|
Interesting. I assume, there's nothing preventing Mr. Lightrock from strapping the rock to his kneecap, thereby circumventing the apparent slot restriction?
Can I tie a ring of protection to my knee? Perhaps make a cufflink of protection?
As to heat metal, if they are wearing two magical rings, why wouldn't you cast it on one of them?
It makes no logical sense that each slot can only have one item in the same way it makes no logical sense that if you make a reflex save with evasion you can avoid a huge area of fireball damage.
The duration spells don't really have any effect, as if you are going to cast them on a slot for the duration of the spell, and you have a magic item in that slot, you would logically cast them on the magic item that is in that slot.
I can't think of any other spell that would matter, so I still say it is a corner case. I think the way the devs did the Ioun Stone pricing kind of indicates they also view continual fire as a corner case spell. I can't think of any other spell that puts a permanent usable effect on an item.
And that is probably a very good thing.
|
|
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?
No, you can cast a permanent spell on an existing slotted item. You can make your amulet of natural armor also permanently glow with a continual flame.
What I am saying I think you can't do is have an enhanced amulet of continual flame in your handy haversack, then pull it out and put it on over your amulet of natural armor and have both work.
It's kind of a moot point since for 25 gp you can cast it on a dusty Ioun stone and have the same effect.
Can I tie a ring of protection to my knee? Perhaps make a cufflink of protection?Interesting. I assume, there's nothing preventing Mr. Lightrock from strapping the rock to his kneecap, thereby circumventing the apparent slot restriction?
To the first: Yes, but it won't work--because magic rings (that is, items created using Forge Ring) have effects contingent upon wearing them in a ring slot. Items zapped with continual flame have no such restriction--they don't even have to be worn at all.
To the second: Yes, you can, using the RAW guidelines (including running your idea by the GM, who is free to veto it, alter its cost, etc.). Using the guidelines, it would cost more for being a slotless item.
As to heat metal, if they are wearing two magical rings, why wouldn't you cast it on one of them?
Because magic items have their own saving throw stats which can be used if better than the wearers'. In this example the magic rings have better saves than the wearer does.
It makes no logical sense that each slot can only have one item in the same way it makes no logical sense that if you make a reflex save with evasion you can avoid a huge area of fireball damage.
That's fine, except there is clear RAW to support the reflex save mechanic. (Sidetrack: I always interpreted this as being based on a rogue's adeptness at diving for cover, jumping up to the ceiling and hanging overhead, whatever works for the situation--with the same handwaves that work for pretty much everything involving tactical combat).
The duration spells don't really have any effect, as if you are going to cast them on a slot for the duration of the spell, and you have a magic item in that slot, you would logically cast them on the magic item that is in that slot.
This is not necessarily true, especially if it's a harmful spell (see above).
I can't think of any other spell that would matter, so I still say it is a corner case. I think the way the devs did the Ioun Stone pricing kind of indicates they also view continual fire as a corner case spell. I can't think of any other spell that puts a permanent usable effect on an item.
There aren't very many, but they're certainly out there. Especially after you factor in permanency.
You're trying to solve a problem that (a) doesn't exist and (b) would not be unbalanced even if it did.
|
|
1. Of course you cast the harmful spell on the magic item, because it could make them remove the magic item and lose the effect.
2. If it is a slotless item, it is a slotless item.
3. I can't think of any with permanency if you follow the rules. But apparently someone had Keen permanent, so what do I know.
I think it's funny how Ciretose continues to ignore every post that he can't argue against, and instead finds a post with a point he can argue, and replies to that one. It's a sign of someone who knows they've lost the argument, but can't admit he's wrong, so continues to argue in the vain hope he can miraculously turn it around and win the argument.
At this point, I'm done trying to argue with a rock wall. It wouldn't surprise me if he's the kind of guy that finds a Youtube video with no dislikes, and hits the dislike button simply so it appears someone dislikes the video.
1. Of course you cast the harmful spell on the magic item, because it could make them remove the magic item and lose the effect.
2. If it is a slotless item, it is a slotless item.
3. I can't think of any with permanency if you follow the rules. But apparently someone had Keen permanent, so what do I know.
1. Again, that's a tactical matter. It may be better to cast on a nonmagical ring because you're more likely to get past the character's crappy save instead of the magic ring's good save.
