does a decoy ring give you greater invisibility?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

9 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Decoy Ring

The ring doesn't say what kind of invisibility you get, and the spell the ring is based on is mislead. For reference, here's the

Ring of Invisibility

which explicitly references the spell invisibility, including its limitations.

So, the question: does a decoy ring give you invisibility per mislead (which in turn references greater invisibility), or regular old 'invisibility, as the spell'?


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

General consensus is regular invisibility, unfortunately. See this thread.


this is what I get for searching 'decoy ring' in just the rules questions forum. meh. I'm FAQing this anyway. I'm with you in any case: this ring isn't a unitasker, in the same way that 'expeditious retreat' is just a euphemism. I'll throw in the section on invisibility the condition, which this ring appears to grant you

Invisibility as a state of being

and again as a condition

Core Rulebook wrote:
Invisible: Invisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). See Invisibility, under Special Abilities.

Nowhere in there does it say you lose it if you use it. Your victim does pinpoint you if you're in melee, though.


If you're going to FAQ, might want to do so on the thread I linked, since it already has 10.

All the arguments have been hashed out in that other thread.


I can almost guarantee you that it will not be ruled to work like greater invisbility or just granting the "invisibile" condition.

If it did then, the ring of invisbility would be grossly over priced or the decoy ring would be vastly under priced. The second one is the more likely case.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Isn't the ring of invisibility grossly overpriced already anyway?

'Harry, why do you keep shouting 'Obfuscato!' every three minutes? Argus Flich'll hear you for sure!'

I'll take my chances.


You'll take your chances with what?

The ring of invisibility is what it is, the fact that it has a 3 minute limitation to it isnt' necessarily a problem since you can reactivate it before it ends and continue using it without problem (except for expending a standard action once every 3 minutes).

The ring of invisibility is fine as long as you're not trying to use it for combat.


Claxon wrote:

You'll take your chances with what?

The ring of invisibility is what it is, the fact that it has a 3 minute limitation to it isnt' necessarily a problem since you can reactivate it before it ends and continue using it without problem (except for expending a standard action once every 3 minutes).

The ring of invisibility is fine as long as you're not trying to use it for combat.

Or out of combat, if you don't want to be heard saying your command word every couple minutes.


thejeff wrote:
Claxon wrote:

You'll take your chances with what?

The ring of invisibility is what it is, the fact that it has a 3 minute limitation to it isnt' necessarily a problem since you can reactivate it before it ends and continue using it without problem (except for expending a standard action once every 3 minutes).

The ring of invisibility is fine as long as you're not trying to use it for combat.

Or out of combat, if you don't want to be heard saying your command word every couple minutes.

Did the FAQ (which I haven't actually seen and only heard about) actually state you have to speak?

The item doesn't fit the command word pricing nor does is fit the use activated pricing guidelines. It is clearly a standard action to activate it every 3 minutes, but not necessarily speaking. It could be turning the ring around your finger. I haven't seen anything to indicate specifically what it is and if this recent FAQ changed it.

Edit: Nevermind, found this:

Quote:

Command Word: If no activation method is suggested either in the magic item description or by the nature of the item, assume that a command word is needed to activate it. Command word activation means that a character speaks the word and the item activates. No other special knowledge is needed.

A command word can be a real word, but when this is the case, the holder of the item runs the risk of activating the item accidentally by speaking the word in normal conversation. More often, the command word is some seemingly nonsensical word, or a word or phrase from an ancient language no longer in common use. Activating a command word magic item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Sometimes the command word to activate an item is written right on the item. Occasionally, it might be hidden within a pattern or design engraved on, carved into, or built into the item, or the item might bear a clue to the command word.

The Knowledge (arcana) and Knowledge (history) skills might be useful in helping to identify command words or deciphering clues regarding them. A successful check against DC 30 is needed to come up with the word itself. If that check is failed, succeeding on a second check (DC 25) might provide some insight into a clue. The spells detect magic, identify, and analyze dweomer all reveal command words if the properties of the item are successfully identified.

Really, this problem was created by the recent FAQ then, stating it had a duration. Prior to that everyone thought it was a continuous effect after it was actiavted, right?


No. A lot of people knew it was limited by the spell's duration.

Regardless, the Decoy Ring turns the subject invisible for three rounds. Referencing the Ring of Invisibility isn't really helpful.

As for the type of invisibilty, I think the safest assumption is as the spell. If they meant for it to be as greater invisibility, they surely would have called it out.

