|
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.
What I'm saying is that this spell seems to be the only one that meets the criteria you described of dropping a spell on something and saying it matches the game terms of what a magic item is. In this case if you can cast continual flame on anything you wear, using the full effect of the spell without occupying a slot, you have the same functionality as an Ioun Torch. And as I said, this seems to be a corner case.
I think you are correct that the Devs have tried very hard to not let you get around having an item work in the same way as a magic item by casting a spell on it.
I get that the consensus is that if it isn't a magic item built through the crafting guidelines that they believe it isn't a magic item. And I get that people believe their is a clear distinction between a spell cast on an item and an item that has been made magical through the item creation process. My position does not come from a lack of understanding of the various positions.
My position is based on what I perceive as the intent of the slot rule, which is to say that you can only have or wear so many things that produce magical effect.
We disagree, but I don't think it is an irrational position to say that an item that has been made magic is a magic item.
|
|
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.
In the case of continual flame I agree it isn't a big deal since there is a 75 gp item that does the same thing.
However this came from a thread where they proposed a permanent heightened continual flame on an item that would functionally make darkness spell useless, as light spells counter darkness if they are higher level.
Again, not a big deal, but it is a permanent item that negates another item that takes no slot. Buy a dusty ioun stone and cast it on it, problem mostly solved except for having to retrieve it if you don't want a flaming ioun stone around your head all the time.
At the end of the day as I keep saying this may be a corner case, so far it seems to be a corner case. I can't think of any other examples where a spell would be put on a wearable item where it would provide advantage where it wouldn't just be cast on the person.
But if you are able to functional create a magical item outside of the rules of item creation, which is what I'm arguing a heightened continual flame "X" would be, I think that those things should follow the same rules as other magic items.
I'm clearly in the minority, the devs may very well rule against me, and it may not matter because there are no other examples of being able to do this, specifically because the devs try not to have spells that create wearable items with magical effects.
|
|
What I'm saying is that this spell seems to be the only one that meets the criteria you described of dropping a spell on something and saying it matches the game terms of what a magic item is.
Why?
If we were to accept this concept of 'item with spell on it = magic item' wouldn't EVERY spell which affects an item do this?
Wouldn't casting 'Magic Aura' on a mundane ring cause your Ring of Regeneration on the same hand to suddenly stop working?
Wouldn't a wooden holy symbol necklace with Ironwood cast on it suddenly be a 'magic item' and thus cancel out any other magical amulet / necklace?
Wouldn't casting Arcane Mark on your shirt make it a magic 'chest slot' item and thus cancel out the magical benefits of the +5 plate worn over the shirt?
Et cetera. While only Arcane Mark is normally permanent, if a spell makes something a magic item then the duration of the spell shouldn't matter.
Also note that there are other rules particular to 'magic items' which should be considered. For instance, most items don't get a saving throw when targeted with a spell... but magic items do. So casting 'Arcane Mark' on your shirt would make it much more resistant to spell damage.
So, far from being an 'easily avoided two items in a slot gotcha condition' this is ACTUALLY a wonderful way to make all your gear less likely to be damaged. :]
|
|
The new item doesn't negate the old. Never has, or people would try to put items on BBEG to negate artifacts.
Ummm... if that were true then what the heck is the whole point of your 'Continual Flame on a mundane necklace conflicts with a magical amulet' argument? Unless you are trying to make some sort of semantic distinction then having two magic items in the same slot has always meant that one of them does not function.
The new item doesn't negate the old. Never has, or people would try to put items on BBEG to negate artifacts.
There you go. If it makes you happy, the player is putting their continual flame item on after their magical item.
another attempt to convince ciretose:
to enchant weapons, armors and shields with magic, they have to be masterwork... (it's not a option... it's a requirement)
@ciretose
- if one of your players wants to cast continual light on their mundane rusty sword, do you enforce the rule that it has to be made masterwork first?
- if one of your players wants to cast continual light on their munane ring, do you enforce that they have to have the "forge ring" feat to do this?
- Armor to be made into magic armor must be masterwork armor
- Only a masterwork weapon can become a magic weapon
another clue:
The act of working on the [item] triggers the prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each day of the weapon's creation.
it TRIGGERS the spell...
the text doesn't say you cast the spell as part of creating the itemit says crafting that item triggers the spell
That is, those spell slots are expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if they had been cast.
it's AS IF, but they ARE NOT CAST, they ARE TRIGGERED... biiiiig difference
sooo
casting a spell on an item =/= enchanting an item
as others already said:
item with spell on it + dispel magic = spell is gone
magic item + dispel magic = magic enhancements are suppresed for X time
ioun torch + dispel magic = stone stops float for x rounds, but continual flame is gone permanently
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.