2. Then there's no balance issue to be discussed, as stated before. So it again seems like you're making a rule for no mechanical reason at all. Personally, I prefer Pathfinder to be as simple as possible, so such a rule does not appeal to me--it's one more thing to keep track of at no benefit or drawback to anything in-game.
3. The most obvious one I can think of is every symbol spell on the permanency list.
Your rule makes no sense, man. It doesn't solve any problem at all. It doesn't add to the game at all. It doesn't make any character, monster, or whatever and more or less powerful, balanced, or broken. It merely creates one more thing for both players and DM to keep track of. Don't we already have enough to keep track of for something that doesn't help the game in any way?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Casting a permanent spell =/= to crafting a magic item. Find grip shop, get one.
1. Of course you cast the harmful spell on the magic item, because it could make them remove the magic item and lose the effect.
2. If it is a slotless item, it is a slotless item.
3. I can't think of any with permanency if you follow the rules. But apparently someone had Keen permanent, so what do I know.
I gave examples earlier with invisibility and symbol. I'm sure there are others as well.
ciretose:
do you allow your players to cast continual light on a mundane non-masterwork weapon?
do you allow your players to cast magic weapon on a mundane non-masterwork weapon?
|
|
I think it's funny how Ciretose continues to ignore every post that he can't argue against, and instead finds a post with a point he can argue, and replies to that one. It's a sign of someone who knows they've lost the argument, but can't admit he's wrong, so continues to argue in the vain hope he can miraculously turn it around and win the argument.
At this point, I'm done trying to argue with a rock wall. It wouldn't surprise me if he's the kind of guy that finds a Youtube video with no dislikes, and hits the dislike button simply so it appears someone dislikes the video.
What post are you talking about? I'll respond to anything.
|
|
I gave examples earlier with invisibility and symbol. I'm sure there are others as well.1. Of course you cast the harmful spell on the magic item, because it could make them remove the magic item and lose the effect.
2. If it is a slotless item, it is a slotless item.
3. I can't think of any with permanency if you follow the rules. But apparently someone had Keen permanent, so what do I know.
Having a mundane item with no magical effect be invisible, with the possible exception of armor, doesn't seem that beneficial. And even with armor, by the level you would generally be to cast permanency, invisible mundane armor seems...not very helpful.
What benefit would come from having a permanently invisible mundane ring?
Looking at the symbol spells, why would you wear an item that was activated by someone else doing something? A ring of symbol of death?
Your example was permanent symbol of insanity on the kings ring, which would have to be triggers by looking at the rune; reading the rune; touching the rune; passing over the rune; or passing through a portal bearing the rune.
In all of those instances, the symbol would be triggered prior to the ring being put in a slot if the king was the target, and if the king was not the target, wearing an item that when activated makes everyone within 60 feet insane, including you, isn't exactly a benefit.
EDIT: Didn't fully read the spell. My bad. I will write more later but I need to go to work.
It is an interesting question, as having players able to wear items that could be triggered to kill/hinder/etc everyone around them, and not having those objects take up a slot is potentially very, very powerful.
Imagine your hypothetical king with 8 additional rings with 8 symbols on them that will not effect the king, but would effect everyone around them. Then add a more or less unlimited number of necklaces, headbands, etc...
But I'm late for work, will respond more later. Interesting.
Looking at the symbol spells, why would you wear an item that was activated by someone else doing something? A ring of symbol of death?
Your example was permanent symbol of insanity on the kings ring, which would have to be triggers by looking at the rune; reading the rune; touching the rune; passing over the rune; or passing through a portal bearing the rune.
Probably the part where you get to carry it with you and show it to people you want to trigger it on. Place it on rocks, index cards, etc. etc. And you have a typically sedentary spell usable as a potential weapon of mass destruction.
|
|
Probably the part where you get to carry it with you and show it to people you want to trigger it on. Place it on rocks, index cards, etc. etc. And you have a typically sedentary spell usable as a potential weapon of mass destruction.
Looking at the symbol spells, why would you wear an item that was activated by someone else doing something? A ring of symbol of death?
Your example was permanent symbol of insanity on the kings ring, which would have to be triggers by looking at the rune; reading the rune; touching the rune; passing over the rune; or passing through a portal bearing the rune.