EDIT: Scratch that. Forgot Mislead gives greater. So I'd assume it functions like the base spell, since that's what's used to create it.


Claxon, not to rehash the (very long) thread that just died, I (and others) have been running it as Command Word activated with a duration of 3minutes for years.

The ring has a pricing structure of Command Word after which it was bumped up to 20k because the 3.X/PF Devs felt that unlimited uses of Invisibilty was too good for 10,800gp. In Pathfinder this is stated in the GameMastery Guide.

The duration element is because the ring is basically casting the spell on you. Items that say 'as spell' are typically casting it on you.

Of course, many felt as you did that it was continuous.


Claxon wrote:

I can almost guarantee you that it will not be ruled to work like greater invisbility or just granting the "invisibile" condition.

If it did then, the ring of invisbility would be grossly over priced or the decoy ring would be vastly under priced. The second one is the more likely case.

Not really. The ring of invisibility can be used at any time any number of times. The decoy ring is action locked and is limited to just 3 rounds. It has no where near the usefulness of the former ring yet is still 12,000 gp. I'd put my money on greater invisibility. At best, you can gain two rounds after a standard action to perform shenanigans. That it's one more round than normal invisibility isn't a huge deal whatsoever and severely limits any kind of setup you can do prior.


Uwotm8 wrote:
Claxon wrote:

I can almost guarantee you that it will not be ruled to work like greater invisbility or just granting the "invisibile" condition.

If it did then, the ring of invisbility would be grossly over priced or the decoy ring would be vastly under priced. The second one is the more likely case.

Not really. The ring of invisibility can be used at any time any number of times. The decoy ring is action locked and is limited to just 3 rounds. It has no where near the usefulness of the former ring yet is still 12,000 gp. I'd put my money on greater invisibility. At best, you can gain two rounds after a standard action to perform shenanigans. That it's one more round than normal invisibility isn't a huge deal whatsoever and severely limits any kind of setup you can do prior.

Leaving cost and mechanics arguments aside, my big issue with that interpretation is that all the fluff in the description implies it's intended as a protection/escape item, not a trigger and attack item. You have to withdraw or be helpless to trigger it. Your friends can see you so they can help you.

For that purpose greater invisibility would be overkill.


The withdraw action isn't an escape only option. The action entry even says as much.

Withdraw wrote:
Note that despite the name of this action, you don't actually have to leave combat entirely.

To box it in as such feels as though you're trying to shape the conversation in a particular way, which, given your last sentence tells me that you are. Furthermore, not all subsequent escape class abilities are done without attacks. Also, you can't leave the cost out of it. Pathfinder inherently prices items based on their usefulness and relative power. Item pricing is descriptive of those things.

An at-will greater invis. ring would cost 50,400 gp. However, we don't even get the full 7 rounds that carries. Reduced by that ratio the cost would be 21,600 gp. We can do this and even further modify cost due to the restrictions on the item, of which, there are many contrasted by the ring of invisibility which has no restrictions. That you can't even use it in standard combat (i.e. just activate it and gain 3 full rounds of greater invis.) would be quite the modifier. To bring that 21,600 down to 12,000 is ~55.5..%. That might seem large if it weren't for the given example of restricting items to class/alignment that grants a whopping 30% reduction. The restriction on only the withdraw action which eats an entire round of our effect or be facing death is certainly more restrictive. A two round ring of at will greater invis. with no restrictions would only be 14,400 gp, mind you. That's pretty neighborly to our restricted activity ring that costs 12,000 gp. That the foundation spell to the item itself grants greater invisibility is a pretty strong nod in that direction as well. The crafting spells have been referenced in more than one FAQ, iirc, to reinforce the reasoning behind the FAQ ruling. They can't be ignored.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Invisible, the condition, doesn't inherently go away when you attack. It's the block in the spell invisibility that causes it to do so. There's no such condition as "greater invisible". So if the ring says it makes you "invisible", that's a condition. So go to the glossary and look up "invisible", the condition, and you'll see everything that it does. Whatever is in that block happens, and nothing that isn't in that block is, inherently, part of the condition. It doesn't need to specify it makes you invisible "as if using greater invisibility" because that's the default anyway. What it would need to do is specify that it makes you invisible "as if using the invisibility spell" if they wanted it to go away upon attacking. Thus, as written, the invisible condition provided by the Decoy Ring does not break on attack.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Claxon wrote:

The item doesn't fit the command word pricing nor does is fit the use activated pricing guidelines.

