| 9 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
The title says it all.
The original discussion started here.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's just a mundane item that happens to act as an anchor for a permanent spell.
Very simple, if an item detects as magic and has a permanent magical effect
Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
If it isn't a magic item, what is it?
A mundane item with a spell anchored to it. If I cast silence on the fighter's helmet, does it suddenly become a magical item? What about Keen Edge on an un-enchanted sword?
|
A mundane item with a spell anchored to it. If I cast silence on the fighter's helmet, does it suddenly become a magical item? What about Keen Edge on an un-enchanted sword?Very simple, if an item detects as magic and has a permanent magical effect
Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
If it isn't a magic item, what is it?
Thought you didn't care...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By Ciretose's line of reasoning, casting magic fang on an animal turns it into a Magical Beast.
PS: If the GM did allow keen permanency on a sword, it'd only last until it was dispelled. Unlike an actual magic sword, which would only be suppressed for 1d4 rounds.
That is not the intent, no.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I have a lead ingot and cover it in gold leaf, is it a gold ingot?
If so, I have a gold ingot to sell you ;).
Everburning Torch is not a magical item according to the rules, so no. They are not magic items.
By Ciretose's line of reasoning, casting magic fang on an animal turns it into a Magical Beast.
PS: If the GM did allow keen permanency on a sword, it'd only last until it was dispelled. Unlike an actual magic sword, which would only be suppressed for 1d4 rounds.
To be fair to Ciretose if you cast a permanent magic spell on an object then it become a magical item.
He isn't stating ANY spell cast on an object makes it a magical item.
Sorry Ciretose, you're wrong. You're entire argument that it is a magical item seems to be based off a couple sentences in the CRB that say..
Of course, a character may carry or possess as many items of the same type as he wishes. However, additional items beyond those in the slots listed above have no effect.
Some items can be worn or carried without taking up a slot
on a character’s body. The description of an item indicates
when an item has this property.
However, Magic Items are different from magic items (notice the lack of capitalization).
For instance, an Everburning Torch is nothing more than a stick with Continual Flame cast on it. Yet an Everburning Torch is not a Magical Item, it is a magical item. Let me explain why.
- There is no feat required to make an Everburning Torch, simply a spell, while ALL Magical Itmes require feats to create.
- You can create as many Everburning Torches in one day as you have spells available to cast. Contrary to the Magic Item rules that limit creation to 1 single item per day.
- A Continual Flame spell heightened to 9th level does not change the cost off casting the spell or creating an Everburning Torch (unless you are paying someone else to cast it). While in Magic Item Creation Rules, a heightening Continual Flame to 9th level and enchanting an item with it drastically changes the price (3*2*2,000 = 12,000 vs 17*9*2,000 = 306,000).
- One can dispel an Everburning Torch as it is not a Magical Item, it is a magical item. While a stick enchanted with Continual Flame cannot be dispelled, merely suppressed. Instead, you must sunder it, or use Mage's Disjunction on it.
- You can caste Continual Flame on anything that has a physical form. I can cast it on my finger, my nose hair, my eyeball, my turd, my saliva.. while I CANNOT enchant my finger, nose hair, eyeball etc. with Magic Item Creation Rules. This would not make my finger a Magic Item (no puns guys), because it is simply a permanent spell effect.
- An object with Continual Flame cast upon it, function whether or not the item is in your hand. If I throw an Everburning Torch down a corridor, it continues to function. If I throw an Amulet of Natural Armor down a corridor, it doesn't function.
Now I'm sure I'm forgetting some reasons why, but that is no matter to me. An object with Continual Flame cast upon it (such as an Everburning Torch or an amulet) in no way functions like a Magical Item. To rebuttal your own words..
It doesn't walk like a duck.
It doesn't quack like a duck.
It isn't a duck.
End of story.
What about the Ioun Torch, which is actually a Wonderous Item then? How is it different from an Everburning Torch except that it is in the Magic Item table?
|
|
By Ciretose's line of reasoning, casting magic fang on an animal turns it into a Magical Beast.
PS: If the GM did allow keen permanency on a sword, it'd only last until it was dispelled. Unlike an actual magic sword, which would only be suppressed for 1d4 rounds.
