range personal
Target you
Duration 1 hour/level or until discharged; see text
You harness the power of unlife to grant yourself a limited ability to avoid death. While this spell is in effect, you gain temporary hit points equal to 1d10 + 1 per caster level (maximum +10).
Yeah, that's how I would have thought the ring would have worked. However, all the language like 'as the spell' has lead to the rule that command word items duplicate the effects of the spell, including the duration. Thus the need for the FAQ, does the duration terminate early which would be not 'as the spell'. Hopefully we'll get that cleared up.FAQd. Totally FAQd.
I'm pretty solidly of the opinion that slot-items need to be worn in the slot to function (the ring of invisibility generates the invisibility, it doesn't "cast" invisibility on the wearer), which I think follows naturally from the rules for wearing items, but I can guarantee that there are corner-cases where it doesn't work like that.
Yep, that's how I'd have thought it worked until we started to treat it as casting the spell. If it's enough of a spell to check the duration, it should be enough of one to work without the ring being on past activation. It's arbitrary to not treat it like a spell and require the ring.
I've read the spell. I made reference to the second duration in my previous post.
The section on dispelling temporary hit points says they can be dispelled if the underlying effect is dispelled. That's the difference. VT gives an instantaneous effect that results in THP which can last up to an hour. False Life is itself an ongoing effect, which is subject to being dispelled.
Whether that's determinative or not, I'm not sure. But it certainly is a fair question.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a spinoff from the thread concerning CL affecting magic item effect duration comes a new question.
Do magical effects with a specified duration, activated from command word magic items terminate before the duration is up if the magic item 1) leaves the possession of the activator for non-slotted items or 2) is removed from the worn slot for slotted items.
1) would be like the previously proposed orb that bestows a 1 hour mage armor 5/day
2) would be like the 3 minute invisibility from the ring of invisibility, or the 1 hour temporary hit points from the vampiric glovesFor the purpose of this question we are not counting staves, or wands since they actually cast spells.
[distress sounds from the background]
After that and having FAQed the post, my opinion:
Items that have a constant effect after being activated by a command word are easy: you lose them, the effect stop.
X uses day items that generate an effect after they have been activated are way trickier as there are several different kinds.
I am fairly sure that a Lantern of revealing will continue to work even if it wasn't in someone possession.
A Lyre of Building instead would stop working immediately if put down.
We could check tons of different items and find different replies for every one.
Personally I think that most items should fall in the "must be worn" category but RAW "cast spell X" seem to mean the exact opposite. After the item has cast the spell on its target there is nothing, rule wise, that force you to keep it in your possession or in one of your slots.
Official Rules Response
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Magic Items, Wearers, and Durations: If a magic item grants an effect with a duration to the wearer, can I put it on, activate the effect, take it off, and keep the effect active?
No, as soon as you remove an item that grants an effect to the wearer, you are no longer the wearer, so any remaining duration immediately expires. The same is true if the item affects the owner, wielder, and so on. If the item's effect does not specify the recipient as the wearer (or owner, wielder, etc), then unless it says otherwise, it remains when the item is removed.
Sweet. Thanks for the rapid response!
|
|
Magic Items, Wearers, and Durations: If a magic item grants an effect with a duration to the wearer, can I put it on, activate the effect, take it off, and keep the effect active?
No, as soon as you remove an item that grants an effect to the wearer, you are no longer the wearer, so any remaining duration immediately expires. The same is true if the item affects the owner, wielder, and so on. If the item's effect does not specify the recipient as the wearer (or owner, wielder, etc), then unless it says otherwise, it remains when the item is removed.
Applause.
A concise and clear reply!I thought it was hard to give a reply , but this seem to cover all angles.
Well this was probably the fastest faq ive seen
True. While I'm happy to have an answer this quick (and a well written too), I'm a bit disappointed it didn't give a reason.
It acts like a spell except when it doesn't cuz...? Balance? Tradition? Something else? Maybe Mark or another dev could comment if they have a chance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well this was probably the fastest faq ive seen
It's probably easier when everyone already knows the answer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well this was probably the fastest faq ive seenIt's probably easier when everyone already knows the answer.
When everyone already knows an answer, there's a good chance somebody is still wrong.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I'm a bit disappointed it didn't give a reason.
It is probably because they don't like magic items being "spells in a can" except for expendable items.
So any magic item that gives you a spell can't be used like "I put blah on, use the spell, then take it off."
Basically, there is a desire to make you wear the item that grants you the benefit and not swap it in for the benefit.