In the case of continual flame I agree it isn't a big deal since there is a 75 gp item that does the same thing.
However this came from a thread where they proposed a permanent heightened continual flame on an item that would functionally make darkness spell useless, as light spells counter darkness if they are higher level.
Again, not a big deal, but it is a permanent item that negates another item that takes no slot. Buy a dusty ioun stone and cast it on it, problem mostly solved except for having to retrieve it if you don't want a flaming ioun stone around your head all the time.
At the end of the day as I keep saying this may be a corner case, so far it seems to be a corner case. I can't think of any other examples where a spell would be put on a wearable item where it would provide advantage...
So if I understand your issue its:
That they might come out with some other permanent-duration spell and that if they did then this might become an actual issue?
I don't disagree that a heightened whatever could theoretically be an issue but the light of a thousand suns that the PC's are wearing around their (whatever.. neck finger wrist ankle etc..)
It seems to me it'd be better off to just houserule the problem rather than try to argue this as a rules issue- since the rules are pretty clear on how it works.
I'm not trying to say "hey shut up"- am just trying to see it from the same angle you do.
Afterall- the spell is priced at the benefit it is intended to give. If the PC's figure out some (not exactly crafty- it isn't as though Heighten is in some splat book) way to possibly abuse it, the DM should just prevent it or jack up the price or something. Thats just IMO though.
-S
I can put a permanent symbol of insanity on the inside of a king's ring. Is the ring now a magic item? I would say that it isn't even though it's going to detect as magic. It is just where the spell is located. What about a permanent invisibility on your wagon so you can travel around Wonder Woman style? Is the wagon now a magic item? Better yet, if an assassin uses it to hide a body in plain sight, did he just create a magic corpse?
None of these are magic items and do not follow the magic item creation rules. Detect magic works still because it is finding the spell that resides on the item. However, if you tried to use Spellcraft to identify the magic item you would find that it is a normal item with a spell cast on it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My position is based on what I perceive as the intent of the slot rule, which is to say that you can only have or wear so many things that produce magical effect.
A necklace with continual flame cast on it does not produce a magical effect. It is under a magical effect.
@ Ciretose You said that the new item doesn't negate the old.
Where is this written for items that are not rings?
does it make you wonder when there is noone here posting that has the same opinion as you? I'm not saying that this is evidence that you're wrong, but it seems to increase your certainty rather than to decrease, which makes me wonder.
also, if an item with a spell is a magic item, would it fall under magic item creation guidelines, thus it would cost less to cast permanent light on a necklace, than on a rubber ball?
And if you take the necklace off, and hold it in your hand? It still shines, right? But then it costs less as the rubber ball I hold in my hand who got light on it.
If you're right about the intention of spells on items, there are more than a few things that stop making sense.
Why are people still trying to convince ciretose?
His position that for the purpose of balance a permanent duration spell should not be allowed to circumvent magic item slot, and magic item creation rules, isn't changing and I don't think it will change even if this thread reaches 100 pages.
He has his opinion and I am guessing the rest of his gaming group agrees with it. Presuming he isn't running PFS we can just let it go.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why are people still trying to convince ciretose?
His position that for the purpose of balance a permanent duration spell should not be allowed to circumvent magic item slot, and magic item creation rules, isn't changing and I don't think it will change even if this thread reaches 100 pages.
He has his opinion and I am guessing the rest of his gaming group agrees with it. Presuming he isn't running PFS we can just let it go.
But many think he is wrong on the internet.
|
On a related issue, if you hit someone with an everburning torch, would you get past any magic-based DR?
What about if you punched them with a gauntlet of rust?
Cut them with a gem of seeing?
Pincered them using one of the protuberances on an "apparatus of the crab"?
Or simply dropped the whole thing on them from 10' up?
Richard
match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.
It would appear that as long as you employ a magic item as a improvised weapon you could bypass magic dr.
Ahorsewithnoname: you only posted half of the truth. On page 562 it goes into further detail to define what a magic weapon is.
Overcoming DR: Damage reduction may be overcome by special materials, magic weapons (any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality), certain types of weapons (such as slashing or bludgeoning), and weapons imbued with an alignment.
- Gauss
Ahorsewithnoname: you only posted half of the truth. On page 562 it goes into further detail to define what a magic weapon is.
