FAQ on Hat of Disguise duration


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 147 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

The devs have stated the answer so this will likely lead to a "no reply needed". I don't see them changing the answer to "ok it has no duration". At best you will have errata stating that certain magic items have a limited duration.

Then people will still complain that it was a bad decision, but normally when someone says no and you keep asking they tend to say "no" in much more stern voice. That "voice" in this case will be errata if they answer it again. Anyway I am done here most likely. There is no point in debating since people are trying to change the words to say what they want them to say despite the devs saying "this is how we want this to work".

I don't disagree with you - however what other recourse is there for people who have been playing from the first AD&D book and used the item the same way up until Pathfinder decided to change it.

Not all change is bad - in fact the reason I love pathfinder is it cleaned up alot of the problems with the d20 system - however in some cases they make a bad call - monk flurries was one - this is another - honestly not enough for me to make a fuss over - I'll just houserule it to work the way I've expected it to for the past 30+ years. It was specifically 'at will' in the old AD&D DMG.

As was said earlier in the thread - this type of activation and power has been playtested over the years to be very sure it doesn't cause an issue in play - so I'm unsure why the change happened - perhaps it was intent - perhaps this was accidental - some of the FAQs I think have been made because intentional rule changes in one area had a side affect on others that wasn't caught in the language until much later (see sunder for example). Once pointed out the Dev's are faced with leaving well enough alone (re-enforce printed text) or making further changes that could have wide impacts (see un-intended changes just above) - no dev wants to change language that can cause further issues - it would have been nice for them to FAQ it with something more like 'if no activation method is listed - it is up to the GM to decide activation on an item'

Which would have honestly solved the issue.


Ckorik,

Pathfinder did not change the rules. It has been like this since at least 3.0 (as has been shown). What has changed is your understanding of the rules.

Ultimately, this only matters in PFS games. As you stated, if it is your home game you can house rule it.

BTW, it is still "at will" which means, as much as you want not 'by force of will'. People have been misunderstanding "at will" for decades too. This wouldn't be the first time I have heard someone say "at will" thinking it meant "by force of will".


wraithstrike wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Not one of the four of us thought it was continuous or even possibly continuous, but it's true that I personally wasn't sure it defaulted to command word over use-activated until some people in the thread pointed out that it's in the rules for rings.
There you go. No dev, not even a former regular boardmember thought it was continuous.

So if it's use activated then does that mean you have to remove it, or just 'Will it' to activate it. And I take it you can overlap the castings.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Not one of the four of us thought it was continuous or even possibly continuous, but it's true that I personally wasn't sure it defaulted to command word over use-activated until some people in the thread pointed out that it's in the rules for rings.

Though I disagree with the PDT's decision in the matter of this FAQ, I would nevertheless like to thank you, Mark, for clarifying the above point for us.

Do you have any advice for us on how the 3-minute ring of invisibility should be repriced, or how we should price a use-actived, continuous version of said ring?

Also, does this FAQ ruling have a similar effect on hats of disguise, whose rules seem to be worded differently from rings of invisibility?

Silver Crusade

Gauss wrote:

Ckorik,

Pathfinder did not change the rules. It has been like this since at least 3.0 (as has been shown). What has changed is your understanding of the rules.

Ultimately, this only matters in PFS games. As you stated, if it is your home game you can house rule it.

BTW, it is still "at will" which means, as much as you want not 'by force of will'. People have been misunderstanding "at will" for decades too. This wouldn't be the first time I have heard someone say "at will" thinking it meant "by force of will".

They wrote 'On command...' for command word items.

They wrote 'At will...' for items activated by a silent act of will.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Gauss wrote:

Ckorik,

Pathfinder did not change the rules. It has been like this since at least 3.0 (as has been shown). What has changed is your understanding of the rules.

Ultimately, this only matters in PFS games. As you stated, if it is your home game you can house rule it.

BTW, it is still "at will" which means, as much as you want not 'by force of will'. People have been misunderstanding "at will" for decades too. This wouldn't be the first time I have heard someone say "at will" thinking it meant "by force of will".

They wrote 'On command...' for command word items.

They wrote 'At will...' for items activated by a silent act of will.

That's always seemed reasonable to me, but I'm not sure it was ever that codified.


"At Will" in 3.X/PF has never meant 'silent act of will'. It might have meant that in previous editions (I no longer have my 1st and 2nd edition books) but IF it did then that was an english error on the part of the Developers of those editions.

Frankly, I would like to see where it defines "At Will" as 'silent act of will'.


Dude, seriously? Go through the books yourself and find _any_ mention of both 'at will' and 'command word' in the same magic item.

I looked through both 1st and 2nd edition DM's guides and never once saw it. They are always used exclusive of each other. Is this just a coincidence? Can you explain why they are always separate other than that they refer to separate activation requirements?

'At will' means that as long as you can exert your will you can activate it.

If you're silenced, you can use an 'at will' item but not a 'command word' item. There is no 'English' error except on the part of those trying to distort the original meaning of the words.