You are correct, I skimmed as I was getting ready for work this morning.
|
|
I'll respond to anything.
I too had seen enough cases where you didn't to think otherwise, but taking you at your word;
You keep claiming that 'Continual flame on an amulet' is some kind of niche case despite seemingly (to me) overwhelming evidence to the contrary. When you respond at all it is with casual dismissals that don't seem to hold up. Examples;
"Having a mundane item with no magical effect be invisible, with the possible exception of armor, doesn't seem that beneficial. And even with armor, by the level you would generally be to cast permanency, invisible mundane armor seems...not very helpful."
1: Why does permanency matter? If, as you claim, a spell cast on an item makes it a 'magic item' why would the duration of the spell matter? Why wouldn't ALL spells, of any duration, cast on items make them 'magic items'? Does the spell effect the item differently each moment it is present if the duration is potentially unlimited? Are potions and wands not 'magic items' because they eventually run out of 'charges' and become non-magical items? Most touch spells have one charge (some have more) and remain active until discharged... does that mean a glove on the hand holding the touch charge is a 'magic item' like a wand until all the charges are used?
2: Arcane Mark and several other permanent effects have also been mentioned and ignored. Arcane Mark is a CANTRIP, so the 'not useful by that level' argument goes out the window... unless you are going to argue that the spell is not beneficial at all, in which case one has to wonder why it exists. Wouldn't a 1st level Wizard casting 'Arcane Mark' on all their equipment be completely decked out in 'magic items' per your theory?
3: Why does 'how beneficial' you judge something to be matter? Either it is a magic item or it isn't... the degree of benefit you perceive should have no logical effect on the outcome. Someone makes all their mundane (but expensive) jewelry invisible so it is less likely to be stolen... even if you find this 'not beneficial' it should mean that the rings, amulets, earrings, torcs, armbands, et cetera are now all 'magic items'.
4: As I and others have noted previously (which you didn't respond to)... if casting a spell on normal objects makes them 'magic items' then they get saving throws which mundane items do not. That alone makes ANY spell effect on an item highly beneficial IMO.
The other major issue I raised is that I'm not clear on what you think happens when two magic items occupy the same slot. You've in some cases seemed to indicate that there is no cancellation and in others that there is. So, what do you think happens if someone wears an 'Amulet of Natural Armor' and an 'Amulet of Mighty Fists' at the same time? I think almost everyone agrees that one of them does not function... but when responding to examples involving your 'items with spells are magic items' concept you've seemed to say otherwise several times now. Do 'item with spell magic items' somehow behave differently than 'item creation feat magic items'? And if so, what exactly is the downside of wearing a 'Continual Flame amulet' alongside an 'Amulet of Natural Armor'?
Others have also pointed out that 'spells on items' function regardless of where the item is located while 'slotted magic items' only function when they are in the appropriate slot, differences in crafting and creation/costs, and various other discrepancies which I don't think you have adequately addressed.
|
|
Looking at the symbol spells (and not skimming, my bad) makes me feel more strongly about my position.
My position is that you can’t have more than 17 magic items available to be used at one time (15 slots and one in each hand).
You could cast symbol of whatever on one of your two magic rings, or on your amulet or headband…on whatever item you want in whatever slot you want. But if you don’t have the slot requirement, you could have 10 rings of various symbols, however many amulets of various symbols, etc, in addition to the 17 symbols you can put on the magic items you are wearing in the various slots.
You could have a literal bag of holding full of various symbols, however then you would need to retrieve them, meaning you are more or less using a hand slot to do that.
For me it is a very simple question of if there is a maximum number of items can you can wear or wield (in this case, 15 slots and one in each hand) or if you could have literally hundreds of symbols or other items with magical benefits available to be activated at any time you like without having to retrieve it.
Either there is a max or there is no max. I think there is a max.
@CbDunkerson
1. It doesn’t particularly matter, it just isn’t as relevant for short duration items as you can just cast it on whatever you are wearing and it will last as long as you need it to. You aren’t swapping anything in or out. You don’t wear potions, and wands are held, and so in a sense they do occupy a slot. The held touch spell isn’t occupying a slot, as the glove isn’t holding the spell, you are.
2. I responded to Arcane mark in the other thread, so it wasn’t ignored. I’ll respond here again. Arcane mark doesn’t provide any active benefit, it’s just writing on an object.