What DM would allow keen permanency? Also people and animals are not objects...
On topic,(and within reason) the issue was if you cast continual flame on an non-magical amulet, does it then occupy a slot.
All agree you can cast it on magic items, therefore putting more things on one slot. But could you have a third ring be a continual flame rings, or is the limit two like anything else.
It is a bit of a corner case, as the devs have been careful not to have to many ways to make an wearable item have a permanent magical effect outside of standard item creation, but it came up in the other thread as someone said you could both have a heightened permanent continual fire locket style amulet and another amulet.
My position was you could put both on one amulet, but that wearing two magical amulets broke the slot rule.
Keep in mind the intent of the heightened continual fire amulet was as a counter to darkness spells.
It is a corner case, but it sets bad precedent to allow something wearable (meaning you don't need to retrieve it to use it) that has a magical effect not have to adhere to the rule on slots.
I can't think of too many times this would come into play (my GM's only allow permanency if it is on the permanency list or the spell has that duration) but if in the future more permanent spells allow items with magical effects can be created as wearable items without going through magic item creation, it seems reasonable that since they are A) Magic and B) Items, that they should follow the rules for magic items.
But I don't allow Keen to be cast with permanency, so what do I know.
On topic,(and within reason) the issue was if you cast continual flame on an non-magical amulet, does it then occupy a slot.
No it doesn't because it is not a magical item as defined in the RAW. In fact it is an item with magic cast on it, which is not the same thing as defined in the RAW.
All agree you can cast it on magic items, therefore putting more things on one slot. But could you have a third ring be a continual flame rings, or is the limit two like anything else.
You can have a third, mundane ring with magic cast on it. The rule is that you cannot have more than two magical items in the ring slot. Since a mundane ring with magic cast on it is not actually a magic item it does not count toward the slot limit.
It is a bit of a corner case, as the devs have been careful not to have to many ways to make an wearable item have a permanent magical effect outside of standard item creation, but it came up in the other thread as someone said you could both have a heightened permanent continual fire locket style amulet and another amulet.
I suppose you could consider it a corner case, but the rule seems pretty clear.
My position was you could put both on one amulet, but that wearing two magical amulets broke the slot rule.
Wearing two magical amulets does break the slot rule, wearing one magical amulet and one mundane amulet does not.
Keep in mind the intent of the heightened continual fire amulet was as a counter to darkness spells.
Non-sequitor, what does this have to do with the RAW definition of magical items?
It is a corner case, but it sets bad precedent to allow something wearable (meaning you don't need to retrieve it to use it) that has a magical effect not have to adhere to the rule on slots.
Slippery slope arguement, can you show that this actually will cause a problem in the future?
I can't think of too many times this would come into play (my GM's only allow permanency if it is on the permanency list or the spell has that duration) but if in the future more permanent spells allow items with magical effects can be created as wearable items without going through magic item creation, it seems reasonable that since they are A) Magic and B) Items, that they should follow the rules for magic items.
Casting a spell on an item using permanency does not make it a magic item. The item itself is not magical at all, just like a lead ingot that you cover in gold leaf is not a gold ingot.
But I don't allow Keen to be cast with permanency, so what do I know.
Non-sequitor, what does this have to do with the RAW definition of magical items?
I removed a post. Disagreement is fine, but please do so politely.
What about the Ioun Torch, which is actually a Wonderous Item then? How is it different from an Everburning Torch except that it is in the Magic Item table?
The difference is that the item is created using Magic Item Creation Rules, hence, it is a Magic Item, not a magic item (which is an item, with magic cast on it).
Same question, what's the difference between a +1 Keen Longsword, and a Longsword with Keen Edge, Magic Weapon (+1), and Permanency on both (if allowed), cast on it? The difference is one is created by enchanting it, the other is created by casting spells on it. Keep in mind, the one with spells, can be easily dispelled to remove it's magic, while the enchanted item will be suppressed. You need to sunder or use disjunction on it to remove the magic.
Items created through the Magic Item Creation Rules, take up slots, items with a permanent spell effect on them, do not. A Broken Non-masterwork Scimitar can be made +1 and Keen through spells, but cannot be made +1 and Keen through the Magic Item Creation Rules (normally).