Overcoming DR: Damage reduction may be overcome by special materials, magic weapons (any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality), certain types of weapons (such as slashing or bludgeoning), and weapons imbued with an alignment.- Gauss
Thanks I missed that part! So I guess the correct answer is if it was a +1 gem of seeing it would by pass magic dr.
EDIT: If you could do that with the within the rules.
and you can't do it within the rules, because it needs to be a masterwork weapon, and a gem hardly qualifies for that. (edit: just as improvised weapons can't be masterwork)
I also believe that Paizo must have their description of magic weapon wrong as a sword with light cast on it wouldn't qualify even if it is clearly a weapon with magic on it. [ok, I will stop trolling and take horses advice]
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.
In the case of continual flame I agree it isn't a big deal since there is a 75 gp item that does the same thing.
However this came from a thread where they proposed a permanent heightened continual flame on an item that would functionally make darkness spell useless, as light spells counter darkness if they are higher level.
Again, not a big deal, but it is a permanent item that negates another item that takes no slot. Buy a dusty ioun stone and cast it on it, problem mostly solved except for having to retrieve it if you don't want a flaming ioun stone around your head all the time.
At the end of the day as I keep saying this may be a corner case, so far it seems to be a corner case. I can't think of any other examples where a spell would be put on a wearable item where it would provide advantage...
There's nothing exploitative about this. The ability to cast continual flame on anything and everything is a feature of the spell. You can cast it on a rock, stick it to your forehead with sovereign glue, and it still works--not taking up a slot. You can cast it on eight rings and wear them all. You can cast it on your pants, and it will work--and there is no pants slot. You can cast it on a wagon and hitch it around your chest with rope, and the wagon will glow. No slot.
If continual flame didn't have the line "Duration: permanent", would you still be arguing that the target is now a magic item? If not, there is no reason to think a mere mathematical adjustment changes the item from mundane to magical.
It's a spell on a mundane item. The mundane item is merely an anchor.
If you're that dead set on "OMG SPLOITS" for a bloody light spell, make them cast it on their pants. Then it won't matter, as there is no other magic item that takes a pants slot; therefore, there is nothing to conflict with. Substitute rock-on-forehead or nipple barbell or whatever you like that doesn't take up a slot.
Or you could do the sane thing and just let it go, man.
On the subject of everburning torch: As far as I'm concerned, so long as you have Craft Magic Arms/Armor, pay the 150 gp to make it a masterwork improvised weapon and the 1000 gp for enhancing it to +1, why not? Enjoy your +1 everburning torch--complete with improvised weapon penalty.
I look forward to making an Improvised Weapon Master with a vorpal frying pan.
Edit: Adjusted price to crafting cost rather than market value.
My wife had a player that glamoured his characters flaming rapier to look like a soup ladle.
His enemies were very confused by a rogue charging at them with a burning ladle.
Bahahahaha! Consider that shamelessly stolen.
Equally confusing: glamering a ladle to look like a +1 flaming rapier and making soup with it.
|
|
@ Ciretose You said that the new item doesn't negate the old.
Where is this written for items that are not rings?
Pg 459 of the Core Rulebook
"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."
The point of debate is if a mundane item becomes a magic item when a spell is cast on it or not. We all agree you can cast spells on magic items.
@blahpers It isn't really going to be relevant if it isn't permanent, since you can cast it on a magic item you are currently wearing for the duration of the spell.
The issue here is if I make an amulet of heightened continual flame by casting heightened continual flame on a mundane amulet, if later on I get, say an amulet of natural armor can I wear both the amulet I made and the amulet of natural armor, or do I need to recast the spell onto the amulet of natural armor to get the benefit of the effect, because that amulet is itself an item that takes up a slot.
Now what if they were gloves.
@blahpers It isn't really going to be relevant if it isn't permanent, since you can cast it on a magic item you are currently wearing for the duration of the spell.
You can cast permanent spells on magic items too, unless the spell description says otherwise.
The issue here is if I make an amulet of heightened continual flame by casting heightened continual flame on a mundane amulet, if later on I get, say an amulet of natural armor can I wear both the amulet I made and the amulet of natural armor, or do I need to recast the spell onto the amulet of natural armor to get the benefit of the effect, because that amulet is itself an item that takes up a slot.
It works fine because the mundane amulet isn't a magical amulet--it's an amulet with a spell targeting it, a spell that (irrelevantly) happens to have a permanent duration. It's subject to all the rules for mundane items (e.g., automatically fails all saving throws if unattended), and none of the rules for magic items (e.g., the spell doesn't come back after being dispelled).
Now what if they were gloves.