3. Benefit is exactly the issue. We have 10 fingers, why did the Devs not let us put rings on all of them? Because they wanted a limit on how many magic items you can get benefits from at one time.
4. Nonmagical, unattended items never make saving throws. I am talking about worn items in slots, and an item attended by a character (being grasped, touched, or worn) makes saving throws as the character (that is, using the character’s saving throw bonus). The rules say Magic items always get saving throws. A magic item’s Fortitude, Reflex, and Will save bonuses are equal to 2 + half its caster level.
5. This wasn’t 5, but it was the 5th question. This is what the rules say about two magic items occupying the same slot (pg 459 of Core Rulebook):
“…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.”
I read that to mean that if you add a magic item to a slot already occupied, that item has no effect. The question you asked as to having no effect is exactly my concern. If you can add items that have benefits, without having any cap on how many you can add, that circumvents the slot cap.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having a mundane item with no magical effect be invisible, with the possible exception of armor, doesn't seem that beneficial. And even with armor, by the level you would generally be to cast permanency, invisible mundane armor seems...not very helpful.
What benefit would come from having a permanently invisible mundane ring?
How does benefit matter? We're discussing mechanics not benefits. I'm sure there are people out there who can come up with something. Maybe the party needs to smuggle something and they think that making it invisible is the best option for them at the time. Maybe someone promised their spouse they would never take their wedding band off and in order to keep that promise, and still be able to be disguised, they think they should make it invisible. The world is full of options that may not be mechanically beneficial but still a valid reason. Maybe they just want to do it because they can.
Looking at the symbol spells, why would you wear an item that was activated by someone else doing something? A ring of symbol of death?
Your example was permanent symbol of insanity on the kings ring, which would have to be triggers by looking at the rune; reading the rune; touching the rune; passing over the rune; or passing through a portal bearing the rune.
In all of those instances, the symbol would be triggered prior to the ring being put in a slot if the king was the target, and if the king was not the target, wearing an item that when activated makes everyone within 60 feet insane, including you, isn't exactly a benefit.
My character wouldn't have to be present for the king to don the ring. In fact it would be a great trap to give the king. Sneak in, put it in his jewelry box, and let him have fun at the ball.
Imagine your hypothetical king with 8 additional rings with 8 symbols on them that will not effect the king, but would effect everyone around them. Then add a more or less unlimited number of necklaces, headbands, etc...
They still aren't magic items. They are all targets of a spell. Magic items function differently.
Also, why does it really matter if the spell is permanent or not? Either casting the spell on the item makes it a magic item or not. It may be a temporary item, but the duration shouldn't matter.
You could have a literal bag of holding full of various symbols, however then you would need to retrieve them, meaning you are more or less using a hand slot to do that.
For me it is a very simple question of if there is a maximum number of items can you can wear or wield (in this case, 15 slots and one in each hand) or if you could have literally hundreds of symbols or other items with magical benefits available to be activated at any time you like without having to retrieve it.
Either there is a max or there is no max. I think there is a max.
That is a misinterpretation of the concept of slots. It's merely about how many items you can wear at a time, not how many you can bring to bear. There are numerous other ways to bring extra items to bear in a combat. To list just a few: Ioun Stones, Dancing Weapons, Animate Object, the spell Weaponwand, all of these allow you to get use out of extra items in combat without using a slot or a hand. There really is no max.
Lets look at it another way entirely, though.
The everburning torch and the ioun torch are perfectly fair items, I think we all agree. The heightened continual flame is about double the cost. We can all also agree that any of the stat boosting items are also fairly priced items, as are the ioun stone, of which any of the stat boosting stones are double the price. The relative increase is the same, just for not requiring a magic item slot.
Continual Flame
School evocation [light]; Level cleric/oracle 3, inquisitor 3, sorcerer/wizard 2; Domain day 2CASTING
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (ruby dust worth 50 gp)EFFECT
Range touch
Target object touched
Effect magical, heatless flame
Duration permanent
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance noDESCRIPTION
A flame, equivalent in brightness to a torch, springs forth from an object that you touch. The effect looks like a regular flame, but it creates no heat and doesn't use oxygen. A continual flame can be covered and hidden but not smothered or quenched.Light spells counter and dispel darkness spells of an equal or lower level.