An everburning torch is listed with the regular equipment/alchemical items. It is not listed with Wondrous Items in the Magic Item section of the books. In order to create magic items, you need to have the appropriate item creation feat. If you limit continual flame and say that it creates a magic item, then you are also saying you can cast it only once per day because you can only create one magic item daily.
Regardless of a spell's duration, if you cast it on an object it does not automatically become a magic item. Can you cast light on a non-masterwork sword and does it become a magic item? Does casting obscure object make it a magic item? What if I put a symbol on an an object?
Casting a spell on an object does not make it magical and it does not take up a slot. Creating a magic item is a specific process that involves more than casting a single spell.
What about the Ioun Torch, which is actually a Wonderous Item then? How is it different from an Everburning Torch except that it is in the Magic Item table?
The ioun stone is a magic item with or without continual flame. You could cast light on it constantly as well and get the same general effect (a floating light source). It wouldn't change the fact that the stone is a magic item even if it doesn't have a nifty heatless flame.
|
|
What about the Ioun Torch, which is actually a Wonderous Item then? How is it different from an Everburning Torch except that it is in the Magic Item table?The difference is that the item is created using Magic Item Creation Rules, hence, it is a Magic Item, not a magic item (which is an item, with magic cast on it).
Same question, what's the difference between a +1 Keen Longsword, and a Longsword with Keen Edge, Magic Weapon (+1), and Permanency on both (if allowed).
You can't put permanency on both, because the Devs seem to not want to give you a loophole to create magic items without creating magic items.
Where continual flame falls on this is the questions, as although it is listed under mundane, it is also pointed out that it can't be crafted like a mundane item.
I think we all agree that a mundane item with continual flame cast on it is an item with a magical effect. The question is if that makes it a magic item, and therefore if it would take a slot.
I can't think of (or find) any other examples of being able to create a permanent item that could occupy a slot, so it may not matter much. If I could (or there were) I would hope most people would agree that allowing an item to have a spell ability and be in a slot without occupying a slot is fairly counter to what must have been the the intent in limits of spell slots.
As it stands, it is a corner case. And maybe that is all it is. You can get an Ioun torch for 75gp, so it's largely moot. But clearly what is being demonstrated is that in some games where permanency seems to be allowed liberally there would be opportunities for abuse.
Seriously, where did all this permanent keen stuff start?
A bit of a clarification on the Ioun Torch:
"This item is merely a burned out, dull gray ioun stone with a continual flame spell cast upon it. It retains the ability to float and orbit, and allows the bearer to carry light and still have his hands free. It may be in any crystalline shape common to ioun stones (ellipsoid, prism, sphere, and so on)." - From the SRD.
The Ioun Torch is a wonderous item (Dull Gray Ioun Stone) with continuous flame cast on it. The increase in cost is simply due to the material component of casting Continual Flame. A dispel magic, as I understand it, would end the continuous flame and cause the stone itself to become nonfunctioning for 1d4 rounds. At the end of that time, it would once again float around your head, but the continual flame would need to be cast again. Don't mean to muddy the waters, but I thought that this bears mentioning, considering the fact that the Ioun Stone itself being magical is the only reason that this is considered a Magical Item.
All that being said, I am in agreement with Ashiel. An item with a continuous magical effect that is not created using an item creation feat, does not take up a slot. Anything created using item creation feats is a magic item and thus may take up a slot. A magical effect is something entirely different. Anything rendered temporarily nonmagical is a magic item and may take up a slot, anything rendered permanently nonmagical by dispel magic is not a magic item and therefore does not take up a slot.
Again, this mindset is similar to casting spells on creatures. Animals are normal animals without magic powers. Casting imbue with spell ability on an animal doesn't change into a magical beast. The creature itself is not magical. It is just subject to a spell with a duration that is still active.