This doesn't change a thing.
The issue here is if I make an amulet of heightened continual flame by casting heightened continual flame on a mundane amulet, if later on I get, say an amulet of natural armor can I wear both the amulet I made and the amulet of natural armor, or do I need to recast the spell onto the amulet of natural armor to get the benefit of the effect, because that amulet is itself an item that takes up a slot.
No where are we discussing making an Amulet of Continual Flame.
Creating an Amulet of Continual Flame requires Craft Wonderous Item, a caster level of 3, and several days work. As I explained above, this item would cost 2,500 gp, buying such an item would cost 5,000gp ([caster level{3} * spell level {2} * 2000]/2 (duration over 24 hours) = market price / 2 = crafting cost) That item would indeed take up a slot. It would also interact differently with dispel magic, being suppressed for 1d4 rounds rather than completely dispelled.
Now what if they were gloves.
If those gloves were made to be worn over other gloves, I see no problem with having your gloves with Continual Light cast on them worn over the Gloves of Arrow snaring or whatever.
Obviously we're all just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point, but hey, that's fun too, right?
Sure.
@ Ciretose You said that the new item doesn't negate the old.
Where is this written for items that are not rings?
Pg 459 of the Core Rulebook
"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."
The point of debate is if a mundane item becomes a magic item when a spell is cast on it or not. We all agree you can cast spells on magic items.
@blahpers It isn't really going to be relevant if it isn't permanent, since you can cast it on a magic item you are currently wearing for the duration of the spell.
The issue here is if I make an amulet of heightened continual flame by casting heightened continual flame on a mundane amulet, if later on I get, say an amulet of natural armor can I wear both the amulet I made and the amulet of natural armor, or do I need to recast the spell onto the amulet of natural armor to get the benefit of the effect, because that amulet is itself an item that takes up a slot.
Now what if they were gloves.
Except that if we use your quote as gospel for your argument then enchanting a pebble with it doesn't work until you put it in a slot somewhre.. You can't throw it, you can't.. well.. do anything with it but wear it in a magical item slot.
By your reaasoning, if I cast it on a sash and tie the sash around my spear (or anywhere else) it doesn't work if it isn't occupying a slot spot.Its either a slotted item and only works when slotted, or it isn't- and can be cast and used for anything anywhere. The logic just doesn't track.
-S
ciretose: Yes. Ioun Torch specifically stated that it is just a burned out ioun stone with continual flame cast upon it. Thus, it looses the continual flame spell if dispelled. The burned out ioun stone is intact (suppressed for 1d4 rounds). - Gauss
If an ioun torch is dispelled, does it lose coninual flame?
Yes it does. As I explained above:
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).
I just realized I missed a "/2" on there, the rest of the math is correct, however.
By the math, an Ioun Torch is a Dull Gray Stone with Continual Flame cast on it. If targeted with Dispel, upon a successful caster level check, the Continual Flame ends and the stone drops to the ground. 1d4 rounds later, the stone will be able to orbit your head again, but the flame is gone until it is cast again.
It seems you enjoy arguing around in circles, rather than actually reading back at the responses made earlier to see how your wrong. That's cool, I've got the day off.
Gauss I see the logic of that statement but it is classified as a magic item and lists continual flame as one of the requirements, it is listed a minor wonderous item and instead could have been listed in the equipment section of the APG if that were the case. I personally think that the ioun torch retains the continual flame as a result.
Aura strong universal; CL 12th
Slot none; Price 75 gp; Weight —
Description
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).
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, continual flame, creator
must be 12th level; Cost 62 gp, 5 sp
@ Ciretose You said that the new item doesn't negate the old.
Where is this written for items that are not rings?
Pg 459 of the Core Rulebook
"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."
The point of debate is if a mundane item becomes a magic item when a spell is cast on it or not. We all agree you can cast spells on magic items.
@blahpers It isn't really going to be relevant if it isn't permanent, since you can cast it on a magic item you are currently wearing for the duration of the spell.
The issue here is if I make an amulet of heightened continual flame by casting heightened continual flame on a mundane amulet, if later on I get, say an amulet of natural armor can I wear both the amulet I made and the amulet of natural armor, or do I need to recast the spell onto the amulet of natural armor to get the benefit of the effect, because that amulet is itself an item that takes up a slot.
Now what if they were gloves.
Except that if we use your quote as gospel for your argument then enchanting a pebble with it doesn't work until you put it in a slot somewhre.. You can't throw it, you can't.. well.. do anything with it but wear it in a magical item slot.