Emphasis mine, continual flame creates a continual flame, it does not enchant an object. It is an evocation spell.
The spells says that the flame can be covered, so the locket works by RAW and RAI.
The locket is not magical, the flame is. Since you are not wearing the flame any more than you are holding fire when you carry a torch, the flame does not take up a magic item slot. It does not take up a slot any more than the daylight spell cast on your pants takes up a slot, or the bull's strength spell cast on you takes up a slot. The flame is a spell, and spells are not magic items.
Blahper,
I apologize. Apparently he is taking his examples down the ultra crazy path of "if you cast a spell on it it's a magical item for the duration".
Well, at least I feel I understand what your argument is, ciretose. I don't think I'm ever going to understand why your argument is, though. It's not a power balance thing, because anything you can cast on a second amulet you could cast on either the first amulet or a rock strapped to your forehead. It's not a rigid adherence to RAW, because RAW absolutely does not support treating an object targeted by a spell as a magic item any more than that wolf I just cast animal growth on is a magic item (or a magical beast).
It all comes down to your insistence that an object (and apparently only an object) with a spell of any duration on it is a magic item for the duration of the spell. It appears you cannot be dissuaded from this insistence because you have offered no cohesive defense for such an assertion--so there's nothing to reason with. You simply assert it and reassert it when your reasoning is shown as inconsistent with RAW.
Therefore, I wish you your players much fun in your games, as this has essentially switched from a Rules Question thread to a Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew thread.
In that context: It might be an interesting quirk for enspelled items to be subject to the rules of magic items of whatever slot they most fit at a given time. Balancewise, as already discussed, it's irrelevant--it requires barely a thought to work around the restriction. But I can't say it isn't interesting, and I'm a big fan of interesting house rules and variant rules.
|
|
The rock strapped to your forehead is a head slot ;)
It would almost never come up. In Bob's example the symbol would be activated by touch before the item could ever be worn.
As to making something invisible to hide it, why would you then wear it in an open slot?
The advantage of a slot is that the item is out and available without needing to be retrieved, and my concern is how many items are we allowing to be open and available?
Saying an item imbued with magic is a magic item isn't crazy. You think I am wrong, but let's not get insulting.
This all started with "where is your god now" being typed at me in all caps, so forgive me if I think the who thing has gotten hyperbolic and needs to be dialed down a notch.
I know you all think someone is wrong on the internet, but I am not advocating anything that really changes much about anything.
It isn't like I am saying any GM who doesn't let you simulacrum an efreeti is cruel.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have read this entire thread. I now feel less intelligent.
Why is this even in the rules question forum? This should have been moved to house rules/homebrew a long time ago. The actual RAW is clear. Just because someone is dead set on being wrong about the rules doesn't mean people need to jump on the bandwagon of being the one who proves them wrong. It isn't going to happen and it is just feeding the trolls at this point.
Any passer by who comes to the thread isn't going to be mislead by one person's misinterpretation of the rules so there isn't even a reason of "making sure his tainted perception of the rules isn't accepted by someone looking for an answer to the same question". The opinion in question is so far out in left field that I have never even heard of anyone making such a claim before. The fact that this opinion has no supporters supports that no one could possibly take this interpretation as RAW or RAI. So whats the point?
Having a mundane item with no magical effect be invisible, with the possible exception of armor, doesn't seem that beneficial. And even with armor, by the level you would generally be to cast permanency, invisible mundane armor seems...not very helpful.
What benefit would come from having a permanently invisible mundane ring?
How does benefit matter? We're discussing mechanics not benefits. I'm sure there are people out there who can come up with something. Maybe the party needs to smuggle something and they think that making it invisible is the best option for them at the time. Maybe someone promised their spouse they would never take their wedding band off and in order to keep that promise, and still be able to be disguised, they think they should make it invisible. The world is full of options that may not be mechanically beneficial but still a valid reason. Maybe they just want to do it because they can.
Looking at the symbol spells, why would you wear an item that was activated by someone else doing something? A ring of symbol of death?
Your example was permanent symbol of insanity on the kings ring, which would have to be triggers by looking at the rune; reading the rune; touching the rune; passing over the rune; or passing through a portal bearing the rune.
