FAQ on Hat of Disguise duration


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 147 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

15 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Regards to the FAQ:

Quote:

When I use a magic item like ring of invisibility or hat of disguise that can be activated to gain the effects of a spell, does the wording "as the spell" also include the spell’s duration?

Yes, such items' effects have a duration, as indicated by the spell’s duration and the item’s caster level. If the item has no daily use limit, however, you can simply use the item again to reset the duration.

I understand ring of invisibility, because that requires activation and doesn't make much sense if you could be invisible all the time. However, this doesn't make any sense for hat of disguise from a mechanical, flavor, and rules standpoint.

1) The text doesn't provide an activation method, which implies it's a continuous effect. Yes, the magic item rules do say that items without provided activation methods are command words and the item is priced as one. However, this creates an ambiguous precedent where items that were obviously intended as continuous effects now have to be activated as command words.

2) Not having it be continuous goes completely against the nature of the item if you have to activate it every 10 minutes to keep up the disguise, especially when the hat requires you to have the item be part of the disguise in some way.

3) Unlike ring of invisibility, I see little mechanical reason to not allow this item to be continuous. It strikes me that the developer writing it intended it to be a continuous item.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I would very much like to get clarification and, if possible, actual change for this item as well. FAQ'd.


If it's a continuous effect, how do you change the appearance the hat of disguise is granting?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Protoman wrote:
If it's a continuous effect, how do you change the appearance the hat of disguise is granting?

Take it off and put it back on?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Protoman wrote:
If it's a continuous effect, how do you change the appearance the hat of disguise is granting?
Take it off and put it back on?

This is actually how I've always interpreted it. There's something to be said for someone able to change identities like others change hats. ;P

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Ravingdork wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Protoman wrote:
If it's a continuous effect, how do you change the appearance the hat of disguise is granting?
Take it off and put it back on?
This is actually how I've always interpreted it. There's something to be said for someone able to change identities like others change hats. ;P

Admittedly, the item is kind of vague.

One of my characters made a custom hat of disguise where a command word changes the disguise with the hat polymorphing into whatever form that fits the disguise. For example, if you disguise yourself as an attractive elf with a barrette in her hair, the hat stays as a barrette even when you take it off. Whenever you put the barrette on, you disguise as that same elf until you decide to change the disguise with a command word. Since making this custom hat of disguise, my group has houseruled the core hat working the same way.


I agree that Hat of Disguise really should be considered a continuous effect item with a command word to turn off/on or change appearance. It's not an overly powerful item as the disguise can be detected with Detect Magic...

If it were only 10 minutes per disguise, then the item becomes pointless in my opinion.


Faelyn wrote:

I agree that Hat of Disguise really should be considered a continuous effect item with a command word to turn off/on or change appearance. It's not an overly powerful item as the disguise can be detected with Detect Magic...

If it were only 10 minutes per disguise, then the item becomes pointless in my opinion.

This is the same argument with all the items that use this mechanic and I agree with it, but it's been ruled the other way.

It's not completely pointless, just irritating. You can command the hat to reactivate and you can even do so before the duration expires, so you can stay disguised.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Its pricing pretty much hits directly on it being command word rather than continuous. 1800gp is the 1*1*1800 for command word items vs the 3000gp for a continuous 10min/level 1st level spell item (1*1*2000*1.5).


thejeff wrote:
Faelyn wrote:

I agree that Hat of Disguise really should be considered a continuous effect item with a command word to turn off/on or change appearance. It's not an overly powerful item as the disguise can be detected with Detect Magic...

If it were only 10 minutes per disguise, then the item becomes pointless in my opinion.

This is the same argument with all the items that use this mechanic and I agree with it, but it's been ruled the other way.

It's not completely pointless, just irritating. You can command the hat to reactivate and you can even do so before the duration expires, so you can stay disguised.