By your reaasoning, if I cast it on a sash and tie the sash around my spear (or anywhere else) it doesn't work if it isn't occupying a slot spot.Its either a slotted item and only works when slotted, or it isn't- and can be cast and used for anything anywhere. The logic just doesn't track.
-S
In our first session, the party came across one of those classic board-game-like floor traps that they had to traverse. Since the room was pretty large, they cast light on something--a tiny rock or something, I forget--and tossed it into the middle of the room.
I'm curious how ciretose would rule the effect of this.
- Would the rock have started glowing immediately on casting, or would it be nonfunctional due to not being in a "slot"?
- Would the rock glow after being thrown?
- Someone picks up the rock, threads a chain through a conveniently-bored hole through it, and places it around his neck next to his amulet of natural armor. Does the rock glow?
- He then removes the rock from the chain and threads a small bit of steel wire through it, twisting or welding the wire ends into a closed loop. Then he slips the loop around his finger. He is already wearing a ring of mind shielding and a ring of sustenance. Does the rock glow?
- Restart the scenario, but replace light with continual flame. Does anything change?
The vast majority of people (and I'd bet my favorite dice set the vast majority of paizo developers) would say that the rock glows for all of those scenarios. RAW supports this interpretation because there is not a single place in the text that states that merely casting a spell on an item is sufficient to make it a "magic item".
Gauss I see the logic of that statement but it is classified as a magic item and lists continual flame as one of the requirements, it is listed a minor wonderous item and instead could have been listed in the equipment section of the APG if that were the case. I personally think that the ioun torch retains the continual flame as a result.
** spoiler omitted **
It is a magic item--a dull grey ioun stone that you are crafting from scratch (which is why you need Craft Wondrous Item). The fact that a dull grey ioun stone is nearly useless doesn't change the fact that it is a magic item. The text and cost both support the idea that the continual flame is not infused into the crafting but instead merely cast upon the result (and, thus, easily dispelled permanently). Otherwise, it would be much more expensive.
In our first session, the party came across one of those classic board-game-like floor traps that they had to traverse. Since the room was pretty large, they cast light on something--a tiny rock or something, I forget--and tossed it into the middle of the room.I'm curious how ciretose would rule the effect of this.
1. Would the rock have started glowing immediately on casting, or would it be nonfunctional due to not being in a "slot"?
2. Would the rock glow after being thrown?
3. Someone picks up the rock, threads a chain through a conveniently-bored hole through it, and places it around his neck next to his amulet of natural armor. Does the rock glow?
4. He then removes the rock from the chain and threads a small bit of steel wire through it, twisting or welding the wire ends into a closed loop. Then he slips the loop around his finger. He is already wearing a ring of mind shielding and a ring of sustenance. Does the rock glow?
5. Restart the scenario, but replace light with continual flame. Does anything change?The vast majority of people (and I'd bet my favorite dice set the vast majority of paizo developers) would say that the rock glows for all of those scenarios. RAW supports this interpretation because there is not a single place in the text that states that merely casting a spell on an item is sufficient to make it a "magic item".
I don't know what the obsession with misinterpreting ciretose is. He's stated pretty clearly his issue is with permanent spells cast on objects that then occupy a slot on the body reserved for magic items.
I don't know what the obsession with misinterpreting ciretose is. He's stated pretty clearly his issue is with permanent spells cast on objects that then occupy a slot on the body reserved for magic items.
It's not misinterpreting, the point is to show the flaw in his logic by extending out the circumstances of the use of the item.
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 iounstones (ellipsoid, prism, sphere, and so on).
You do not cast spells as part of a magic item creation process... the spell is triggered by the crafter enchanting the item. The wording is quite clear.
Reread my post above... triggering vs casting.So it's a magical ioun stone (enchanted to float around your head) with a spell cast on it. And yes the spell happens to have a duration of permanent, so what?
By the way: what's to stop you from casting a heighened permanencied dancing lights? how would that be less "abusive" then that continual light necklace? It would still cancel the darkness...
- Darkness can be used to counter or dispel any light spell of equal or lower spell level
- Dancing Lights School evocation [light]
- Dancing lights can be made permanent with a permanency spell
And all that does not stop you from casting a heightened "darkness", or does it?
All you are really doing with that houserule, is making darkvision a must-have, thus making those races more powerful/desirable, I'm not sure that's a good thing. Or are you such a huge fan of dwarves and orcs and everybody just has to play one?