Continual flame creates a permanent heat-less light source. It is a spell, with a duration. The duration matters little. It wouldn't matter if it's permanent, 10min/level, or 100 years/level. It's still just a spell effect that is ongoing. Doesn't matter if you cast it on a ring, a club, or a light pole. It's the spell effect, not the object, that is magical. That's very critical. If there's a dispel magic, the spell may end. Magic items are merely suppressed for 1d4 rounds. We are not suppressing a magic item, we are dispelling a currently ongoing spell.
If we made an amulet heightened light, then it would be an entirely different matter. The amulet would actually be a magic item. The light effect would be an effect of the magic item. It would be priced, crafted, and treated as a magic item. It would not simply be a spell cast on an item. It would turn back on in 1d4 rounds after being suppressed. It would get bonuses to saving throws for caster level (magic items get 2 + 1/2 CL on saves; you cannot cast continual flame on a mundane item to grant it saving throws); and so forth.
This entire argument exists because someone can't tell the difference between a mundane item with a spell effect on it, and a magic item.
Here, let me bold something for you:What about the Ioun Torch, which is actually a Wonderous Item then? How is it different from an Everburning Torch except that it is in the Magic Item table?The difference is that the item is created using Magic Item Creation Rules, hence, it is a Magic Item, not a magic item (which is an item, with magic cast on it).
Same question, what's the difference between a +1 Keen Longsword, and a Longsword with Keen Edge, Magic Weapon (+1), and Permanency on both (if allowed).
You can't put permanency on both, because the Devs seem to not want to give you a loophole to create magic items without creating magic items.
Where continual flame falls on this is the questions, as although it is listed under mundane, it is also pointed out that it can't be crafted like a mundane item.
I think we all agree that a mundane item with continual flame cast on it is an item with a magical effect. The question is if that makes it a magic item, and therefore if it would take a slot.
I can't think of (or find) any other examples of being able to create a permanent item that could occupy a slot, so it may not matter much. If I could (or there were) I would hope most people would agree that allowing an item to have a spell ability and be in a slot without occupying a slot is fairly counter to what must have been the the intent in limits of spell slots.
As it stands, it is a corner case. And maybe that is all it is. You can get an Ioun torch for 75gp, so it's largely moot. But clearly what is being demonstrated is that in some games where permanency seems to be allowed liberally there would be opportunities for abuse.
Seriously, where did all this permanent keen stuff start?
Same question, what's the difference between a +1 Keen Longsword, and a Longsword with Keen Edge, Magic Weapon (+1), and Permanency on both .
I used the Longsword as an example of Items that are similar to the differences between an Everburning Torch and an Ioun Torch. Regardless of whether or not Magic Weapon and Keen can be made Permanent, the fact is a Broken, Rusty Longsword with Keen Edge and Magic Weapon cast on it is not a Magic Item. It is a mundane weapon with a temporary enhancement. Just as an Everburnding Torch has a temporary enhancement (as it can be easily dispelled) in the form of a Continual Flame spell.
Another example, if I have a Ring of Sustenance and a Ring of Chameleon Power on, and a Signet Ring to show my heritage, and then cast Continual Flame on the Signet Ring, does the fire go out? If I take it off, does the Fire resume because now, all of a sudden, the magic begins working again? No, no it doesn't. Why? Because Continual Flame doesn't make magic items, it's nothing more than a spell.
I find it funny that you nitpicked one particular part of my post, and completely ignored the rest of it. Makes me think you know you're wrong, and arguing for the sake of arguing.
A bit of a clarification on the Ioun Torch:
"This item is merely a burned out, dull gray ioun stone with a continual flame spell cast upon it. It retains the ability to float and orbit, and allows the bearer to carry light and still have his hands free. It may be in any crystalline shape common to ioun stones (ellipsoid, prism, sphere, and so on)." - From the SRD.
The Ioun Torch is a wonderous item (Dull Gray Ioun Stone) with continuous flame cast on it. The increase in cost is simply due to the material component of casting Continual Flame. A dispel magic, as I understand it, would end the continuous flame and cause the stone itself to become nonfunctioning for 1d4 rounds. At the end of that time, it would once again float around your head, but the continual flame would need to be cast again. Don't mean to muddy the waters, but I thought that this bears mentioning, considering the fact that the Ioun Stone itself being magical is the only reason that this is considered a Magical Item.