Really, this problem was created by the recent FAQ then, stating it had a duration. Prior to that everyone thought it was a continuous effect after it was actiavted, right?

It is command word as stated in UC at 10,800 gp and arbitrarily increased to 20,000 gp because invisibility is that good.

Pretty much my whole D&D and Pathfinder life this thing has been command word. At least all my memories have been command word. Your memories differ. That is fine. I guess we haven't played at the same table with someone with the ring. Because I'd have objected to continuous or mental activation if I witnessed it.


Assuming your gaming life started after 2000. Before that it was at will mental activation. Those of us who started in the 80's had more years of at-will activation compared to command word activation for you young whippersnappers.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

I started in 1983 and I totally don't remember using it as mental activation. I keep hearing people saying this and I couldn't understand why I didn't remember any of it.

Well I know now. I just read my old 1st edition DMG. Printer on 16 May 1979.

There is not a single use of the word mental in reference to activation methods in the whole book.

The only section that mentions an activation is the "Use of Magic Items" section.

This means that if you used a Ring of Invisibility as a mental activated item in 1st edition, then you did it without a rule telling you to do so. Read Page 119 and find where I'm wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How about I just post the text from 2nd edition:

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.

And then the general text on the OPTIONAL RULES regarding command words:

Quote:

Command Words (Optional Rule)

Like rods and staves, wands can require the utterance of a command word (or phrase) to operate, and like these other items, the key is seldom found in the lock. The DM can rule that the command word is etched in magical writing on the wand (requiring a read magic to translate) or he can make the characters resort to such methods as commune spells and expensive sages. If you choose not to use this option, ignore references to command words in the item descriptions below— all items simply work.

Note, only rods, staves, and wands are called out as using command words, and only via an optional rule. All other magic items are at will unless otherwise specified. Can you post anything from 1st edition that would lead you to believe otherwise?


_Ozy_ wrote:

How about I just post the text from 2nd edition:

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.

And then the general text on the OPTIONAL RULES regarding command words:

Quote:

Command Words (Optional Rule)

Like rods and staves, wands can require the utterance of a command word (or phrase) to operate, and like these other items, the key is seldom found in the lock. The DM can rule that the command word is etched in magical writing on the wand (requiring a read magic to translate) or he can make the characters resort to such methods as commune spells and expensive sages. If you choose not to use this option, ignore references to command words in the item descriptions below— all items simply work.
Note, only rods, staves, and wands are called out as using command words, and only via an optional rule. All other magic items are at will unless otherwise specified. Can you post anything from 1st edition that would lead you to believe otherwise?

No. There's another section that at least strongly hints at it. I don't have the books on me right now, but look for command words in the 2E index - I think the section is actually in the PHB.


thejeff wrote:

No. There's another section that at least strongly hints at it. I don't have the books on me right now, but look for command words in the 2E index - I think the section is actually in the PHB.

I would be extremely surprised if it covered rings. Here's text from the beginning of the rings section:

Quote:
All magical rings normally radiate magic, but most are impossible to detect as magical rings without some mystic means. Furthermore, all magical rings look alike, so determination of a given ring's magical powers is difficult. The ring must be put on and various things tried in order to find what it does.

You never used to have to use a command word. You would put the ring on and then do things like throw yourself off a building to see if it was a feather fall ring, or put your hand in a campfire to see if it was a fire resistance or something. We never, ever played that you had to find the right 'command word' for a ring, that was only for wands and the like.

There were specific exceptions:

Quote:

Ring of Blinking

(Source: Dungeon Masters Guide, 2nd Edition): When the wearer of this ring issues the proper verbal command, the item activates, and he is affected as if a blink spell were operating upon his person. The effect lasts for six rounds. The ring then ceases to function for six turns (one hour) while it replenishes itself. The command word is usually engraved somewhere on the ring. The ring will activate whenever this word is spoken, even though the command might be given by someone other than the wearer, provided that the word is spoken within 10 feet of the ring.

Again, to see this exception and then somehow believe that command words were used in general really defies any reasonable belief.


I'll try to find it again tonight. It was a section on command words specifically. I was surprised when I found it.

I do know that most AD&D (even 2E) games were a mashup of actual rules, misunderstood rules, rules that were missed entirely, rules that had changed but the changes were missed and actual houserules. It's quite possible that you and I played one way and James played another, all of us thinking we were following the actual rules. Possibly with all of wrong.