It is a magic item--a dull grey ioun stone that you are crafting from scratch (which is why you need Craft Wondrous Item). The fact that a dull grey ioun stone is nearly useless doesn't change the fact that it is a magic item. The text and cost both support the idea that the continual flame is not infused into the crafting but instead merely cast upon the result (and, thus, easily dispelled permanently). Otherwise, it would be much more expensive.Gauss I see the logic of that statement but it is classified as a magic item and lists continual flame as one of the requirements, it is listed a minor wonderous item and instead could have been listed in the equipment section of the APG if that were the case. I personally think that the ioun torch retains the continual flame as a result.
** spoiler omitted **
If that is the case it needs to have a market value of 135, 25 for the dull grey ioun stone and 110 for the casting of continual flame. Not 25 and 50 gp for materials.
I will grant that what you are stating is perfectly reasonable and in line with the fluff describing the item, and is even probably what was intended.
But this discussion is really tangential to the citerose original issue with continual flame, and more generally spells with a permanent duration cast on objects.
It is a magic item--a dull grey ioun stone that you are crafting from scratch (which is why you need Craft Wondrous Item). The fact that a dull grey ioun stone is nearly useless doesn't change the fact that it is a magic item. The text and cost both support the idea that the continual flame is not infused into the crafting but instead merely cast upon the result (and, thus, easily dispelled permanently). Otherwise, it would be much more expensive.Gauss I see the logic of that statement but it is classified as a magic item and lists continual flame as one of the requirements, it is listed a minor wonderous item and instead could have been listed in the equipment section of the APG if that were the case. I personally think that the ioun torch retains the continual flame as a result.
** spoiler omitted **
If that is the case it needs to have a market value of 135, 25 for the dull grey ioun stone and 110 for the casting of continual flame. Not 25 and 50 gp for materials.
I will grant that what you are stating is perfectly reasonable and in line with the fluff describing the item, and is even probably what was intended.
But this discussion is really tangential to the citerose original issue with continual flame, and more generally spells with a permanent duration cast on objects.
Incorrect math, but I too would rather get back to the original line of discussion--namely, why ciretose's line of reasoning on the subject of spelled items breaks down (or at least becomes ridiculous) when followed to its logical conclusion.
And all that does not stop you from casting a heightened "darkness", or does it?All you are really doing with that houserule, is making darkvision a must-have, thus making those races more powerful/desirable, I'm not sure that's a good thing. Or are you such a huge fan of dwarves and orcs and everybody just has to play one?
The issue that sparked this was the ability to counter deeper darkness (unheightened of course), at all times for 330 gp while occupying your neck slot w/o actually occupying your neck slot.
Basically your getting a slotless magic item for a steal, counter a rather powerful spell effect, normal darkness, and it keeps your hands free!
I used to buy a similar item in 3.5 all the time so I don't see the issue personally but that is the gist of the problem.
|
|
ciretose: Yes. Ioun Torch specifically stated that it is just a burned out ioun stone with continual flame cast upon it. Thus, it looses the continual flame spell if dispelled. The burned out ioun stone is intact (suppressed for 1d4 rounds). - Gauss
Actually it doesn't.
"Ioun Torch
Aura strong universal; CL 12th
Slot none; Price 75 gp; Weight —
Description
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).
Construction Requirements
Craft Wondrous Item, continual flame, creator must be 12th level; Cost 62 gp, 5 sp"
The only spell is continual flame, the creation spell for the ioun stone itself isn't listed.
My guess is they realized that if you bought a dull gray ioun stone you could do this for about 75 gp, so they just made it official.
ciretose: Yes. Ioun Torch specifically stated that it is just a burned out ioun stone with continual flame cast upon it. Thus, it looses the continual flame spell if dispelled. The burned out ioun stone is intact (suppressed for 1d4 rounds). - GaussActually it doesn't.
"Ioun Torch
Aura strong universal; CL 12thSlot none; Price 75 gp; Weight —
Description
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).Construction Requirements
Craft Wondrous Item, continual flame, creator must be 12th level; Cost 62 gp, 5 sp"The only spell is continual flame, the creation spell for the ioun stone itself isn't listed.
My guess is they realized that if you bought a dull gray ioun stone you could do this for about 75 gp, so they just made it official.
You are correct sir, no where in the text that you pasted in does it say that the item is a Dull Gray Ioun Stone with Continual Flame cast upon it....
The reason for there not being a spell listed for the creation of the Dull Grey Stone is that there is no spell used to create a Dull Grey Stone:
Dull Gray Stone (Ioun Stone)
Aura faint universal; CL 12th
Slot none; Price: 25 gp; Weight —.
DESCRIPTION
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).