I'm a bit disappointed it didn't give a reason.It is probably because they don't like magic items being "spells in a can" except for expendable items.
So any magic item that gives you a spell can't be used like "I put blah on, use the spell, then take it off."
Basically, there is a desire to make you wear the item that grants you the benefit and not swap it in for the benefit.
If so, that's cool but I'd like to hear them say why if for no other reason than to satisfying my curiosity.
Well this was probably the fastest faq ive seenTrue. While I'm happy to have an answer this quick (and a well written too), I'm a bit disappointed it didn't give a reason.
It acts like a spell except when it doesn't cuz...? Balance? Tradition? Something else? Maybe Mark or another dev could comment if they have a chance.
Because the intent is for the magic item to give you the benefit of the spell as long as you wear the item not to cast the spell on you as if it was a wand or scroll.
Because the intent is for the magic item to give you the benefit of the spell as long as you wear the item not to cast the spell on you as if it was a wand or scroll.Well this was probably the fastest faq ive seenTrue. While I'm happy to have an answer this quick (and a well written too), I'm a bit disappointed it didn't give a reason.
It acts like a spell except when it doesn't cuz...? Balance? Tradition? Something else? Maybe Mark or another dev could comment if they have a chance.
See my post above your. I'm not really curious what YOUR guess is, just what the devs where thinking. I'd rather not put words in their mouths about their intent.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I'm not really curious what YOUR guess is, just what the devs where thinking. I'd rather not put words in their mouths about their intent.
That kind of thing isn't something they are much inclined to provide. The FAQ system needs to be "this is how the rules work". If you get much into the reasoning behind it, the clarity of the response is diminished. Especially if the people involved don't understand or appreciate the reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Besides, c'mon. The reason isn't exactly rocket science.
I'm not really curious what YOUR guess is, just what the devs where thinking. I'd rather not put words in their mouths about their intent.That kind of thing isn't something they are much inclined to provide. The FAQ system needs to be "this is how the rules work". If you get much into the reasoning behind it, the clarity of the response is diminished. Especially if the people involved don't understand or appreciate the reason.
Sigh... Here is what I posted. "Maybe Mark or another dev could comment if they have a chance." If a dev wanders in and wants to comment, I'd appreciate it. That's all I said.
What I didn't ask for was for everyone else's guesses. I can guess all day too but it doesn't answer my question.
As too the FAQ part: I've seen several FAQ threads where they have indeed commented on reasons. I see no harm in seeing if this might be another one they chime in on. The worst that can happen is they don't want to. I really didn't think it'd be a big deal to ask...
See my post above your. I'm not really curious what YOUR guess is, just what the devs where thinking. I'd rather not put words in their mouths about their intent.Because the intent is for the magic item to give you the benefit of the spell as long as you wear the item not to cast the spell on you as if it was a wand or scroll.Well this was probably the fastest faq ive seenTrue. While I'm happy to have an answer this quick (and a well written too), I'm a bit disappointed it didn't give a reason.
It acts like a spell except when it doesn't cuz...? Balance? Tradition? Something else? Maybe Mark or another dev could comment if they have a chance.
Since they use my logic on every FAQ minus the Monk flurry debacle you might not want to assume i dont know what I'm talking about.
What I didn't ask for was for everyone else's guesses. I can guess all day too but it doesn't answer my question.
It's a discussion board. We gonna discuss.
I'm honestly not sure what reason there would be beyond "The item is providing the benefit, so you need to keep wearing it to keep receiving the benefit."
I'm honestly not sure what reason there would be beyond "The item is providing the benefit, so you need to keep wearing it to keep receiving the benefit."
I think he wants to know why we are forced to wear items to keep benefiting from them even when they provide an affect the emulates a spell.
@ greydude: Also they(devs) don't like the idea of item swapping. That is why the belts and headbands have a 24 hour limit before the bonuses are permanent, and yeah they have said that on the boards.
Can anyone think of any existing items where this FAQ might make for unintended consequences?
I'm honestly not sure what reason there would be beyond "The item is providing the benefit, so you need to keep wearing it to keep receiving the benefit."I think he wants to know why we are forced to wear items to keep benefiting from them even when they provide an affect the emulates a spell.
@ greydude: Also they(devs) don't like the idea of item swapping. That is why the belts and headbands have a 24 hour limit before the bonuses are permanent, and yeah they have said that on the boards.