Actually, I think this is a mistake because of the description of the item. I first thought the same as well when I read it oh so long ago, but then I noticed something else.
The Ioun Torch has construction requirements.
It requires a feat to create, and the spell Continual Flame. Therefore, because of the requirements, the Ioun Torch is a Wondrous Item, and if dispelled, the magic and the light of the stone go out, but 1d4 rounds later, they resume, both magic and light.
I personally think the Ioun Torch is a stupid item. The Everburning Torch is simply a stick with Continual Flame cast on it, yet it costs 110 gp; while the Ioun Torch floats around your head, and gives off light for 75 gp. Just disproves SKR's claims that Paizo won't release an item that makes something in the Core Rule Book Redudant (I WANT MY MONK WRAPS!).
If casting a permanent spell on an item makes it a magic item, which magic item rules, exactly, do these magic items follow?
They obviously don't follow the creation rules.
Do they follow the Dispel Magic rules? If so, why is the Magic section so deliberately vague and misleading, stating only that permanent spells are "vulnerable" to Dispel Magic, rather than explaining that, when cast on items, they react dramatically different.
For that matter, why is there not one mention in the rule book anywhere of permanent spells creating magic items, let alone, how this sub-class of magic items functions (they certainly don't function like normal magic items)?
Shouldn't Occam's Razor suggest that these are merely mundane items with a spell effect on them, rather than an interpretation requiring several paragraphs of FAQs and errata?
Actually, I think this is a mistake because of the description of the item. I first thought the same as well when I read it oh so long ago, but then I noticed something else.
The Ioun Torch has construction requirements.
It requires a feat to create, and the spell Continual Flame. Therefore, because of the requirements, the Ioun Torch is a Wondrous Item, and if dispelled, the magic and the light of the stone go out, but 1d4 rounds later, they resume, both magic and light.
I personally think the Ioun Torch is a stupid item. The Everburning Torch is simply a stick with Continual Flame cast on it, yet it costs 110 gp; while the Ioun Torch floats around your head, and gives off light for 75 gp. Just disproves SKR's claims that Paizo won't release an item that makes something in the Core Rule Book Redudant (I WANT MY MONK WRAPS!
Not to argue needlessly, because I agree with basically everything else your saying, but I have to stick by my original interpretation of the Ioun Torch. Constructing a Dull Gray Ioun Stone costs 12 gp 5 sp, subsequently casting Continual Flame on it costs 50gp, bringing the total cost to create up to 62 gp 5sp. If, however, you were to create a Dull Gray Ioun Stone with a Continual Light enchanted into it it would cost 2,512 gp 5 sp to create ([{spell level [2] * caster level [3] * 2000} + cost of stone (25)]/2). The math seems a little silly either way, and I agree that it renders the everburning torch utterly useless.
I will admit that I could be wrong about the intent, but the description and pricing seem pretty conclusive to me. I will also admit that this makes me reevaluate the cost of everburning torches in my game. If Ioun Torches are priced at the raw cost of the item and material component, I see no reason for the torch to be more money. Realistically it should only be 50gp 1cp to keep in line with the pricing for the Ioun Torch.
Either way, I am still in complete agreement that casting Continual Flame on a mundane item does not make that item require a slot.
It is odd that the everburning torch is pricing things correctly while the ioun stone is not.
Everburning torch: 2*3*10 (price to have a wizard cast the spell)+50(material component) = 60+50 = 110
Ioun torch: 25(burned out stone)+50(material component) = 75.
Clearly the ioun torch should be priced at: 25+60+50 = 135.
To make an everburning torch yourself is 50gp and to make an ioun torch should be 25+50=75gp for just casting it on a prepurchased stone or 12.5+50=62.5gp if crafting the stone and then casting.
BTW, Dispel magic would kill the continual flame portion of an ioun torch just like it would the everburning torch. This is due to the item's description of it being a burned out stone with a continual flame cast upon it.
- Gauss
It does seem to me to be an arbitrary destinction that one is a wondrous item with construction requirements and everything.
I think that both count as magic items, even though one is in the wondrous item table and one is in the goods and services table. For example I would say that neither falls victim to the "no permanent spells" rule in PFS.
|
|
Let me try explaining my position another way, as this whole thing has gotten way too hyperbolic at this point.