James Risner wrote:

I started in 1983 and I totally don't remember using it as mental activation. I keep hearing people saying this and I couldn't understand why I didn't remember any of it.

Well I know now. I just read my old 1st edition DMG. Printer on 16 May 1979.

There is not a single use of the word mental in reference to activation methods in the whole book.

The only section that mentions an activation is the "Use of Magic Items" section.

This means that if you used a Ring of Invisibility as a mental activated item in 1st edition, then you did it without a rule telling you to do so. Read Page 119 and find where I'm wrong.

Are you joking? Page 119, under command words, it specifically says rods, staves, and wands. No mention of rings anywhere. Just what words am I supposed to explain to you when there aren't any that even look remotely applicable?

Go to page 129, and you'll find the language regarding magic rings almost identical to 2nd edition which I posted above. Page 130 has the identical text for the ring of invisibility.

Then look further on page 132:

Quote:

Use of Rods, Staves, and Wands:

Any device of this nature which discharges some form of magic over a distance (that is, the device does not require touch or contact with the obiect or creature to be affected) must generally have a command word spoken in order to cause the device to function.

So in 1st edition the use of command words was again restricted to wands, staves, and rods.

Guys, I think this is pretty clear.

Silver Crusade

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

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

Silver Crusade

As pointed out above:-

Ring of Invisibity, 2nd ed wrote:
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.

First, 'At will' denotes activation by silent act of will.

Second, there is a 10% chance that any particular ring of invisibility is actually a ring of invisibility and inaudibility. This ring functions exactly the same way as the base ring, including activation, with the extra benefit that the wearer can't be heard.

'Speaking' breaks the ring! It breaks the 'inaudibility' part. 'Speaking' a command word would break it.

How can it be constructed in such a manner that the very act of activating it, breaks it?

The ring was always, most definately, activated by a silent act of will. No wonder Mark Seifter had assumed such for all these years. It's because be was right!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, if you go through the magic item list in the DM's guide (2nd edition), every item that uses a command word, be it ring or miscellaneous item, specifically calls out using the 'command word' in the text.

There is one ring that uses a command word, the ring of blinking. There are several miscellaneous magic items that use command words, along with a few armor and weapons. It's always called out in the item text.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

As pointed out above:-

Ring of Invisibity, 2nd ed wrote:
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.

First, 'At will' denotes activation by silent act of will.

Second, there is a 10% chance that any particular ring of invisibility is actually a ring of invisibility and inaudibility. This ring functions exactly the same way as the base ring, including activation, with the extra benefit that the wearer can't be heard.

'Speaking' breaks the ring! It breaks the 'inaudibility' part. 'Speaking' a command word would break it.

How can it be constructed in such a manner that the very act of activating it, breaks it?

The ring was always, most definately, activated by a silent act of will. No wonder Mark Seifter had assumed such for all these years. It's because be was right!

You say the command word and then go silent? After that any more speech turns off the inaudible feature. Or you can say the command word to turn both features off.

It's not how I would read it, but it's certainly a possible interpretation.

Edit: And especially if you're talking about AD&D in either edition, the rules were not written to the kind of legalistic level that supports "X always means this and therefore if they don't say X, we know it's Y."
I think that's a stretch in a lot of rules parsing even in 3.x which did try to do that with keywords and conditions and a much more structured approach, but it's insanity in AD&D

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

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

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

If you are using that logic, that is part of the problem.

"At Will" doesn't mean "silent act of will" but rather "no specified use limit per day".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

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

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

If you are using that logic, that is part of the problem.

"At Will" doesn't mean "silent act of will" but rather "no specified use limit per day".

Except that it does. There are no 'at will items' in 1st and 2nd ed AD&D that specify a command word, and there are no command word items that specify 'at will', regardless of whether or not that have a per day use limitation.

A Ring of Blinking has no specified use limit per day, yet it specifically says

Quote:
When the wearer of this ring issues the proper verbal command, the item activates, and he is affected as if a blink spell were operating upon his person

and there are more examples in the miscellaneous magic item category.

So no, your interpretation is not correct.


well, that went off the rails in an amusing fashion. I have nothing further to add.

Silver Crusade

thejeff wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

As pointed out above:-

Ring of Invisibity, 2nd ed wrote:
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.

First, 'At will' denotes activation by silent act of will.