Cracked: This stone has no powers. Price: 25 gp.
Flawed: This stone has no powers. Price: 25 gp.
See Inferior Ioun Stones for details on cracked and flawed variant stones.
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
Craft Wondrous Item, creator must be 12th level; Cost 12 gp, 5 sp
The pricing for the Ioun Torch is consistent with the creator simply making the stone and then casting Continual Flame on it. The reason continual flame is listed as a requirement for making an Ioun Torch is that you can't realistically cast a spell you don't have access to. As I have pointed out several times the pricing for the Ioun Torch is ONLY consistent with it being created in this manner, not as a standard wondrous item.
|
|
I'm curious how ciretose would rule the effect of this.1. Would the rock have started glowing immediately on casting, or would it be nonfunctional due to not being in a "slot"?
2. Would the rock glow after being thrown?
3. Someone picks up the rock, threads a chain through a conveniently-bored hole through it, and places it around his neck next to his amulet of natural armor. Does the rock glow?
4. He then removes the rock from the chain and threads a small bit of steel wire through it, twisting or welding the wire ends into a closed loop. Then he slips the loop around his finger. He is already wearing a ring of mind shielding and a ring of sustenance. Does the rock glow?
5. Restart the scenario, but replace light with continual flame. Does anything change?
I'm not sure either Ahorsewithnoname, but I'll ask when answered (thanks for posting this by the way, and being very reasonable. It's always nice when you disagree with someone that they aren't disagreeable).
So to answer.
1. Yes, he cast light on a rock so the rock glows.
2. Yes, the rock is what it was cast on.
3. I would say no, with it stopping as soon as it was put in the same place as the amulet, as the amulet was first. If it was held up like a torch, yes. But once it is placed in the same "slot" as another object as the rule states "additional items beyond those in the slots listed above have no effect."
But you can cast light on the amulet of natural armor so it is kind of a moot point.
Why is this so? For the same reason we have 10 fingers and can have the effects of two magic rings. Because they want to limit the number of magic items you can have active at a given time, so they made a rule about how many items can be in a slot. If they didn't, everyone would wear 10 rings and enough necklaces to look like Mr. T.
4. I would say no, for the same reasons as above. Although while it is not being worn in a slot previously occupied by another magic item, it would.
5. Nope, except it is very impractical to use light, as due to the duration you would just cast it on the magic item in the slot rather than on another object, and then wearing the object in a "slot".
|
|
stuff about Ioun stones
So then this magic item doesn't follow the rules for magic items because...
As I said, I think they made this item because other people were already doing it, so they just codified it officially as a magic items. Why? Because it's a cool idea that doesn't cause any real issues and fits the rules. It was a really good, cool idea, just like Ashiel's heightened continual flame to counter darkness is a good idea (which was where this all started, me saying it was a good idea...)
Nowhere in the text does it say the continual flame can be dispelled differently that you would any other magic item. I suspect many players who had it dispelled would argue strongly it should come back in 1d4 rounds like any other magic item. And they would have a very strong case to do so.
What I said from the beginning was Ashiel came up with an interesting way to use continual flame to make an item that I would consider to be a magic item. And if it is a magic item, it is subject to the magic item rules.
Many of you disagree with me about it. And that is fine. That is what FAQ is for. It appears to be a corner case at this point, so it isn't a big deal.
Also if it was a magic item does that mean it gets saving throws if attacked unattended? Why should something with a permanat spell cast on it give items better saving throws.
I'm curious how ciretose would rule the effect of this.1. Would the rock have started glowing immediately on casting, or would it be nonfunctional due to not being in a "slot"?
2. Would the rock glow after being thrown?
3. Someone picks up the rock, threads a chain through a conveniently-bored hole through it, and places it around his neck next to his amulet of natural armor. Does the rock glow?
4. He then removes the rock from the chain and threads a small bit of steel wire through it, twisting or welding the wire ends into a closed loop. Then he slips the loop around his finger. He is already wearing a ring of mind shielding and a ring of sustenance. Does the rock glow?
5. Restart the scenario, but replace light with continual flame. Does anything change?I'm not sure either Ahorsewithnoname, but I'll ask when answered (thanks for posting this by the way, and being very reasonable. It's always nice when you disagree with someone that they aren't disagreeable).
So to answer.
1. Yes, he cast light on a rock so the rock glows.
2. Yes, the rock is what it was cast on.
3. I would say no, with it stopping as soon as it was put in the same place as the amulet, as the amulet was first. If it was held up like a torch, yes. But once it is placed in the same "slot" as another object as the rule states "additional items beyond those in the slots listed above have no effect."