The ioun torch is basically taking the casting of a continual flame and adding the cost of 25 gp to make it float around your head so you don't have to hold it. Very reasonable, very fair, very appropriate.
Casting continual flame on a magic item you already have in a slot works fine, it perfectly reasonable, causes no major issues other than having to use a move action to "uncover" it, and if you decide to switch out magic items in that slot.
If I made a belt of light, it would occupy a belt slot. I could wear multiple belts, even wear multiple magical belts, but RAW I would only get the benefit from the first belt I put on. If someone ran up to me and put another magic belt on me, it doesn't negate the one I have on. If I cast a spell on the belt, it doesn't negate the effects of the belt.
We all agree that when wearing a magic item, you can only wear up to what the slot allows.
Now we have an item (and perhaps others, since some people are giving out permanency beyond what the spell specifically says it can do...) that
A) Detects as Magic.
B) Provides a Magical effect and/or benefit.
My position is that this is a magic item, and so it should be considered as an item that if worn would occupy the slot. The spell can be added to an existing item to "stack" if you cast it on an existing item. The spell can be placed on an unslotted item, such as the ioun stone floating around your head.
But the item should be subject to the same restrictions as any other item that is magic. There is no need to create a loophole, and it doesn't effect any ability to cast spells on any item, no matter how many times others keep saying that I am saying it does.
It isn't a big deal with continual flame. It just means you cast it on the amulet/belt you are wearing rather than wearing two things that produce magical effects in a single slot.
So far as I can tell, it isn't a big deal with any spell I can think of or find. How this got blown into this kerfluffle isn't really clear to me. I posted what I thought was a generally positive comment and then when I said I didn't think it was slotless, TarkTX asked me where my god was...it got weird.
So I don't think it is a major issue either way, as continual flame is more or less a corner case spell. But if you are allowing other spells to be cast permanently on other times which would provide magical benefits, it doesn't seem to me an unreasonable position that these "magic items" would follow the same slotting rules.
I dont play PFS, is it a no 'permanency' spells or no 'permanent' spells? Because there are a number of spells that have permanent effects and have nothing to do with permanency. - Gauss
Now we have an item (and perhaps others, since some people are giving out permanency beyond what the spell specifically says it can do...) thatA) Detects as Magic.
B) Provides a Magical effect and/or benefit.
No we have a spell that detects and magic and provides a magical effect and/or benefit. The item itself does not. The spell is merely cast upon the item. It is a spell effect, not a magic item effect.
Any spell effect that has a duration of permanent does not take up a slot because it is not a crafted item. Ioun Torch is an odd duck because it is a crafted item (Ioun Stone) with a spell (Continual Flame) cast upon it.
I think they could have done better by listing a burned out Ioun Stone in the crafting section, and then noting that it can be the subject of a continual flame as per normal continual flame rules.
- Gauss
Any spell effect that has a duration of permanent does not take up a slot because it is not a crafted item. Ioun Torch is an odd duck because it is a crafted item (Ioun Stone) with a spell (Continual Flame) cast upon it.
I think they could have done better by listing a burned out Ioun Stone in the crafting section, and then noting that it can be the subject of a continual flame as per normal continual flame rules.
- Gauss
|
|
No we have a spell that detects and magic and provides a magical effect and/or benefit. The item itself does not. The spell is merely cast upon the item. It is a spell effect, not a magic item effect.
Now we have an item (and perhaps others, since some people are giving out permanency beyond what the spell specifically says it can do...) thatA) Detects as Magic.
B) Provides a Magical effect and/or benefit.
That is kind of like saying a scroll is a piece of paper with a spell on it.
Which it is.
It also happens to be a magic item. You don't detect the spell on the scroll, you detect the scroll.
I can see where a line and distinction could be drawn, but I don't see why one would or should be drawn? It is an item that provides a magical effect, and so it is to me a magic item. And so if it is being worn in a slot, it would be subject to all the requirements of any other magic item.