Second, there is a 10% chance that any particular ring of invisibility is actually a ring of invisibility and inaudibility. This ring functions exactly the same way as the base ring, including activation, with the extra benefit that the wearer can't be heard.

'Speaking' breaks the ring! It breaks the 'inaudibility' part. 'Speaking' a command word would break it.

How can it be constructed in such a manner that the very act of activating it, breaks it?

The ring was always, most definately, activated by a silent act of will. No wonder Mark Seifter had assumed such for all these years. It's because be was right!

You say the command word and then go silent? After that any more speech turns off the inaudible feature. Or you can say the command word to turn both features off.

There are those that say the ring has the duration of the spell, which has been 3 minutes since 3.5. Those same people say that the short duration isn't a problem, because you can say the command word while still invisible, so you don't actually have to become visible after three minutes.

These same people say that the ring always worked this way: command word/spell duration. The problem with this is that if you say the command word while still invisible and inaudible, you break the ring! Meaning you'd have to become visible after the spell duration ends!

So the ring never required a command word. In the earlier editions, 'command word' was an optional rule, and even then only applied to rods/staves/wands unless the item description specified a command word.

So, from the start, this ring was activated by a silent act of will. When those players looked at the new fangled 3.0 DMG and saw 'By activating this simple silver ring, the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell', nothing in that description makes you think anything about either activation method or how long the invisible state lasts was any different from how it always worked.


_Ozy_ wrote:
thejeff wrote:

No. There's another section that at least strongly hints at it. I don't have the books on me right now, but look for command words in the 2E index - I think the section is actually in the PHB.

I would be extremely surprised if it covered rings. Here's text from the beginning of the rings section:

Quote:
All magical rings normally radiate magic, but most are impossible to detect as magical rings without some mystic means. Furthermore, all magical rings look alike, so determination of a given ring's magical powers is difficult. The ring must be put on and various things tried in order to find what it does.

You never used to have to use a command word. You would put the ring on and then do things like throw yourself off a building to see if it was a feather fall ring, or put your hand in a campfire to see if it was a fire resistance or something. We never, ever played that you had to find the right 'command word' for a ring, that was only for wands and the like.

There were specific exceptions:

Quote:

Ring of Blinking

(Source: Dungeon Masters Guide, 2nd Edition): When the wearer of this ring issues the proper verbal command, the item activates, and he is affected as if a blink spell were operating upon his person. The effect lasts for six rounds. The ring then ceases to function for six turns (one hour) while it replenishes itself. The command word is usually engraved somewhere on the ring. The ring will activate whenever this word is spoken, even though the command might be given by someone other than the wearer, provided that the word is spoken within 10 feet of the ring.
Again, to see this exception and then somehow believe that command words were used in general really defies any reasonable belief.

I see from this and the ensuing posts you didn't actually take my advice and check the index:

2E PHB, pg 108: Chapter 10: Treasure - Magical Items wrote:
Rings: While the aura of a magical ring can be detected, its properties cannot be discovered until it is worn and command word is uttered. (The command word is most commonly found inscribed on the inside of the band.)

Make of that what you will. I'm not sure where my 1E PHB is at the moment, so I don't know if there's a similar passage there.

For completeness, in the 1977 Basic there was no general rule for rings, but

Invisibility wrote:
the invisibility lasts as long as the ring is worn. If the wearer attacks anything, however, he becomes visible and remains visible during any hostile actions.


I was looking at the DMG, which actually lists all of the magic items. It's clear from the DMG that most rings do not use a command word as the only one that has the words you list is the ring of blinking already quoted.

Furthermore, the way to determine the properties of rings are also listed differently in the DMG:

Quote:
All magical rings normally radiate magic, but most are impossible to detect as magical rings without some mystic means. Furthermore, all magical rings look alike, so determination of a given ring's magical powers is difficult. The ring must be put on and various things tried in order to find what it does.

Note, no mention of an inscribed command word (other than the specific language for the ring of blinking), just 'various things tried'.

Seems to me the DMG is more authoritative when it comes to magic item properties.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

As pointed out above:-

Ring of Invisibity, 2nd ed wrote:
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.

First, 'At will' denotes activation by silent act of will.

Second, there is a 10% chance that any particular ring of invisibility is actually a ring of invisibility and inaudibility. This ring functions exactly the same way as the base ring, including activation, with the extra benefit that the wearer can't be heard.

'Speaking' breaks the ring! It breaks the 'inaudibility' part. 'Speaking' a command word would break it.