_Ozy_, perhaps you should read the part where it says 'I no longer have my 1st and 2nd edition books'. Kinda hard to go through books I do not have.

Perhaps you should read the entire post before jumping on me. :)

So, do you have a quote where it defines "At Will"?


1st edition DMG

Quote:


Command words
In order to use a rod, staff, or wand it is usually necessary to know the proper command word.
Page 119

This is the only section on how command words operate - however each of those magic item sections also note command words - rings do not. I would also note that rings operated at CL 12 for all effects.

AD&D 2nd edition DMG continues this with no command word language for rings - the specific description for ring of invisibility (unchanged from 1st)

Quote:

The wearer of an invisibility ring is able to become invisible at will, instantly. This nonvisible 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.

At this point I remind you that command word activated items actually used segments of time to cast and would not go off when you activated them - much like spells. That is one of the reasons the 'at will, instantly' is important in the early version of the language - unlike 3.0 and forward spells didn't take a standard action and a spellcaster was vulnerable to interruption frequently (like summoning spells, or silence is currently).

3.0 is where it changed - first adding command words to rings and then changing the description of the ring of invisibility:

Quote:

Invisibility

By activating this simple silver ring, the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell.

Faint illusion; CL 3rd; Forge Ring, invisibility; Price 20,000 gp.

3.5 kept this wording. As did pathfinder - apparently something many of us didn't notice.

I'll chalk this up to another 'magic items from 3.0 onward kind of are disappointing compared to the magic items from 1st/2nd edition. This is just another instance of the same thing.

*edit* fixed broken quotes


Thank you for that Ckorik. I have also been pointing out in various threads that Pathfinder hasn't changed anything relating to this topic. It has been that was since 3.0. (I do have my books going back to 3.0 still.)


Gauss wrote:

_Ozy_, perhaps you should read the part where it says 'I no longer have my 1st and 2nd edition books'. Kinda hard to go through books I do not have.

Perhaps you should read the entire post before jumping on me. :)

So, do you have a quote where it defines "At Will"?

I have posted many direct quotes from the books supporting my assertions, including the fact that 'at will' and 'on command' are used exclusive of each other for every item in which either appears. Furthermore, they specifically call out command words for other items like wands, staves, and rods (and even specify it as an optional rule).

It doesn't specifically define 'at will' because it doesn't need to. If I have an ability 'at will' it means I can do it whenever I 'will' it. To 'will' something to happen has a pretty straightforward meaning. Similarly, when they say 'on command', they don't actually say you have to form the syllables with your mouth, exhale with your lungs, and make a specific phonetic sequence of sounds. 'At will' and 'on command' are called out as different activation methods in both 1st and 2nd edition, you never see them used together.

Would you ever argue that 'on command' could refer to a mental command? Or do you only insist that 'at will' is ambiguous?

If a monster can teleport 'at will', I can't prevent it just by slapping up a silence spell, and I don't know of any GM who would rule otherwise...except perhaps you? In all your experiences as a GM, did you (or would you) ever allow a silence spell to override 'at will' monster abilities?


Contrasting the items that have "at will" vs "on command" does not provide a definition. It simply illustrates that they are different somehow.

Now, if you can provide an example that states "at will" is "mental activation" then you may have something.

However, the english language definition of "at will" is basically 'when one wants to'. Not 'mental activation'.

I am not saying it is not mental activation, I do not have the 1st or 2nd edition rulebooks. I am asking do you have proof beyond 'contrasting activation methods' especially when the definition you are using for "At Will" is not the same definition the english language uses.


Gauss wrote:

Contrasting the items that have "at will" vs "on command" does not provide a definition. It simply illustrates that they are different somehow.

Now, if you can provide an example that states "at will" is "mental activation" then you may have something.

However, the english language definition of "at will" is basically 'when one wants to'. Not 'mental activation'.

I am not saying it is not mental activation, I do not have the 1st or 2nd edition rulebooks. I am asking do you have proof beyond 'contrasting activation methods' especially when the definition you are using for "At Will" is not the same definition the english language uses.

Dude, no I already told you it doesn't specifically define 'at will' any more than it defines 'on command'. If you want to argue that this allows 'at will' to mean you have to speak, then I suppose I can argue that 'on command' means 'mental command', even though in context both interpretations are obviously wrong.

All you have to do is read the text in context, and the meaning becomes clear. Otherwise you have to explain to me why the two are never, ever used together in an item description. Do you have any such explanation? If you want to assert that 'at will' means you have to use a command word, you yourself should start producing evidence to support your claim. The burden of proof shouldn't be so one-sided, rather than insisting that Webster's be inserted for every word in the book. I listed such things as:

1) 'on command' always listed exclusive from 'at will'
2) Command words called out for wands, staves, rods
3) Command words listed as an optional rule for wands, staves, rods

and you were further informed regarding the difference in initiative values between instant, at will activation and command word activation.