That is true, you can always reactivate it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
archmagi1 wrote:
Its pricing pretty much hits directly on it being command word rather than continuous. 1800gp is the 1*1*1800 for command word items vs the 3000gp for a continuous 10min/level 1st level spell item (1*1*2000*1.5).

Yeah, some of us just find the idea of a limited duration, unlimited usage item of this nature kind of silly.

Since you can effectively use it continuously, it should be continuous.


That hat is not always being used. You have to choose to use it, so it has a duration. It was even one of the examples used in the FAQ.

Not liking it does not make it "not a rule".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

That hat is not always being used. You have to choose to use it, so it has a duration. It was even one of the examples used in the FAQ.

Not liking it does not make it "not a rule".

Didn't say it was. Even said a post above "that it had been ruled that way".

It being a rule doesn't mean I have to like it.


wraithstrike wrote:

That hat is not always being used. You have to choose to use it, so it has a duration. It was even one of the examples used in the FAQ.

Not liking it does not make it "not a rule".

looks around Wraith, the rules forum is over there. This is general discussion. Whether or not aspects of the game are stupid is open for debate here.


Quote:
as with a disguise self spell

Since it's "as the spell", the FAQ applies, and you have to renew it before the duration expires, which makes it useless for, e.g., maintaining the disguise while sleeping.

Naturally, I'll ignore the FAQ (for both the ring and the hat) and suggest others do the same.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Blahpers, that it what I plan to do with my own game. I do not see allowing such items to be continuous to be game breaking...


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Faelyn wrote:
Blahpers, that it what I plan to do with my own game. I do not see allowing such items to be continuous to be game breaking...

Quite extensive play testing indicates you are correct on this. This "houserule" has been put through more rigor than any published product could hope for.

Shadow Lodge

There's a distinct difference between the ring of invisibility example and the hat of disguise example.

With the ring of invisibility, you put it on, activate it, and you're invisible. There's no other possibilities - you're either invisible, or you're not. It's active, or it's not.

With the hat of disguise, you put it on, activate it, determine the disguise you want, and it's on. Its core intent isn't a binary choice like invisibility.

When you have a wondrous item for effects like these, the intention behind having "command-word activated" seems to be to either turn the effect on or turn it off, even while you're wearing it.

If it were "continuous", it would make sense for the effect to be always-on when you put it on, and then turned off when you take it off.

To have it ruled the way it is per the FAQ will break effects on other items just like this, on a case-by-case basis.


thejeff wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

That hat is not always being used. You have to choose to use it, so it has a duration. It was even one of the examples used in the FAQ.

Not liking it does not make it "not a rule".

Didn't say it was. Even said a post above "that it had been ruled that way".

It being a rule doesn't mean I have to like it.

That was not directly specifically at you. It was for people acting as if this is not already been ruled on.


BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

That hat is not always being used. You have to choose to use it, so it has a duration. It was even one of the examples used in the FAQ.

Not liking it does not make it "not a rule".

looks around Wraith, the rules forum is over there. This is general discussion. Whether or not aspects of the game are stupid is open for debate here.

I actually thought I was in the rules forum. Well in this case you should also tell that to the people FAQ'ing it since the ruling has been made. However I do stand corrected with the forum this is in.


Avatar-1 wrote:

There's a distinct difference between the ring of invisibility example and the hat of disguise example.

With the ring of invisibility, you put it on, activate it, and you're invisible. There's no other possibilities - you're either invisible, or you're not. It's active, or it's not.

With the hat of disguise, you put it on, activate it, determine the disguise you want, and it's on. Its core intent isn't a binary choice like invisibility.

When you have a wondrous item for effects like these, the intention behind having "command-word activated" seems to be to either turn the effect on or turn it off, even while you're wearing it.

If it were "continuous", it would make sense for the effect to be always-on when you put it on, and then turned off when you take it off.

To have it ruled the way it is per the FAQ will break effects on other items just like this, on a case-by-case basis.