In all of those instances, the symbol would be triggered prior to the ring being put in a slot if the king was the target, and if the king was not the target, wearing an item that when activated makes everyone within 60 feet insane, including you, isn't exactly a benefit.
My character wouldn't have to be present for the king to don the ring. In fact it would be a great trap to give the king. Sneak in, put it in his jewelry box, and let him have fun at the ball.
Imagine your hypothetical king with 8 additional rings with 8 symbols on them that will not effect the king, but would effect everyone around them. Then add a more or less unlimited number of necklaces, headbands, etc......
+1
The rock strapped to your forehead is a head slot ;)
It would almost never come up. In Bob's example the symbol would be activated by touch before the item could ever be worn.
As to making something invisible to hide it, why would you then wear it in an open slot?
The advantage of a slot is that the item is out and available without needing to be retrieved, and my concern is how many items are we allowing to be open and available?
Saying an item imbued with magic is a magic item isn't crazy. You think I am wrong, but let's not get insulting.
This all started with "where is your god now" being typed at me in all caps, so forgive me if I think the who thing has gotten hyperbolic and needs to be dialed down a notch.
I know you all think someone is wrong on the internet, but I am not advocating anything that really changes much about anything.
It isn't like I am saying any GM who doesn't let you simulacrum an efreeti is cruel.
Hey, seriously not trying to insult here. No point, as the argument, for me at least, is effectively over. I wouldn't call it crazy, just . . . Frankly, I don't see it in RAW or RAI, which is why I concluded "house" and moved on. I never read the original thread, so I must have missed the Burger King moment.
Also, Y U TAEK MAH WISH FACTORY AWAY????
Also, I'm totally stealing the "king's insanity ring" ploy. +.
|
|
Continual Flame
School evocation [light]; Level cleric/oracle 3, inquisitor 3, sorcerer/wizard 2; Domain day 2CASTING
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (ruby dust worth 50 gp)EFFECT
Range touch
Target object touched
Effect magical, heatless flame
Duration permanent
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance noDESCRIPTION
A flame, equivalent in brightness to a torch, springs forth from an object that you touch. The effect looks like a regular flame, but it creates no heat and doesn't use oxygen. A continual flame can be covered and hidden but not smothered or quenched.Light spells counter and dispel darkness spells of an equal or lower level.
Emphasis mine, continual flame creates a continual flame, it does not enchant an object. It is an evocation spell.
The spells says that the flame can be covered, so the locket works by RAW and RAI.
The locket is not magical, the flame is. Since you are not wearing the flame any more than you are holding fire when you carry a torch, the flame does not take up a magic item slot. It does not take up a slot any more than the daylight spell cast on your pants takes up a slot, or the bull's strength spell cast on you takes up a slot. The flame is a spell, and spells are not magic items.
+1
If you can cast dispel magic and negate it, it wasn't a magic item. It was an item with a spell cast on it. You can't cast dispel magic on your cloak of resistance or +1 long sword and have it do anything
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.
So, if I had a Belt of Giants strength on, then put my belt with continual flame on afterwards would the flame go out? Thats what it sounds like you're saying.
|
|
So, if I had a Belt of Giants strength on, then put my belt with continual flame on afterwards would the flame go out? Thats what it sounds like you're saying.
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.
More or less.
But you could cast continual flame on the belt of Giant strength or a dusty Ioun stone and get the same effect.
I think people are reading a lot more into what I am saying than what I am actually saying.
now, if I where wearing that belt with CF on it around my wrist, neck, head, or foot would you consider it to take up those slots even though its a belt? or would it still take up the belt slot?
|
|
now, if I where wearing that belt with CF on it around my wrist, neck, head, or foot would you consider it to take up those slots even though its a belt?
If I wore a belt of giant strength on my head, would it take up a slot?
If it is taking a slot, it's taking a slot.
I completely understand the counter argument. I wouldn't stop a game for something as minor as continual flame, considering you can get a floating version for 75 gp.
But the example given was someone wanting to create a heightened version they would carry around at all times to counter darkness spells, which sounds like a magic item to me, so I would hold it to the same standards as a magic item with regards to slots.
They could cast it on whatever amulet they like. They wanted to put it on a mundane item so they wouldn't have to repurchase the material components and recreate the item later if they changed magical amulets.