All of these things are right from the 2nd edition DM's guide.

But you never did answer my question, it was a serious one.

As a GM, did you or would you allow a spell of silence to prevent 'at will' monster abilities, like 'at will' teleport? Did monsters have to use a command word to activate their 'at will' abilities?


Yes, they were different. How are they different? You keep ascribing that the context specifies but I have yet to see any proof of this. Context is certainly showing they are different, I acknowledged this. But without an example of how 'at will' is different the assumption that it is mental activation is just that, an assumption. It is not the rules.

In any case, we are far off topic. This is not 1st/2nd edition. It is 3.X/PF.

As for silence preventing 'at will' monster abilities like teleport?

If it is an at will spell then the rules are clear, they cannot speak the verbal component.

If it is an at will spell-like ability then there is no verbal component and silence will have no effect.

If it is an at will supernatural ability then again, there is no verbal component and silence will have no effect.

If you mean how would I rule in 1st or 2nd edition I do not have the rulebooks so I could not rule.


What if the ability just said:

Quote:
The faerie dragon is able to become invisible at will, instantly. This nonvisible state is exactly the same as the wizard invisibility spell.

How would you rule?

The reason why it has some relevance is that there are a few people involved in the discussion that insist such items have always been command word activated. The fact that they are wrong on this rather undermines their credibility when it comes to interpreting similar language in 3.5 and PF.


If it is 3.X/PF is it spell, spell-like, or supernatural? That will determine the ruling.

If it is first or second edition then I could not make any ruling since I do not have the book.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

fretgod99 wrote:

Whether you think the shift was accidental or not is irrelevant; it's been explicitly stated that this is how the items work now. Ergo, the paradigm has shifted.

And the release of the last two FAQs absolutely means the PDT deliberately decided that this ring should need a command word and should only work for 3 minutes.

I think it is more like some people were not running it the way it was designed and the FAQ is to make clear the design.

kinevon wrote:
Maybe because I have been playing since the 70s? And that was how it worked when I played 3.0/3.5 with WotC GMs. YMMV, but it really, really, isn't worth that kind of money.

I've read the 1e PHB and DMG, nothing in there proves it was silent or continuous. The 1e book is silent on how the ring is activated using only "various things tried" as the general activation language. So this basically means "GM Rule 0" folks.

The 2e book has a line in the PHB stating that all rings are Command word activated and the word is usually on the inside.

The 3e book and up default is command word unless otherwise.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
They wrote 'At will...' for items activated by a silent act of will.

In 3.0/3.5/PF "At Will" means no usage limit.


James Risner wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
They wrote 'At will...' for items activated by a silent act of will.
In 3.0/3.5/PF "At Will" means no usage limit.

But not consistently. After all the Ring of Invisibility does not use the phrase. That doesn't mean there's some unspecified usage limit.


James Risner wrote:


I've read the 1e PHB and DMG, nothing in there proves it was silent or continuous. The 1e book is silent on how the ring is activated using only "various things tried" as the general activation language. So this basically means "GM Rule 0" folks.

The 2e book has a line in the PHB stating that all rings are Command word activated and the word is usually on the inside.

Proves? We're not in a court of law here. However, the preponderance of the evidence clearly falls on 'at will', instant activation for an unlimited duration. The PHB seems to somewhat conflict with the DMG in 2nd edition in that there is only one ring with the type of activation listed in the PHB.

As the magic items are defined in the DMG, perhaps that's a better source to consider. And no, the PHB doesn't say the word 'all' anywhere regarding command words for rings, the DMG specifically identifies which rings use command words, and it's the ring of blinking. Period.

The DMG also goes on to call out command words as an optional system, identify them for use with wands, staves, and rods, and exclusively uses command word or at will activation for all other magic items, period. They are never used together. When you have dozens and dozens of items that follow this rule, perhaps it actually means something.

So clearly there is no way to read it other than 'at will' != 'command word'. You may insist that 'at will' isn't specifically defined, but since it's not a command word, and you can do it instantly perhaps the best definition is the one that actually uses the English language: you can 'will' the effect to happen.

There is simply no language that leads one to believe that the simplest English definition is not the most appropriate in those cases, so why insist that words mean something other than what they say?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

_Ozy_ wrote:
So clearly there is no way to read it other than 'at will' != 'command word'.

Clearly I don't agree it is so clear, as I still haven't seen anything that makes "at will" and "command word" mutually exclusive.

You are taking cues from the more relaxed writing style of the earlier editions to derive info about the meanings that later editions clarified. So either they changed it between editions or it didn't work the way you believe in the past.

There isn't anything clear in the rules to answer this. You have hints I believe irrelevant and I've got hints you are ignoring.


I guess if you think that it's merely a coincidence that for dozens and dozens of magic items, you never, ever see 'on command' and 'at will' used together to describe the activation of an item, and that they are instead interchangeable expressions, I doubt any further discussion will convince you otherwise.