Why make the exception, particularly when you can have the effect by casting it on a magic item currently occupying the slot? As I said, this is a complete corner case and I can't think of other spells where this would come up, but why set the precedent that if you can cast a permanent spell effect on something you can get around slot restrictions?
That is kind of like saying a scroll is a piece of paper with a spell on it.Which it is.
No, it's not. The scroll is not currently under the effects of a spell. The scroll itself is a magic item. There is no spell effect. Are you seriously serious? I...I can't even fathom...
You mean like this?Any spell effect that has a duration of permanent does not take up a slot because it is not a crafted item. Ioun Torch is an odd duck because it is a crafted item (Ioun Stone) with a spell (Continual Flame) cast upon it.
I think they could have done better by listing a burned out Ioun Stone in the crafting section, and then noting that it can be the subject of a continual flame as per normal continual flame rules.
- Gauss
I love this:
These are ioun stones that have been burned out or otherwise rendered all but powerless. They retain the ability to float and orbit, and are useful as the target of spells such as continual flame, daylight, and silence, allowing you to keep your hands free. They may be any shape (cabochon, disk, ellipsoid, and so on).
I think this is the key phrase that we've all been dancing around: "target of spells." Significant difference between a target of a spell and crafting a magic item.
As for whether or not it detects as magic, that's a different issue. If I cast invisibility on my armor, it's not magic armor. The detect magic magic is detecting the spell that was cast. It's not detecting a magic item. If I cast the same spell on myself, the detection would still detect the same spell. I don't become magical.
It may seem like splitting hairs but it's an important distinction. Magic items are crafted with the magic invested in them. An item can be the target of a spell without it becoming a magic item.
That is kind of like saying a scroll is a piece of paper with a spell on it.
Which it is.
It also happens to be a magic item. You don't detect the spell on the scroll, you detect the scroll.
Actually, no. Our issue is that what your saying is like saying that any piece of paper with a spell written in it is a scroll. My wizard cannot pull paper out of his spell book and use them as spell completion items. Nor can he copy a spell from another wizards spellbook onto a piece of paper and then, at a later date, pull that piece of paper out of his pocket and cast that spell without using a slot. You are conflating Magical items and items that exhibit a magical effect. Semantically, to an outsider, it is splitting hairs. However, we play a game that is, primarily, words. Semantics is to Pathfinder what physics is to the real world. The precise definitions of these terms matters to how the game is played and the rules interpreted.
Just as writing a spell on a piece of paper doesn't make it a scroll, casting a spell on an item does not make it a magic item. In both cases, scroll and magic item have specific in game meaning. A scroll is a piece of paper that, due to enchanting with Scribe Scroll, functions as a spell completion item. A magic item is an item that, due to enchanting with one of several feats, has long term magical properties. Just because an item exhibits magic does not mean that it is an enchanted item.
TarkXT, yes like that. However, not everyone has Seeker of Secrets as it is a Golarion specific book. Perhaps I should've referenced it but I actually didn't think of it at the time. - Gauss
|
|
Just because an item exhibits magic does not mean that it is an enchanted item.
I get where the distinction is being drawn, I don't get why it is being drawn, other than to, in my opinion, get around something taking up a slot.
Again, you can cast it on a magic item and that item gains the additional effect of the spell in addition to whatever the item does, so you aren't losing anything but they hypothetical ability to wear lots of belts and amulets that contain magical effects without having a spell slot taken.
The only instance I can see it for is continual flame at this point, but why open the door?
I get where the distinction is being drawn, I don't get why it is being drawn, other than to, in my opinion, get around something taking up a slot.Again, you can cast it on a magic item and that item gains the additional effect of the spell in addition to whatever the item does, so you aren't losing anything but they hypothetical ability to wear lots of belts and amulets that contain magical effects without having a spell slot taken.
The only instance I can see it for is continual flame at this point, but why open the door?
Because it was already open?