I don't think it really breaks anything, regardless of how irritating I find it. There's obviously some way you tell the hat what you want to look like, so I'd assume you can just do that again every <10 minutes to keep the same disguise up. Maybe there are different on and off commands and using the on one while it's still going retains the current disguise.

Though honestly, the disguise command itself has to include some kind of mental image. You can't reasonably describe a complete disguise as a standard action - you'd have to picture it.


This ruling does make the disguise hex more valuable since the disguise time is measured in hours. Previously the common opinion has been that the hex wasn't worth getting since the hat of disguise had unlimited duration.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Some items allow the wearer to cast a spell, whether on themselves or on others. Such items follow the rules for target, duration, etc. as if it were a cast spell, except where the item states otherwise.Note that wearing the item after you use it is no more required than having to wave your wand for the entire duration, or continuing to touch the target for the entire duration. Removing the item after you use it is irrelavent. The wording will be something like, 'The wearer may use disguise self (or whatever spell) on command (or at will).

There is another type of item which allows the wearer to activate it, and while activated the wearer benefits from a magical effect which is identical to the effect of the spell. It only affects the wearer, so removing it means you won't be affected by the magic anymore. But there is no duration to worry about, because it affects the wearer for as long as he wears it and it is activated. The wording will be something like, 'When activated, the wearer benefits from invisibility, as the spell', or 'The wearer may alter his appearance, as if he were under the effect of disguise self'.

So, what does the hat actually say?

Quote:
This apparently normal hat allows its wearer to alter her appearance as with a disguise self spell.

So it doesn't cast the spell on you, it's just that when you wear it you can alter your appearance in the same way that someone under the influence of the spell can change their appearance.

The price makes it clear that it's a command word activated item.

So, while worn, the wearer can say the command word and change his appearance, and the effect will last until the command word is said again (to change the disguise), or it is removed.

Imagine for a moment that it worked the other way. Imagine it allowed the wearer to 'cast' the spell on the wearer. If it's that kind of item, then it would have the same duration as the spell cast by a caster of the item's CL, but once 'used' to do this then the hat would no longer need to be worn to maintain the spell (because there is no such rule in the books), and then the hat could be passed to the next guy and he could do the same, potentially disguising the entire party.

The rules written in the book result in one or the other. Which kind do you think this hat is?

The only problem is that a couple of recent FAQs have mixed these rules up, in a way unsupported by the rules.

But how can the arbiters of the rules of the game be wrong about the rules of the game? It's impossible, isn't it? Well...the arbiters can be wrong about the rules if they break their own rules.


Just like the ring the language is not perfect. The rules are based on intention. So now we know the intent. How would you like such items to be worded in the future so that new people would not need to see the FAQ?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
wraithstrike wrote:
Just like the ring the language is not perfect. The rules are based on intention. So now we know the intent. How would you like such items to be worded in the future so that new people would not need to see the FAQ?

'The wearer of this hat may cast the disguise self spell on command. The spell ends if the hat is removed.'

For the ring:-

'While wearing this ring, you can turn invisible at will. You remain invisible until the ring is removed, or until you attack (c.f. invisibility). You may end the effect at will.'

Full disclosure: I've borrowed the phrasing for both items from the 5th ed. DMG. At least their intent is totally clear just by reading the words in the descriptions, and remain consistent with the intent for these items throughout the history of the game.

Grand Lodge

Even at 10 minutes per activation, I think this item is a steal of a deal.

I will admit that we used to run it as continuous. I always thought it was WAY overpowered, but no one I played with questioned it. When I saw the FAQ, I had mixed feelings. Partly I felt stupid for not realizing how it actually worked before, a little bit sad that I couldn't pull off all the silly shenanigans that it used to allow, but mostly I was actually happy to see that it wasn't as powerful as I had once thought (this from a GM perspective) and interested in seeing how I and my fellow players were going to work in using the command word when we were in situations where prolonged contact with someone meant needing to reactivate in or near their presence.