Such things are only unclear to those who have a vested interest in not admitting being wrong.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

_Ozy_ wrote:
I guess if you think that it's merely a coincidence that for dozens and dozens of magic items, you never, ever see 'on command' and 'at will' used together

There are tons of items with "on command" and "at will" since they mean different things. "On command" is the activation method and requires a command word be spoken as a standard action. "At will" simply means no limit on the number of times you may use it.

Items with both on command and at will:
Ring of the Sophisticate
Scepter of Heaven
Bastard's Sting

I got bored so I'm not listing the 17 other items I found in a quick search.

I do get it. You do believe you are right. But the words don't mean what you say they mean. At least not to the developers and many other people (GM, Players, etc.) But they do mean what you think to you and some others. There just isn't any rule in any book to confirm your understanding.

Silver Crusade

If you think that 'at will' could mean either 'activated by a silent act of will' OR 'activated as many times per day as you want', then that very same logic would mean that 'on command' could mean either 'on spoken command' OR 'on mental command'.

If that were true back in 1st and 2nd ed, then 'on command, 5/day' (a format which is used) would reside among items which said 'on command, at will' (which, according to that logic could also mean 'on mental command, at will'). However, that form is never used.

Why? Because they wrote 'on command' for command word items and wrote 'at will' for items activated by a silent act of will. This was informative and functional. If 'at will' didn't have a certain meaning, then neither did 'on command'.

There is no need to write 'at will' if you mean 'without limit'! You just have to say, 'When activated, this item [does X]. You don't need to write [does X] at will, because it does X every time you activate it. If there was a daily limit, then it would say so! The phrase 'at will', to mean 'without a daily limit', would be a totally superfluous phrase.

So we are comparing a system where 'on command' and 'at will' are phrases with a definite, useful meaning, against an assertion that neither of these these two phrases has a definite OR a useful meaning!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
I guess if you think that it's merely a coincidence that for dozens and dozens of magic items, you never, ever see 'on command' and 'at will' used together

There are tons of items with "on command" and "at will" since they mean different things. "On command" is the activation method and requires a command word be spoken as a standard action. "At will" simply means no limit on the number of times you may use it.

Items with both on command and at will:
Ring of the Sophisticate
Scepter of Heaven
Bastard's Sting

I got bored so I'm not listing the 17 other items I found in a quick search.

I do get it. You do believe you are right. But the words don't mean what you say they mean. At least not to the developers and many other people (GM, Players, etc.) But they do mean what you think to you and some others. There just isn't any rule in any book to confirm your understanding.

Is this a joke? We're talking about the items from 1st and 2nd edition AD&D, and how for those items including the ring of invisibility, 'at will' means something different than 'on command'.

In fact, there are plenty of 'on command' items from those sources that are not limited use and still don't use 'at will' because they aren't 'at will', they are 'on command'.

So, just what the heck does finding non-1st, 2nd edition AD&D items have to do with how 'at will' and 'on command' were treated for those books? We have ample evidence that for those books, 'on command' means something different than 'at will', so for those books the most straightforward definition is the one that follows plain English: an 'at will' ability is one that can be activated by 'willing' it to happen.

If future designers and writers choose to mix at will and command word abilities, that means nothing compared to how those previous items worked. And, despite your repeated insistence, 1st and 2nd edition ring of invisibility did not use a command word.

Liberty's Edge

Can someone show me an item in which the phrase "at will" means mental activation as opposed to "unlimited daily usage"?

Every context of "at will" that I've read has to do with frequency, not that it is mentally activated—not that something that is "at will" can't be activated mentally, just that "at will" itself doesn't mean it's mentally activated.

EDIT: clarity


I'm still not sure how the FAQ didn't answer the questions in the OP. PDT apparently feels the same way since the request was marked "no reply required".

I'm ready for the Ring of Invisibility threads to die. This is like the fourth one in the last two weeks we've all had the same conversations in.


fretgod99 wrote:

I'm still not sure how the FAQ didn't answer the questions in the OP. PDT apparently feels the same way since the request was marked "no reply required".

I'm ready for the Ring of Invisibility threads to die. This is like the fourth one in the last two weeks we've all had the same conversations in.

I think it's not so much a case of people being too stupid to grasp the divine wisdom of the PDT as it is them (GASP, HORROR!) not liking the ruling and wanting it reconsidered.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Although I didn't like 3.5's Magic Item Compendium for a few reasons*, I did really appreciate how every item was given an "activation" line indicating how to... well, activate it. Very useful.

*It was magic item porn. Just vulgar, heaving loads of magic items all rubbing up on each other.


What I don't get is why people think this ruling is so odd. It is clearly in the rules.

Any item that reproduces a spell uses the caster level for any and all level dependent variables (unless stated otherwise). Why do people think that duration is not one of those variables?

It simply doesn't make sense how people have glossed over a rule that has existed in the (3.X/PF game system) for 14 years.

The PDT did not change anything when they issued this FAQ.