I'd like to know the logic for the arbitrary cut-off of treating JUST like a spell up till this point and then not the rest of the way. I'm fine with it working the way they said, I'm just in the dark as to WHY they did it.
@ greydude: If that's true, then it's no big deal to see if they'll post something similar here right?
What I didn't ask for was for everyone else's guesses. I can guess all day too but it doesn't answer my question.It's a discussion board. We gonna discuss.
Discuss away. I'm just pointing out that a non dev guess isn't the dev reply I'd wanted. Continues replies from someone the question wasn't directed to isn't very helpful.
Since they use my logic on every FAQ minus the Monk flurry debacle you might not want to assume i dont know what I'm talking about.
The only thing I'm assuming is that you aren't a dev. Your guess MAY be totally correct, but I'll never know if an actual dev doesn't reply.
Are there not gloves, that require you to take them off, to activate?
Are there? I not familiar off the top of my head, but that doesn't mean anything.
That being said, if the item's description explicitly tells you that it functions on removal, I don't see what the problem would be. It's an explicit rule that would override this more general presumption.
Are there not gloves, that require you to take them off, to activate?Are there? I not familiar off the top of my head, but that doesn't mean anything.
That being said, if the item's description explicitly tells you that it functions on removal, I don't see what the problem would be. It's an explicit rule that would override this more general presumption.
I think he was being sarcastic and trying to get RD to answer his own question at the same time.
|
|
I think he was being sarcastic and trying to get RD to answer his own question at the same time.Are there not gloves, that require you to take them off, to activate?Are there? I not familiar off the top of my head, but that doesn't mean anything.
That being said, if the item's description explicitly tells you that it functions on removal, I don't see what the problem would be. It's an explicit rule that would override this more general presumption.
Technically these items are broken by the FAQ, as they say "Both of these effects last for 1 minute, but immediately end if anyone but the glove's wearer attacks the challenged opponent. Both gloves must be worn by the same creature.Challenger's Gloves
Price 2,200 gp; Aura faint enchantment; CL 1st; Weight —
These supple, velvet gloves are the sort that might be thrown down in challenge for a duel or other single combat. By removing a glove and using it to make a melee or ranged touch attack against an opponent, the wearer of the other glove gains a +1 morale bonus on attack rolls against the target, and the target gains a –1 penalty on attack rolls against the wearer. Both of these effects last for 1 minute, but immediately end if anyone but the glove's wearer attacks the challenged opponent. Both gloves must be worn by the same creature.
but I hope ost people will get RAI.
I think he was being sarcastic and trying to get RD to answer his own question at the same time.Are there not gloves, that require you to take them off, to activate?Are there? I not familiar off the top of my head, but that doesn't mean anything.
That being said, if the item's description explicitly tells you that it functions on removal, I don't see what the problem would be. It's an explicit rule that would override this more general presumption.
Technically these items are broken by the FAQ, as they say "Both of these effects last for 1 minute, but immediately end if anyone but the glove's wearer attacks the challenged opponent. Both gloves must be worn by the same creature.Challenger's Gloves
Price 2,200 gp; Aura faint enchantment; CL 1st; Weight —
These supple, velvet gloves are the sort that might be thrown down in challenge for a duel or other single combat. By removing a glove and using it to make a melee or ranged touch attack against an opponent, the wearer of the other glove gains a +1 morale bonus on attack rolls against the target, and the target gains a –1 penalty on attack rolls against the wearer. Both of these effects last for 1 minute, but immediately end if anyone but the glove's wearer attacks the challenged opponent. Both gloves must be worn by the same creature.
but I hope ost people will get RAI.They list a rule exception in the description by saying how they work.
The idea is that for you to start the challenge both gloves must be worn. When you take one glove off and use it to challenge someone you get he bonus. If someone else attacks the creature you challenged the duration ends. I think RD was asking about RAI also, and I think he was just poking the rules for holes more than anything else.
*shakeshead* Why am I not surprised that the thread devolved?
In what way has the thread "devolved"? It looks like a perfectly fine thread to me, up until your snide and unhelpful comment, that is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wraith has it. The item says the "glove" singularly a number of times. Clearly, the item is intended to work by taking one glove off, by its nature.
Both gloves must be worn by the wearer to trigger the power when one is taken off and used to challenge. That is a way to specifically say you cannot split the gloves and have two people use them. It is also reinforced by the FAQ, in that if you remove the only glove you have on, you are no longer "the wearer" and thus can no longer benefit from the item.
No worries, it still works as intended!