I think that probably it will be good for RP in the long run.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Just like the ring the language is not perfect. The rules are based on intention. So now we know the intent. How would you like such items to be worded in the future so that new people would not need to see the FAQ?

'The wearer of this hat may cast the disguise self spell on command. The spell ends if the hat is removed.'

For the ring:-

'While wearing this ring, you can turn invisible at will. You remain invisible until the ring is removed, or until you attack (c.f. invisibility). You may end the effect at will.'

Full disclosure: I've borrowed the phrasing for both items from the 5th ed. DMG. At least their intent is totally clear just by reading the words in the descriptions, and remain consistent with the intent for these items throughout the history of the game.

You do remember in that other thread where duration was listed based on spell level in other editions don't you? With that aside even if 3.X was the one that changed it new editions always change things. Otherwise it would still be the old edition but with a new name.

Liberty's Edge

Essentially, the paradigm has changed, but the way the players play it hasn't.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Just like the ring the language is not perfect. The rules are based on intention. So now we know the intent. How would you like such items to be worded in the future so that new people would not need to see the FAQ?

'The wearer of this hat may cast the disguise self spell on command. The spell ends if the hat is removed.'

For the ring:-

'While wearing this ring, you can turn invisible at will. You remain invisible until the ring is removed, or until you attack (c.f. invisibility). You may end the effect at will.'

Full disclosure: I've borrowed the phrasing for both items from the 5th ed. DMG. At least their intent is totally clear just by reading the words in the descriptions, and remain consistent with the intent for these items throughout the history of the game.

You do remember in that other thread where duration was listed based on spell level in other editions don't you? With that aside even if 3.X was the one that changed it new editions always change things. Otherwise it would still be the old edition but with a new name.

In 1st and 2nd ed no duration was listed for the ring. They said the wearer benefits from a state of invisibility, as the spell.

Since the players knew how it worked, the 3rd ed devs felt confident enough to make the description briefer. So when players who understood the way it always worked read, 'By activating this simple silver ring, the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell', there was nothing there to change their minds about how the ring works.

The problem is that, for players who didn't already know how it works, those words could be understood in other ways.

It doesn't help when you have different parts of the magic item chapter contradict each other. In the section about use activated items, this ring is the very example they use, and point out that this kind of item is activated by silent act of will, unless it says command word. Yet the section on rings says the opposite. When you have such conflict, people stick with what they know.

Why do you think people disagree about this so passionately? They must have already been totally convinced. If all they had was the CRB, they might interpret the ring either way (for both duration and activation method), but seeing the FAQs would clarify the situation. The reason that this issue is not settled by those FAQs for many people is that they have thirty plus years of knowing how it works, and can see how the brief description in the current DMG/CRB could lead to misunderstanding, even by the devs.

Remember that, in the thread where the PDT published the first of these FAQs, Mark Seifter (of the PDT) had gone though the entire adjudication process with the rest of the team and came out the other side with the confident, unchanged for decades belief that the ring is activated by a silent act of will.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
HangarFlying wrote:
Essentially, the paradigm has changed, but the way the players play it hasn't.

I believe that the paradigm for the ring was never deliberately changed, but accidentally, due to briefer wording of an item that the writers believed everyone already knew how it worked so they didn't need to waste space to write it in legalese. That, combined with sweeping generalisations about magic items and the crippling of the duration of the spell have conspired to make it seem as though the ring is command word/3 minutes, when it always was silent act of will/worked as long as it was worn and activated (attacking would de-activate it).

So I don't believe for one moment that the writers of 3.0, 3.5 or PF every deliberately decided that this ring should need a command word and only work for 3 minutes.


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 deliberatley decided that this ring should need a command word and should only work for 3 minutes.


If they changed the duration of the spell from 1st and 2nd to 3rd, why do you think they didn't intend to change the duration for the magic item?

Grand Lodge

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.

And, now, they need to revisit the pricing, because pricing that was reasonable for a command activated, continuous until effect broken item, is not a reasonable price for the crippled item that now exists.