How can it be constructed in such a manner that the very act of activating it, breaks it?

The ring was always, most definately, activated by a silent act of will. No wonder Mark Seifter had assumed such for all these years. It's because be was right!

You say the command word and then go silent? After that any more speech turns off the inaudible feature. Or you can say the command word to turn both features off.

There are those that say the ring has the duration of the spell, which has been 3 minutes since 3.5. Those same people say that the short duration isn't a problem, because you can say the command word while still invisible, so you don't actually have to become visible after three minutes.

These same people say that the ring always worked this way: command word/spell duration. The problem with this is that if you say the command word while still invisible and inaudible, you break the ring! Meaning you'd have to become visible after the spell duration ends!

The current versions don't have the inaudible clause. The older versions, even if they matched the spell duration, lasted for 24 hours. Theoretically still the same problem, but much less noticeable.

And you don't break the ring if speak while inaudible, you just turn the inaudible part off. You're still invisible. You'll still become inaudible again next time.
At least that's how I read "he breaks all silence features". Not that the ring is permanently broken, but in the sense of "breaking silence".
I could be wrong, but the other interpretation didn't occur to me, even reading your earlier post.


_Ozy_ wrote:

I was looking at the DMG, which actually lists all of the magic items. It's clear from the DMG that most rings do not use a command word as the only one that has the words you list is the ring of blinking already quoted.

Furthermore, the way to determine the properties of rings are also listed differently in the DMG:

Quote:
All magical rings normally radiate magic, but most are impossible to detect as magical rings without some mystic means. Furthermore, all magical rings look alike, so determination of a given ring's magical powers is difficult. The ring must be put on and various things tried in order to find what it does.

Note, no mention of an inscribed command word (other than the specific language for the ring of blinking), just 'various things tried'.

Seems to me the DMG is more authoritative when it comes to magic item properties.

You can claim the DMG trumps the PHB, making that text irrelevant, but the text is there and makes the case even less clear.

As I said earlier, AD&D was a game of rules misunderstandings and house rules that weren't even recognized as such. It's quite possible both we and James thought we were playing RAW and were wrong. I don't really have a strong opinion either way, but I'm a lot more hesitant to say he was outright wrong when there's a section of rules explicitly talking about command words for rings and only an absence of such mention in the DMG.

Shadow Lodge

Jeez, the ring of invisibility is the new rogue/monk, mention it and a battle will start


James Risner wrote:

I started in 1983 and I totally don't remember using it as mental activation. I keep hearing people saying this and I couldn't understand why I didn't remember any of it.

Well I know now. I just read my old 1st edition DMG. Printer on 16 May 1979.

There is not a single use of the word mental in reference to activation methods in the whole book.

The only section that mentions an activation is the "Use of Magic Items" section.

This means that if you used a Ring of Invisibility as a mental activated item in 1st edition, then you did it without a rule telling you to do so. Read Page 119 and find where I'm wrong.

Actually if you read your 1st edition DMG you'll note that command word activated items (such as rods, staffs and wands) still used segments to activate the effect.

Rings did not (unless specifically called out to do so) - the ring of invisibility in 1st and 2nd edition gave you invisibility at no action cost (instantly) whereas most magical items (specifically those that cast spells) took action economy in the form of segments used.

Quote:

Activating a rod or staff takes one round and requires the

user to speak its command word aloud.
For instance I point to the wand of fire - one of it's abilities
Quote:
Pyrotechnics: This function exactly duplicates the spell of the same name. It requires 2 segments to activate. It expends I charge.
You have to use the players handbook to reference time ...
Quote:

Rounds

are subdivided into 10 segments, for purposes of determining initiative
(q.v.) and order of attacks. Thus a turn is 10 minutes, a round 1 minute, and a segment 6 seconds.

Where a ring was 'at will and instant' - requiring no casting time or activation time to use - thus a fighter with a ring of invisibility could 'activate it' on his turn after his attack(s).

I will agree that 'at will' didn't call out mental activation - but it didn't mean 'spoken command word' either - anything requiring a 'spoken command word' was specifically called out - rings were not on that list by default - and at will could have simply meant twisting the ring on ones finger to reactivate it. (it's just as valid honestly) - it's also noted that command word items could be foiled by silence and were specifically called out for that - where at will items were not.

Quote:
A wand of polymorphing, or other similar device performing a like function, would require a key word and the new form to be made by the power: “Xot’s the word, be a bird!” or some such. Magical silence will most certainly prevent such devices from functioning.