Silver Crusade

fretgod99 wrote:

I'm still not sure how the FAQ didn't answer the questions in the OP. PDT apparently feels the same way since the request was marked "no reply required".

I'm ready for the Ring of Invisibility threads to die. This is like the fourth one in the last two weeks we've all had the same conversations in.

If an item has that phrase, and it means 'unlimited uses per day', then the phrase 'at will' would be totally superfluous. You could remove it and the fact that the item says that it does X when activated, and the item doesn't mention a limit on the number of times it can be activated, means that it has unlimited uses per day.

The phrase would by completely pointless. Unlike its actual use, which is to denote activation by a silent act of will, as opposed to the phrase 'on command' which denotes activation by a spoken command, as opposed to a mental command.

If a football player has 82 on his jersey, and his teammates, opponents and officials refer to him as 'number 82', would you be satisfied that the reason they call him '82' is because that's the number on his shirt? Or would you insist that there could possibly be another reason for that nickname, that his current shirt number must be a coincidence and that anyone saying that he's called 82 because of his jersey number has no proof and therefore they must be wrong?

In the first two editions, the phrases 'at will' and 'on command' never appear together, command word items took segments to use where at will items were instantly activated, the phrase 'at will' would be wasted ink if it meant 'unlimited uses', all support the case for definate meanings of these phrases. Against which there is the claim that 'you have no proof, therefore it must be the other way', where the other way has each phrase with an uncertain meaning. Comparing these two cases, one is clearly stronger.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

_Ozy_ wrote:
So, just what the heck does finding non-1st, 2nd edition AD&D items have to do with how 'at will' and 'on command' were treated for those books? We have ample evidence that for those books, 'on command' means something different than 'at will',

It does mean something different.

"On command" means you must say a command word.
"At will" means you can activate it any number of times a day.

You have shown nothing in 1e, 2e, or 3e/PF to counter this interpretation.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
the phrase 'at will' would be wasted ink if it meant 'unlimited uses', all support the case for definite meanings of these phrases.

Idiom:

at will
Just as or when one wishes.

Nothing about mental. "At Will" is a medical/legal term. It means basically as many times as you like. Or in D&D 1e world, it means "unlimited uses".

Silver Crusade

Gauss wrote:

What I don't get is why people think this ruling is so odd. It is clearly in the rules.

Any item that reproduces a spell uses the caster level for any and all level dependent variables (unless stated otherwise). Why do people think that duration is not one of those variables?

It is! For those items which 'cast' a spell. No problem at all. The PDT is correct, and obviously correct, in this regard.

The only trouble is, the ring of invisibility is simply not the kind of item which casts the spell on the wearer. What it does is, when worn and activated, make the wearer invisible: 'benefits from invisibility'. This invisible state is as described in the spell description, because that's where the invisible state was always described in previous editions. But 'being invisible', the same kind of invisibility you'd be if the spell was cast on you, doesn't mean the spell has actually been cast on you.


Malachi Silverclaw, really? What do you base this on? Because it is right in the description:

CRB p481 Ring of Invisibility wrote:
By activating this simple silver ring, the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell.

Nothing about the state. Instead it references the spell "Invisibility".

CRB p301 wrote:

INVISIBILITY

School illusion (glamer); Level bard 2, sorcerer/wizard 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M/DF (an eyelash encased in gum arabic)
Range personal or touch
Target you or a creature or object weighing no more than 100 lbs./level
Duration 1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless) or Will negates (harmless, object); Spell Resistance yes (harmless) or yes (harmless, object)

The creature or object touched becomes invisible. If the recipient is a creature carrying gear, that vanishes, too. If you cast the spell on someone else, neither you nor your allies can see the subject, unless you can normally see invisible things or you employ magic to do so.

Additionally, what does the hyperlink on the word "Invisibility" in the Ring link to? The spell.

Now, in the spell we do have a reference to the condition (state) of being invisible. That reference is the word "Invisible". The hyperlink there links to CRB p567.

CRB p567 wrote:
Invisible: Invisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against a sighted opponent, and ignores its opponent’s Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). See Invisibility, under Special Abilities.

As you can see the condition (state) of being invisible then references the rules on invisibility on CRB p563. The rules on CRB p563 is not a 'state of invisibility'. It is the rules FOR invisibility.

Summary: The Ring references the spell name and then states "as the spell". There is no reference to the state of being invisible except in the spell itself.


To put this to bed (yeah right) here is the clear logic:

Command Word:
1) GMG p117 shows that the pricing is Command Word (2*3*1,800gp = 10,800gp) before being bumped up to 20,000gp due to unlimited use of Invisibility being considered too powerful.

2) CRB p478 section on Rings states that, unless specified, rings are either Command Word or Continuous.
As per point #1 the ring is not continuous and since there is no specified method of activation it MUST be Command Word.

Duration:
3) CRB p460 section on Caster Level (CL) states that for all level dependent variables the CL is used unless the description states otherwise.
Since the ring is not continuous (#1 and #2) and there is no statement otherwise and since the Ring of Invisibility specifically references the spell "Invisibility" then the duration MUST be 3 minutes.