Given:
Ring of Invisibility is 20,000 gp
Wand of Invisibility, 50 uses, CL5 is 4,500 gp

4,500/50 is 90 gp per use
20000/90 is 223 uses before it can be considered to have reached cost effective.

Given:
Wand can be used when needed
Ring can be always (sort of) running (while the wearer is conscious & able to use the command)

I don't think the ring is worth 20,000 gold anymore.
I suspect that it isn't even worth the calculated price (10,800?), as that still comes to 120 uses before it beats the cost per charge of a wand.


Kinevon, it has always (3.5/PF) been command activated with a 3minute duration. Nothing has changed except for some of you who have been running it incorrectly for years.

People in my games have been buying (not finding) the Ring of Invisibility at 20,000gp for years using "Command Word, 3minute duration".

Really, I have no idea where most of you got the idea that it is command word and continuous. That sort of thing isn't in the rules anywhere in the rules for Rings or Command Word.

Lets put this another way: What part of "Spell Effect" does not mean that you are using a "Spell Effect"?

If you use the item's CL to determine something like the spell's available distance (Cape of the Mountebank) why wouldn't it determine the spell's duration (Ring of Invisibility)?
Answer: it would. There is no difference other than in people's imagination.

Edit: added stuff

Grand Lodge

Gauss wrote:

Kinevon, it has always (3.5/PF) been command activated with a 3minute duration. Nothing has changed except for some of you who have been running it incorrectly for years.

People in my games have been buying (not finding) the Ring of Invisibility at 20,000gp for years using "Command Word, 3minute duration".

Really, I have no idea where most of you got the idea that it is command word and continuous. That sort of thing isn't in the rules anywhere in the rules for Rings or Command Word.

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.

EDIT: Except to someone making other rules errors, like giving that invisible Rogue a full round's sneak attacks when attacking from invisibility, even after they become visible.


kinevon wrote:
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.

And, now, they need to revisit the pricing, because pricing that was reasonable for a command activated, continuous until effect broken item, is not a reasonable price for the crippled item that now exists.

Given:
Ring of Invisibility is 20,000 gp
Wand of Invisibility, 50 uses, CL5 is 4,500 gp

4,500/50 is 90 gp per use
20000/90 is 223 uses before it can be considered to have reached cost effective.

Anyone can use the ring. Not everyone can use the wand so it makes sense for the ring to cost more. That is why potions cost more than scrolls per use.


Ahhh yes, the legacy argument. Which has no bearing in 3.5 or in Pathfinder.

Chengar Qordath, please show where the Dev thought it was continuous prior to the FAQ. I have not seen this evidence. (Not that Devs are not wrong themselves from time to time, it happens.)

Kinevon, yes, my mileage does vary from that. It is quite worth the money to start every combat invisible. As for having played with "WotC GMs" which WotC Devs did you play with or was it WotC non-Dev GMs? In any case, as I stated a moment ago, even Devs can be mistaken from time to time.

The rules are clearly 'spell effect' and duration is one element of a spell's effect unless stated otherwise. The FAQ did not change anything other than some people's mis-understanding.

Grand Lodge

wraithstrike wrote:
kinevon wrote:
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.

And, now, they need to revisit the pricing, because pricing that was reasonable for a command activated, continuous until effect broken item, is not a reasonable price for the crippled item that now exists.

Given:
Ring of Invisibility is 20,000 gp
Wand of Invisibility, 50 uses, CL5 is 4,500 gp

4,500/50 is 90 gp per use
20000/90 is 223 uses before it can be considered to have reached cost effective.

Anyone can use the ring. Not everyone can use the wand so it makes sense for the ring to cost more. That is why potions cost more than scrolls per use.

And, in that case, it would take 67 uses of the ring to make it cost effective over using potions of invisibility, since the potion costs 300 gp a pop.