Silver Crusade

So back in the days when the description of this ring was written without assuming previous knowledge of the reader:-

Quote:
The invisibility lasts as long as the ring is worn. If the wearer attacks anything, however, he becomes visible and remains visible during any hostile actions.

And the most recent time the ring description has been written without assuming previous knowledge, the 5th ed DMG, says that the invisibility lasts until you take an action to end it, remove the ring, or attack or cast a spell.

Note that the spell itself ends if you attack or cast a spell. Also, in 5th ed the spell has a duration of one hour, but the ring doesn't cast the spell on the wearer, it just let's the wearer become invisible.

Just like it always did.

Liberty's Edge

Uwotm8 wrote:
Claxon wrote:

I can almost guarantee you that it will not be ruled to work like greater invisbility or just granting the "invisibile" condition.

If it did then, the ring of invisbility would be grossly over priced or the decoy ring would be vastly under priced. The second one is the more likely case.

Not really. The ring of invisibility can be used at any time any number of times. The decoy ring is action locked and is limited to just 3 rounds. It has no where near the usefulness of the former ring yet is still 12,000 gp. I'd put my money on greater invisibility. At best, you can gain two rounds after a standard action to perform shenanigans. That it's one more round than normal invisibility isn't a huge deal whatsoever and severely limits any kind of setup you can do prior.

Really? Name notwithstanding the withdraw action allow you to move in any direction. So you can activate the ring using what is essentially a double move. Often better than using standard action to activate something and being left with a move action.

As an aded bonus you get 4 decoys and your friends know your location.


Sure, but you only get two rounds to actually do stuff with versus minutes with the ring of invisibility. That is indeed not nearly as useful.

Liberty's Edge

You really need more than 3 rounds of improved invisibility in a fight?
And they are 3 rounds. The norm is that a item or spell use one standard action to be activated. And you get the benefit of invisibility for AoO and against attacks for the 3 whole rounds.


Ckorik wrote:

I will agree that 'at will' didn't call out mental activation - but it didn't mean 'spoken command word' either - anything requiring a 'spoken command word' was specifically called out - rings were not on that list by default - and at will could have simply meant twisting the ring on ones finger to reactivate it. (it's just as valid honestly) - it's also noted that command word items could be foiled by silence and were specifically called out for that - where at will items were not.

Quote:
A wand of polymorphing, or other similar device performing a like function, would require a key word and the new form to be made by the power: “Xot’s the word, be a bird!” or some such. Magical silence will most certainly prevent such devices from functioning.

Not only that, items with command words were vulnerable to being activated by others speaking the command words nearby. I seem to remember some traps using magic mouths to speak command words of various dangerous magic items the adventures picked up throughout the dungeon.


Diego Rossi wrote:

You really need more than 3 rounds of improved invisibility in a fight?

And they are 3 rounds. The norm is that a item or spell use one standard action to be activated. And you get the benefit of invisibility for AoO and against attacks for the 3 whole rounds.

You go invisible at the beginning of the withdraw action. The first whole round is subsumed in executing that action. You only gain two actionable rounds to do things of your own choosing such as making attacks or casting spells. Two effective rounds to let you do things rather than the 7 minimum that we should have from a simple casting of the spell that only takes a standard action. That's a huge shift between the two items. It's not about need. It's about the usefulness of the item in a compare/contrast with a 20,000 gp item and a 12,000 gp one whose construction spells do different things. The value proposition is very different between them.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

_Ozy_ wrote:
James Risner wrote:

"At Will" doesn't mean "silent act of will" but rather "no specified use limit per day".

Except that it does.

So no, your interpretation is not correct.

My interpretation might be incorrect but nothing you have shown so far proves that. I can't find anything in 1e books that defines "at will". But the 3rd edition defines it as "no usage limit".

thejeff wrote:

2E: Rings: While the aura of a magical ring can be detected, its properties cannot be discovered until it is worn and command word is uttered. (The command word is most commonly found inscribed on the inside of the band.)

Make of that what you will. I'm not sure where my 1E PHB is at the moment, so I don't know if there's a similar passage there.

I just scanned through the index, the ring section (actually whole magic item section), and other similar sections in the DMG. I also looked in the PHB. I'm willing to bet there is no passage similar in the 1e.