This is all right in the rules. The ONLY part that might have been up for debate would be whether the Ring is Command Word or Continuous. However, the GMG has clearly answered that question.

Whether you like this or not it is quite clear in the rules.
Points #2 and #3 have not changed since 3.0 (I can provide the relevant page numbers of the rules in each DMG).
Point #1 has not changed since 3.5 when the WotC Devs posted their pricing for the Ring which was the same as what the Paizo Devs have posted.

The rules have not changed for 14 years. The Paizo Devs did not change anything posting this FAQ other than people's mis-understanding of the rules.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Gauss wrote:
The rules have not changed for 14 years. The Paizo Devs did not change anything posting this FAQ other than people's mis-understanding of the rules.

+1


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, I'm most disappointed as GM. This essentially makes a hat of disguise useless for masquerading monsters hiding amidst the humans. It also seems rather counterproductive for an item ostensibly used for infiltration to require you to vocalize a command word every ten minutes to maintain a disguise.


Prince Yyrkoon wrote:
Well, I'm most disappointed as GM. This essentially makes a hat of disguise useless for masquerading monsters hiding amidst the humans. It also seems rather counterproductive for an item ostensibly used for infiltration to require you to vocalize a command word every ten minutes to maintain a disguise.

The hat, not being a ring, might be mental activation. The ring of invisibility however is most definitely a command word. What happened was the ring discussion took over the hat thread. :)


wraithstrike wrote:
Prince Yyrkoon wrote:
Well, I'm most disappointed as GM. This essentially makes a hat of disguise useless for masquerading monsters hiding amidst the humans. It also seems rather counterproductive for an item ostensibly used for infiltration to require you to vocalize a command word every ten minutes to maintain a disguise.
The hat, not being a ring, might be mental activation. The ring of invisibility however is most definitely a command word. What happened was the ring discussion took over the hat thread. :)

That seems much more sensible.


James Risner wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
the phrase 'at will' would be wasted ink if it meant 'unlimited uses', all support the case for definite meanings of these phrases.

Idiom:

at will
Just as or when one wishes.

Nothing about mental. "At Will" is a medical/legal term. It means basically as many times as you like. Or in D&D 1e world, it means "unlimited uses".

Perhaps - but you do have to admit that in 1st edition (2nd is slightly more clouded with the odd difference between the PHB and the DMG) the one thing rings did not do was take a command word.

1st was very clear about it - 2nd was all over the place (special place in my heart for the odd/broken weirdness that 2nd gave us - much fun was had until near the end when it became monty python on steroids)

3rd put command word on rings - and then made the ring itself no longer a state but a spell - regardless of how long you noticed the change (I say you meaning many posters reading this - not you specifically James) please understand there were many of us apparently that totally missed that change - much like the little things that did change from 3.5 to pathfinder that can get us - this is one of those things that if you played 'one way' in 1st... 2nd didn't change enough to change the way we were playing and frankly it was easy to miss the change moving to 3.

That's like 30ish years (for myself) of using the item one way - yeah maybe 14 of those I was wrong - but 16 I was right. I just thought it was odd to add a spoken command word to that item - I still do. I do think people are perhaps being too stuck on what 'at will' must have meant - enough people played it both ways that surely we can agree that many read it as one or the other and once they did - that's how they stuck with it.

I'd be curious to do a study on this kind of thing and see if there was a general geographical spread that biased how you read and played these types of rules - it might be fascinating :)

There is no reason to dismiss how many people read the rule and played it (in the earlier additions) as if it was non-logical or false - that's a bit too much.

Liberty's Edge

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

I'm still not sure how the FAQ didn't answer the questions in the OP. PDT apparently feels the same way since the request was marked "no reply required".

I'm ready for the Ring of Invisibility threads to die. This is like the fourth one in the last two weeks we've all had the same conversations in.

If an item has that phrase, and it means 'unlimited uses per day', then the phrase 'at will' would be totally superfluous. You could remove it and the fact that the item says that it does X when activated, and the item doesn't mention a limit on the number of times it can be activated, means that it has unlimited uses per day.

The phrase would by completely pointless. Unlike its actual use, which is to denote activation by a silent act of will, as opposed to the phrase 'on command' which denotes activation by a spoken command, as opposed to a mental command.

If a football player has 82 on his jersey, and his teammates, opponents and officials refer to him as 'number 82', would you be satisfied that the reason they call him '82' is because that's the number on his shirt? Or would you insist that there could possibly be another reason for that nickname, that his current shirt number must be a coincidence and that anyone saying that he's called 82 because of his jersey number has no proof and therefore they must be wrong?

In the first two editions, the phrases 'at will' and 'on command' never appear together, command word items took segments to use where at will items were instantly activated, the phrase 'at will' would be wasted ink if it meant 'unlimited uses', all support the case for definate meanings of these phrases. Against which there is the claim that 'you have no proof, therefore it must be the other way', where the other way has each phrase with an uncertain meaning. Comparing these two cases, one is clearly stronger.