But you can cast light on the amulet of natural armor so it is kind of a moot point.
Why is this so? For the same reason we have 10 fingers and can have the effects of two magic rings. Because they want to limit the number of magic items you can have active at a given time, so they made a rule about how many items can be in a slot. If they didn't, everyone would wear 10 rings and enough necklaces to look like Mr. T.
4. I would say no, for the same reasons as above. Although while it is not being worn in a slot previously occupied by another magic item, it would.
5. Nope, except it is...
Interesting. I assume, there's nothing preventing Mr. Lightrock from strapping the rock to his kneecap, thereby circumventing the apparent slot restriction?
It also has interesting implications. Now if I'm fighting some aristocratic fighter wearing with two magical rings and several nonmagical ones, I can no longer cast heat metal on one of the nonmagical ones. Well, I can, but it wouldn't do anything at all, because the ring would now be a magic item and would open the aristocrat to "exploiting" the two-ring limit. Even a 9th-level, unspecified ultracurse that causes the bearer of that ring to wither and die would fail on that mundane ring by virtue of it being duration-magic-proof from proximity to other rings. There are countless other absurdities I could come up with here.
Regarding slot restrictions: They are indeed present to prevent a character from equipping too many items and unbalancing the game. They are not, however, intended to prevent a character's spells from working in the manner in which they were designed. Spells and magic items are separate mechanics with separate rules.
Since RAW doesn't support your mechanic, I conclude that you still propose it as RAI because you feel there is an pbvious balance issue regarding the use of a heightened continual light. But that is exactly what the spell and feat were designed to do--provide a magical light source that would overcome normal darkness spells. And as you point out, there cannot be a balance issue because the spell could simply have been cast on something that wasn't illegal. Or, as I pointed out, Mr. Lightrock could simply make a cufflink out of the rock, wear the feather in his hair, or even hang the rock off of the other amulet (rather than hanging it around his neck).
Spells is spells. Magic items is magic items. If they had decided to use the word "widget" instead of the term "magic item", this conversation would never have come up.
Forgot something:
Just to be clear, are you stating that it's okay to cast a non-permanent spell on an existing slotted item, but a permanent spell is verboten? If so, what about a spell with a duration of, say, a year per level? How about a day? Where's the cutoff point at which the God of Baubles steps in and says "no, that is forbidden"? After all, RAW doesn't say a thing about spells with a permanent duration getting any kind of special treatment.
Edit: Forgot one more thing (sorry)
So then this magic item doesn't follow the rules for magic items because...
Because the text for that magic item says so in its description. As a rule, specific trumps general.
stuff about Ioun stonesSo then this magic item doesn't follow the rules for magic items because...
As I said, I think they made this item because other people were already doing it, so they just codified it officially as a magic items. Why? Because it's a cool idea that doesn't cause any real issues and fits the rules. It was a really good, cool idea, just like Ashiel's heightened continual flame to counter darkness is a good idea (which was where this all started, me saying it was a good idea...)
Nowhere in the text does it say the continual flame can be dispelled differently that you would any other magic item. I suspect many players who had it dispelled would argue strongly it should come back in 1d4 rounds like any other magic item. And they would have a very strong case to do so.
What I said from the beginning was Ashiel came up with an interesting way to use continual flame to make an item that I would consider to be a magic item. And if it is a magic item, it is subject to the magic item rules.
Many of you disagree with me about it. And that is fine. That is what FAQ is for. It appears to be a corner case at this point, so it isn't a big deal.
It doesn't follow the regular item creation rules. It's a little silly, I agree, and even said so earlier in this thread. It is also a little silly for the Ioun Torch to be priced 35 gp less than the Everburning Torch, but it is for some reason.
And I still have to disagree with you about the rest. A Magic Item is strictly an item enchanted using Item Creation feats. This is an instance where Paizo could learn a bit from Wizards of the Coast (it actually hurt to type that...). In MtG there is a huge list of key words with rules implications. That way if you see one of those words on a card, you know exactly what that cards effect is.
To apply that to this problem, Magic, Magical, and Enchanted should become keywords in Pathfinder. Magic or Magical should refer to spells, Enchanted to items created using Item Creation Feats. Thus, casting a spell on an item makes it Magical, different keyword, different rules apply.
I'm also going to disagree that this is a corner case. Go to the SRD and do a search for "object touched" and you will get pages upon pages of spells that affect an object for some duration of time. Any of those spells will have the exact same rules implications that Continual Flame has.