As I've said many times, this is probably a corner case not worth worrying about. The symbol stuff gives me a bit of pause, but I can't really think of where it would be an issue either way. In Bob's insanity kind example, the trigger would be touching the ring, not putting it on, so it works either way.
So just make it a broach that you pin to your shirt/armor/skin that simply isn't a "magic item slot" then Ciretose will be happy.
I'd argue that its 100% flavor how you affix it to your body.
I once made a brothel on the Astral plane in the Githyanki city of Tu'narath called the Fiery Maiden.
Tiefling women would dance on table tops with black scarves treated with continual flame.
Yes they were magical.
This all started with "where is your god now" being typed at me in all caps, so forgive me if I think the who thing has gotten hyperbolic and needs to be dialed down a notch.
You do realize that saying that was a joke right? Where is Your God now?
In discussion forums and message boards, the phrase or image macro can be used as an expression of disbelief or shock over an image, video or link that’s been previously posted. It’s been also used to mock or provoke another user in online conversations.
It’s been also used to mock or provoke another user in online conversations.I mean, it is the internet, so yeah. But I feel like some think I'm on some kind of Jihad, when I'm...well...responding to provocation.
Well there are different levels of provocation. "Where is Your God Now?" is a tongue in cheek provocation. He could have as easily said "Come at me bro!", but that doesn't mean he wanted to fight you physically. I just didn't want you thinking that person was attacking your spirituality or something.
ciretose: You said you would respond to anything but I haven't seen a response to this reasoning -
If you can cast dispel magic and negate it, it wasn't a magic item. It was an item with a spell cast on it. You can't cast dispel magic on your cloak of resistance or +1 long sword and have it do anything.
Does that not establish a difference between a magic item and an item with a spell cast on it?
As I've said many times, this is probably a corner case not worth worrying about.
And it has been pointed out to you many times that this is not a corner case as Continual Flame is not the only spell that can be cast on an item. For a nonexhaustive list of spells that can be cast on an item and made permanent just look at the Permanancy spell. Not that duration matters by your logic anyway. It could be any spell that targets an object that could "create a magic item" (albeit a short lived one).
|
|
ciretose: You said you would respond to anything but I haven't seen a response to this reasoning -
If you can cast dispel magic and negate it, it wasn't a magic item. It was an item with a spell cast on it. You can't cast dispel magic on your cloak of resistance or +1 long sword and have it do anything.Does that not establish a difference between a magic item and an item with a spell cast on it?
As I've said many times, this is probably a corner case not worth worrying about.And it has been pointed out to you many times that this is not a corner case as Continual Flame is not the only spell that can be cast on an item. For a nonexhaustive list of spells that can be cast on an item and made permanent just look at the Permanancy spell. Not that duration matters by your logic anyway. It could be any spell that targets an object that could "create a magic item" (albeit a short lived one).
It could be a distinction. But then again if someone said that a weapon should be sharp, that also could be a distinction. But obviously it isn't. Something being A distinction that could be used doesn't mean it is THE distinction that should be used.
I personally think the distinction between a magic item and a non magic item is that one is magic (or imbued with magic) and the other one isn't. And the very fact you can dispel the magical effect to me says the object is under a magical effect.
The permanency list isn't actually that exhaustive with regards to spells you can cast on objects. And I addressed above questions with regards to specific spells and concerns I would have if there were no cap and you were able to wear an infinite number of symbols and such.
The issue for me is how many items can you wear that are magical in nature, given that having a worn object available is an advantage over having to recover the object from a pouch or container. The game has a cap that isn't based in logic as much as game mechanics. We have 10 fingers, but only two ring slots for example. So I think that cap should apply to all magic items, not just items created using the item creation rules.
YMMV. If I were smarter I wouldn't reply and let the thread die, but I said I would reply so there you go.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they are not created with the magic item creation rules they are not "magic items". I understand that you are trying to stop any potential abuse, but an item with spell cast on it alone is not a "magic item" by RAW or RAI.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they are not created with the magic item creation rules they are not "magic items". I understand that you are trying to stop any potential abuse, but an item with spell cast on it alone is not a "magic item" by RAW or RAI.
If this is "potential abuse", god help anyone (GM or PC) who is in a game that exceeds 8th level that isn't deadlocked onto a set of rails.