And you can get that first potion around 2nd or 3rd level, rather than having to wait until you can afford a 20,000 gp item, in one purchase. In a standard game, looking at the WbL chart, that ring would take most of your wealth to purchase during 6th level, or at 7th level.

By 11th level, when purchasing the ring probably won't cripple the rest of your gear, it is virtually worthless, since many of the encounters you will be dealing with at that point negate or invalidate invisibility, anyhow.
See Invisibility
Invisibility Purge
True Seeing
Blind sense
Blind sight
Tremor sense
Scent

YMMV, but that ring is not a good investment, except in certain, rare, instances. In general, though, I suspect that it is a way to confidently get your PC killed, when you find out, unexpectedly, that your target can still see you...

Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Why does that dapper young gentlemen keep slipping the word ruttabegga into conversation?

"Trust us, he's better looking that way.


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.


Kinevon, people have touted how Invisibility is worthless at level 11+ but that is entirely dependent upon what creatures you face. In a campaign heavy with spellcasting bad guys sure, it might not be that worthwhile. However, any invisibility at that point won't work so...why would you buy this ring then?

It's like saying that anti-undead stuff is always worthless without considering whether it is an undead-heavy campaign or not.

Additionally, it is still worthwhile for that first round of combat. The enemy is not going to always have True Seeing up, it costs money and spell slots to cast. Same with See Invisibility.
Scent, Tremor Sense, and Blindsense only pinpoint invisible creatures (one way or another). They do not negate invisibility's ability to sneak attack or have 50% concealment.

The only thing you presented that is on all the time is Blindsight and that is a very RARE thing for creatures to have.

It would be nice if you guys looked at this realistically.

Myth: The price is too high, at 20,000gp you only get it at a level where invisibility is worthless!
Reality: people make invisibility builds that only really kick in at higher levels anyhow. They do not auto-fail just because of level.

Myth: 3minutes of invisibility is worthless.
Reality: starting every combat invisible is worth..A LOT.

Myth: You can replicate this with potions.
Reality: Yes, and you can expect to burn through those (and your wallet) in no time. You do not know when encounters are going to occur. So if you have a 1hour adventuring day you will spend at least 1,000gold per hour just maintaining invisibility. A few days of that and that Ring will look a lot more attractive.


BTW, for those that are unsure of where I got the rules for the duration of these items here you go (I started with 3.5):

3.5 DMG p215 wrote:
Some individual items, notably those that simply store spells and nothing else, don’t get full-blown descriptions. Reference the spell’s description in the Player’s Handbook for details, modified by the form of the item (potion, scroll, wand, and so on). Assume that the spell is cast at the minimum level required to cast it, unless you choose to make it higher for some reason (which increases the cost of the item; see Table 7–33: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values). The main reason to make it higher, of course, would be to increase the power of the spell. This decision is common for spells dependent on level, such as fireball, for which damage is everything, or summon monster, in which duration can increase the power of the spell dramatically.

Hmmm, what does this quote say? That Items that replicate spells (not just potions, scrolls, and wands) that do not get full descriptions use the item's caster level to determine the variables.

Hmmm, is duration a variable? YES.

Here is another quote:

3.5 DMG p215 wrote:
Caster Level: The next item in a notational entry gives the caster level of the item, indicating its relative power (just as a spell’s caster level measures its power). The caster level determines the item’s saving throw bonus, as well as range or other level-dependent aspects of the powers of the item (if variable). It also determines the level that must be contended with should the item come under the effect of a dispel magic spell or similar situation. This information is given in the form “CL x,” where “CL” is an abbreviation for caster level and “x” is an ordinal number representing the caster level itself.

Yup, level dependant aspects of the powers of the item, if variable. Again, duration is one such aspect.

What did the 3.5 ring say?

3.5 DMG p232 wrote:

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.

No statement that it operates differently from the spell. Thus, being CL3 it lasts for 3 minutes.

This is the source of the rules I was operating under for years. Even 3.0 had these same general statements.