Malachi, the ship has sailed. You are wrong. You don't have to like the decision, nor do you have to play it that way in your own game. But, to continue to argue in the manner in which you are is...unbecoming.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

I'm still not sure how the FAQ didn't answer the questions in the OP. PDT apparently feels the same way since the request was marked "no reply required".

I'm ready for the Ring of Invisibility threads to die. This is like the fourth one in the last two weeks we've all had the same conversations in.

I think it's not so much a case of people being too stupid to grasp the divine wisdom of the PDT as it is them (GASP, HORROR!) not liking the ruling and wanting it reconsidered.

Your (GASP) implies that I actually think people are too stupid to grasp the FAQ or that I think it's never appropriate to question a FAQ upon release or that I even implied as much in my post, none of which is remotely true.

But the OP was basically, "I don't see how this applies to the Hat of Disguise: *lists reasons that have been discussed across three threads, including the one that resulted in the FAQ*"

Then, this thread turns into yet another one where people are discussing literally the same aspects of the Ring if Invisibility that have been discussed across three other threads in the last week. It's a thread about the Hat of Disguise being different than the Ring, despite the Hat being mentioned in the very words of the FAQ as having to be treated in a similar manner. And yet again, we're talking about the Ring of Invosibility from a version of an ancestor of Pathfinder that hasn't been relevant for 30 years.

So imagine my wonder about whether this conversation is (GASP, HORROR!) even remotely relevant to anything productive about the Hat of Disguise.


Prince Yyrkoon wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Prince Yyrkoon wrote:
Well, I'm most disappointed as GM. This essentially makes a hat of disguise useless for masquerading monsters hiding amidst the humans. It also seems rather counterproductive for an item ostensibly used for infiltration to require you to vocalize a command word every ten minutes to maintain a disguise.
The hat, not being a ring, might be mental activation. The ring of invisibility however is most definitely a command word. What happened was the ring discussion took over the hat thread. :)
That seems much more sensible.

Also, you're the GM. So, if you want the item to be mental activation, then make it mental activation.


fretgod99 wrote:
Prince Yyrkoon wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Prince Yyrkoon wrote:
Well, I'm most disappointed as GM. This essentially makes a hat of disguise useless for masquerading monsters hiding amidst the humans. It also seems rather counterproductive for an item ostensibly used for infiltration to require you to vocalize a command word every ten minutes to maintain a disguise.
The hat, not being a ring, might be mental activation. The ring of invisibility however is most definitely a command word. What happened was the ring discussion took over the hat thread. :)
That seems much more sensible.
Also, you're the GM. So, if you want the item to be mental activation, then make it mental activation.

Oh, I'm more than willing to do so if necessary. I do, however, prefer to run things 'by the book" as it were when possible.

That, and it just bugs me that an item whose sole purpose is to make a magical disguise has such a glaring flaw. It just makes no sense.


wraithstrike wrote:
Prince Yyrkoon wrote:
Well, I'm most disappointed as GM. This essentially makes a hat of disguise useless for masquerading monsters hiding amidst the humans. It also seems rather counterproductive for an item ostensibly used for infiltration to require you to vocalize a command word every ten minutes to maintain a disguise.
The hat, not being a ring, might be mental activation. The ring of invisibility however is most definitely a command word. What happened was the ring discussion took over the hat thread. :)

I believe the presumption on the Ring being command word actually works the other way for the Hat. Posted about it in one of the many other threads. the general entry for Wondrous Items doesn't have the same "usually command word" language; it just says either command word or use activated. Mental activation is the only version of use activated that makes sense for the Hat because it undoubtedly is not continuous. Since there's no presumption of command word, assume it uses the most sensible activation method, which would be mental. Pricing doesn't quite workout, I don't think but *shrug*. Don't really care all that much, to be honest.


Prince Yyrkoon wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Prince Yyrkoon wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Prince Yyrkoon wrote:
Well, I'm most disappointed as GM. This essentially makes a hat of disguise useless for masquerading monsters hiding amidst the humans. It also seems rather counterproductive for an item ostensibly used for infiltration to require you to vocalize a command word every ten minutes to maintain a disguise.
The hat, not being a ring, might be mental activation. The ring of invisibility however is most definitely a command word. What happened was the ring discussion took over the hat thread. :)
That seems much more sensible.
Also, you're the GM. So, if you want the item to be mental activation, then make it mental activation.

Oh, I'm more than willing to do so if necessary. I do, however, prefer to run things 'by the book" as it were when possible.

That, and it just bugs me that an item whose sole purpose is to make a magical disguise has such a glaring flaw. It just makes no sense.