Early 1st and 2nd wasn't the best books to read and reference. We didn't have PDF copies, we didn't have good internet, etc. If you needed a quick answer you were out of luck. Add to that problem the issue with inconsistency of the rules in general and the missing parts that were not discussed at all.


Uwotm8 wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

You really need more than 3 rounds of improved invisibility in a fight?

And they are 3 rounds. The norm is that a item or spell use one standard action to be activated. And you get the benefit of invisibility for AoO and against attacks for the 3 whole rounds.
You go invisible at the beginning of the withdraw action. The first whole round is subsumed in executing that action. You only gain two actionable rounds to do things of your own choosing such as making attacks or casting spells. Two effective rounds to let you do things rather than the 7 minimum that we should have from a simple casting of the spell that only takes a standard action. That's a huge shift between the two items. It's not about need. It's about the usefulness of the item in a compare/contrast with a 20,000 gp item and a 12,000 gp one whose construction spells do different things. The value proposition is very different between them.

Yup! You get three rounds if you get knocked unconscious, but only two if you withdraw first. However,

You could use the feat Cut Your Losses to grab something during your withdraw round.
You could still attack, using the otherwise lackluster Parting Shot.

Imagine two rounds of +sneak attack damage, the opponent is denied Dex, and you get an additional +2 to attack. Now imagine this with a pair of sniper goggles.

The other thing is this: you're not actually unseen. Put on a ring of invisibility, and no one knows you're there, at least for 3 minutes. Use a decoy ring, and there's four illusion copies of yourself running around, acting like idiots. Seriously, why four copies? That's like a huge tipoff that they're fake.

'Hisss, I thought I turned this poor shlub to stone, but now there's 4 of him running off in different directions....ahh...I think I'll just swing my hammer around where I thought I stoned him.'

Liberty's Edge

Uwotm8 wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

You really need more than 3 rounds of improved invisibility in a fight?

And they are 3 rounds. The norm is that a item or spell use one standard action to be activated. And you get the benefit of invisibility for AoO and against attacks for the 3 whole rounds.
You go invisible at the beginning of the withdraw action. The first whole round is subsumed in executing that action. You only gain two actionable rounds to do things of your own choosing such as making attacks or casting spells. Two effective rounds to let you do things rather than the 7 minimum that we should have from a simple casting of the spell that only takes a standard action. That's a huge shift between the two items. It's not about need. It's about the usefulness of the item in a compare/contrast with a 20,000 gp item and a 12,000 gp one whose construction spells do different things. The value proposition is very different between them.

By the same interpretation you get 6 rounds from the casting of the spell. The first round standard action is used up by the casting of the spell. You are left with a move action only.

You can use swift or free actions together a move action or a standard action, so that don't make a difference.

ohako wrote:


'Hisss, I thought I turned this poor shlub to stone, but now there's 4 of him running off in different directions....ahh...I think I'll just swing my hammer around where I thought I stoned him.'

Very metagamey unless you can make a Knowledge arcana roll good enough to know that that kind of ring exist.

A more credible reaction from a reasonably intelligent guy: "Damn, it is some kind of modified mirror image, one is true and the other decoys. I make a perception check, some of those guys are leaving tracks or making noises?"
Sure , if you have used a single target spell and you know it has worked (and the rules say: "Likewise, if a creature's saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell, you sense that the spell has failed. You do not sense when creatures succeed on saves against effect and area spells") you have all the reasons to think that all the images are decoys. But your target is still invisible.


The Ring of Invisibility should act like it's original inspiration.

Use-activated by putting it on, but it attracts the attention of an evil godlike being and eventually corrupts the user.

:)

-j


Does the Godlike being send undead and will saves at my Pharasman Cleric? I just hope he doesn't call in the dreaded Orc warriors!

Liberty's Edge

You guys do realize that this "command word/mental activation" crap is completely irrelevant to this thread, don't you?

Liberty's Edge

While I see no reason for it to not be greater invisibility, ultimately I believe the distinction is irrelevant. Either a) you're unconcious, or b) have to concentrate to direct the illusions*. In either case, you're unable to attack anything.

* Yes, I do realize that the ring doesn't specify that you must concentrate, it is a reasonable assumption that you would have to do so; and no, I don't have to house rule it to make it this way**. The assumption can be found within the rules.

** It saddens*** me that I have to even make such a disclaimer in the first place.

*** No, I'm not really sad. It's just a figure of speech.

1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / does a decoy ring give you greater invisibility? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.