Because permanent duration spell effects never have been the same as magic items?
ciretose, in addition to what TarkXT just said the other main effect of permanent type magic spells is that they are not completely permanent. They can be dispelled in some fashion whereas Magic Items can only be suppressed. (Barring a disjunction spell of course but that is another level of power entirely.) - Gauss
Actually, it is quite simple: magic items that require slots only do their thing for you if you wear them in the appropriate slot. Your Ring of Sustenance stops working if you put it in your pocket, same for your Amulet of Natural Armor. If you use your Cloak of Resistance as a pillow at night, it does not confer its benefits to you. Any item that you use with Continual Flame will work regardless of where you put it. You do not even have to carry it on your person. It is obviously not something that requires a slot, regardless of its form.
I dont play PFS, is it a no 'permanency' spells or no 'permanent' spells? Because there are a number of spells that have permanent effects and have nothing to do with permanency. - Gauss
Yes, in PFS, any spell with a permanent duration ends at the end of an adventure probably just for bookkeeping reasons. There are many people on the PFS boards who are of the opinion that because of this Ioun Torches and Everburning Torches are essentially destroyed at the end of an adventure based on the fluff text quoted above.
Just because an item exhibits magic does not mean that it is an enchanted item.I get where the distinction is being drawn, I don't get why it is being drawn, other than to, in my opinion, get around something taking up a slot.
Again, you can cast it on a magic item and that item gains the additional effect of the spell in addition to whatever the item does, so you aren't losing anything but they hypothetical ability to wear lots of belts and amulets that contain magical effects without having a spell slot taken.
The only instance I can see it for is continual flame at this point, but why open the door?
I disagree with you, to be honest.. but lets assume for a moment that you are right.
Whats the problem again? Where is the "breaking of the game" thats occuring that this is an issue? Someone is spending a very little bit of cash to rid themselves of an in-game nuisance.. why the great grand push to make it worth as much to the character as a real honest to goodness magical item?
You have said (unless I'm mistaken) that you have no issue with someone casting the spell on an already-magical necklace and parading around with that instead of a normal one and a magical one..
It seems like you are just arguing semantics... Saying no just to say no, without it haveing any actual ingame effect.
'i cast it on my copper necklace and put it on over my amulet of nat armor +5"
"sorry, only one amulet can be worn at a time".
"..... i cast it on my amulet of natural armor +5"
"yep that works"
"*bangs head on desk*"
I mean if you were arguing you actually had to enchant an item with it for it to work- that at least would be something.. but as it is, its just semantics to the point of literally being irrelevant. Or to put it another way- arguing for the joy of arguing.
Whichever side "wins" is pointless because at the end of the day what'll happen is that the PC just casts it on the magical item (in Ciretose's campaign) or on a normal necklace (in everyone else's campaign) without any thing of substance actually changing.. Its no more expensive to cast, no more harder to use/hide/etc or whatever.
I guess I just miss the point of your argument- because at the end of the day it doesn't change the practical course of events.
-S
By your definition, if I am wearing two magical rings, and a third, non-magical ring, then cast Continual Flame on the non-magical ring, the non-magical ring is now a magical item and does not function because the other two rings suppress it. This is WRONG because we know that a Continual Flame functions whether you are 'using' it or not.
Likewise, if I were to cast Continual Flame on my finger, my finger does NOT become a Magical Item. Because you can't enchant your finger. I could pull out a lock of hair and cast Continual Flame on it, but it doesn't become a Magical Item. I could cast Continual Flame on the hair attached to my head (which makes for a cool mental picture) but my head is not a Magical Item.
Again, with every post you make, you do not refute a single point anyone makes. You simply stat that wearing two magical amulets doesn't work because the rules say so, this is true. But then you FAIL to point out how a mundane, non-magical amulet with Continual Light on it is a magical item. You keep saying it is a magical item with no basis in the rules to back yourself up. You're making up rules to suit your needs.
You're doing nothing more than saying it is the rules, because you say it is so.
A magic item is specific thing in game terms. If I cast silence on a rock, that rock is not a magic item. If I imbue the rock with the silence spell by using the the crafting feats it is a magic item. Casting a spell on something does not make it into a magic item. Even using permanency does not make it a magic item. Going back to permanency if I use that spell to make something permanently invisible it is still not a magic item. It is just a item effect by magic.
The game has rules for creating magic items. Barring specific exceptions which I don't know of any, you can't drop a spell on something and say it matches the game terms of what a magic item is.