It depends on of you think the item is supposed to make a relatively permanent disguise or not. It's supposed to be limited by the spell's duration, so the disguise isn't supposed to be unending. Basically, the design of the item isn't really to guarantee long term undercover work; it's supposed to help you pass by the guards, etc.


fretgod99 wrote:
Prince Yyrkoon wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Prince Yyrkoon wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Prince Yyrkoon wrote:
Well, I'm most disappointed as GM. This essentially makes a hat of disguise useless for masquerading monsters hiding amidst the humans. It also seems rather counterproductive for an item ostensibly used for infiltration to require you to vocalize a command word every ten minutes to maintain a disguise.
The hat, not being a ring, might be mental activation. The ring of invisibility however is most definitely a command word. What happened was the ring discussion took over the hat thread. :)
That seems much more sensible.
Also, you're the GM. So, if you want the item to be mental activation, then make it mental activation.

Oh, I'm more than willing to do so if necessary. I do, however, prefer to run things 'by the book" as it were when possible.

That, and it just bugs me that an item whose sole purpose is to make a magical disguise has such a glaring flaw. It just makes no sense.

It depends on of you think the item is supposed to make a relatively permanent disguise or not. It's supposed to be limited by the spell's duration, so the disguise isn't supposed to be unending. Basically, the design of the item isn't really to guarantee long term undercover work; it's supposed to help you pass by the guards, etc.

Just getting past guards is what a potion is for. As a Hat of Disguise has no limit on the number of uses per day, it is effectively an unlimited duration, and as such the disguise is, in fact, unending. Requiring a command word activation would just an unnecessary burden.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Ckorik wrote:
That's like 30ish years (for myself) of using the item one way - yeah maybe 14 of those I was wrong - but 16 I was right.

All editions use the 2nd level spell Invisibility for how the effect works. They changed the spell from unlimited in 1e to 24 hours in 2e and finally to what we know now in 3e/PF.

Summary Table:
Edition - Activation Method - Ring Effect - Spell Effect
1e --- "various things tried" (DMG p129) --- "exactly the same as the magic-user invisibility spell" (DMG p130) --- "remains in effect until" and "Casting Time: 2 segments" (DMG p70)
2e --- Command Word from PHB, unspecified in DMG, but in early editions things were not consolidated --- As Spell --- 24 hours max
3e --- Command Word --- As Spell --- 1 minute per CL

It is reasonable to think of it as continuous because the spell lasted indefinitely and 24 hours in 1e/2e. I never thought of it as continuous, but rather an item that gives me a spell effect. So it didn't seem to me that the item changed from 2e to PF. I also apparently had GM's that interpreted "various things" to include command words. If it simply was "put it on" then "various things" isn't the right words.

In 1e/2e times, the number of people playing the game was not that many. I played 9 years straight of 1e into 2e with one group. The same 7 people every week. The same GM. How we played the game may not have been exactly as written. Today we play with different people each night of the week. With different people you have different perspectives of how the rules work. This produces a better understanding of the rules.

Ckorik wrote:
There is no reason to dismiss how many people read the rule and played it (in the earlier additions) as if it was non-logical or false - that's a bit too much.

I don't think it is as much that they are non-logical or false. It is more like this was 14+ years ago we all might be remembering it incorrectly. Plus we were more isolated and likely had a limited number of other people we knew playing. So we may not have been playing strictly by the book.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Prince Yyrkoon wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Prince Yyrkoon wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Prince Yyrkoon wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Prince Yyrkoon wrote:
Well, I'm most disappointed as GM. This essentially makes a hat of disguise useless for masquerading monsters hiding amidst the humans. It also seems rather counterproductive for an item ostensibly used for infiltration to require you to vocalize a command word every ten minutes to maintain a disguise.
The hat, not being a ring, might be mental activation. The ring of invisibility however is most definitely a command word. What happened was the ring discussion took over the hat thread. :)
That seems much more sensible.
Also, you're the GM. So, if you want the item to be mental activation, then make it mental activation.

Oh, I'm more than willing to do so if necessary. I do, however, prefer to run things 'by the book" as it were when possible.

That, and it just bugs me that an item whose sole purpose is to make a magical disguise has such a glaring flaw. It just makes no sense.

It depends on of you think the item is supposed to make a relatively permanent disguise or not. It's supposed to be limited by the spell's duration, so the disguise isn't supposed to be unending. Basically, the design of the item isn't really to guarantee long term undercover work; it's supposed to help you pass by the guards, etc.
Just getting past guards is what a potion is for. As a Hat of Disguise has no limit on the number of uses per day, it is effectively an unlimited duration, and as such the disguise is, in fact, unending. Requiring a command word activation would just an unnecessary burden.

That's my basic problem with all these items. Command word (or even mental) activation every 3 minutes or every 10 minutes is an unnecessary hassle, since it really is unlimited except in some odd circumstances.

I'm also amused by fretgod hand waving the price calculation of the hat away after so many pages arguing based on the price guidelines. The hat is the only item we've talked about that actually matches the command word pricing, but hey, no reason it can't be use-activated.

51 to 100 of 147 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / FAQ on Hat of Disguise duration All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.