Lets see if Pathfinder has the same statements:

CRB p460 wrote:
Some individual items, notably those that just store spells, don’t get full-blown descriptions. Reference the spell’s description for details, modified by the form of the item (potion, scroll, wand, and so on). Assume that the spell is cast at the minimum level required to cast it.
CRB p460 wrote:
Caster Level (CL): The next item in a notational entry gives the caster level of the item, indicating its relative power. The caster level determines the item’s saving throw bonus, as well as range or other level-dependent aspects of the powers of the item (if variable). It also determines the level that must be contended with should the item come under the effect of a dispel magic spell or similar situation.

and finally:

CRB p481 wrote:

RING OF INVISIBILITY

Aura faint illusion; CL 3rd
Slot ring; Price 20,000 gp; Weight —
DESCRIPTION
By activating this simple silver ring, the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell.
CONSTRUCTION
Requirements Forge Ring, invisibility; Cost 10,000 gp

Short answer, it has been the same (except the duration of the spell itself changed) from 3.0, to 3.5, to PF.

As shown in the other thread Rings are either Continuous or Command Word. The pricing of the Ring of Invisibility is Command Word and was then jacked up to cover the 'infinite uses'.
Since it is a spell in a magic item and not continuous it's duration is determined by the CL of the item (in this case 3) multiplied by the duration of the spell per level.

Those are the rules. Anything else is/was a houserule or an error.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gauss wrote:

Ahhh yes, the legacy argument. Which has no bearing in 3.5 or in Pathfinder.

Chengar Qordath, please show where the Dev thought it was continuous prior to the FAQ. I have not seen this evidence. (Not that Devs are not wrong themselves from time to time, it happens.)

Kinevon, yes, my mileage does vary from that. It is quite worth the money to start every combat invisible. As for having played with "WotC GMs" which WotC Devs did you play with or was it WotC non-Dev GMs? In any case, as I stated a moment ago, even Devs can be mistaken from time to time.

The rules are clearly 'spell effect' and duration is one element of a spell's effect unless stated otherwise. The FAQ did not change anything other than some people's mis-understanding.

No, the rules really aren't clearly "spell effect" as there are things, as cited, which say "as the spell" but don't use the spell, other than for how a specific thing functions, as the spell is where it is defined.

Rings, for instance, are very confusing in write-up, as the general rules for rings tend to push toward "worn as activate", with mention that command word would be specified, in one place, but a different assumption, about rings, in a different place.

One of the many problems that can crop up when you take two different, and large, tomes, and combine them into a single, even larger, tome. Just consider how often players and GMs alike miss that you cannot make potions of Personal range spells. And some of those illegal potions even make it into Paizo products...

And, after 20 years, you expect me to remember every GM I have ever played at GenCon with? Sure, you betcha. Not.


Unless the item says otherwise, if it says as the spell then use the spell and apply the CL to determine the variable effects. Pretty simple.

My guess is most of what you are talking about are items that say otherwise. The Ring of Invisibility is not one of those.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

i will actuly go with the op that using the hat has unlimited duration. just change it to work like shape change power duration. like the revisited one in the Bestiary Q&A: link :

Quote:


"Change Shape: Does a creature with this ability use the duration of the change shape spell, and have to keep renewing as it expires?

As originally written, with how the Pathfinder rules for change shape work, a creature with the ability must keep renewing it every few minutes, as it is based on a spell with a duration. This negatively affects creatures such as doppelgangers, which live for extended periods in an alternate form, and having to reactivate this ability would ruin the ruse, especially as it couldn't do so while it slept.

The way this ability works is being updated as of Bestiary 2. For now, unless a creature's description says otherwise, treat any creature with change shape as if it had the ability to remain in its alternate form indefinitely, without needing to reactivate the ability. (SKR 9/23/10)"


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".


Devs have damn weird hang-ups, news at eleven.

Liberty's Edge

wraithstrike wrote:
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".

Careful, such people will call you a jerk for pointing out this very obvious fact to them.

1 to 50 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.