|
14 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The new Decoy Ring from Ultimate Equipment requires mislead to craft, and its function is rather close to that of the spell. The spell provides greater invisibility... but the Decoy Ring doesn't specify.
I attempted to break down the cost to see which it would be, but there are too many variables, and I'm not sure how much of a discount "only activating when you withdraw or become helpless" is worth.
Any thoughts, or examples that would help with the price breakdown to figure it out?
The spell used to make it doesn't have too much to do with the function of the item in most cases. In this case, I feel that it's giving the invisibility condition, so it wouldn't be greater invisibility.
Right, I understand that... but in this case, the affect of the ring is basically an enhanced version of mislead. Complete with decoys, (greater?) invisibility, etc.
The "invisible" condition doesn't have any text related to whether or not the affect goes away upon attacking... that's purely dependent on whether it's "invisible, as invisibility" or "invisible, as mislead (i.e. greater invisibility)".
Go with Invisibility as in the 2nd level spell. That fits in with the price range.
Otherwise the ring-user would get the effect of Greater Invisibility, so you can spend 1 round of combat "preparing" by withdrawing, then get 3 rounds of attacking while invisible and have decoys distracting the enemy.
Because it appears the intent of the ring is to *avoid* combat because you are in danger and/or dying, and the price tag fits, I would go with the lesser form of Invisibility.
Cheers
Oladon wrote: Right, I understand that... but in this case, the affect of the ring is basically an enhanced version of mislead. Complete with decoys, (greater?) invisibility, etc.
The "invisible" condition doesn't have any text related to whether or not the affect goes away upon attacking... that's purely dependent on whether it's "invisible, as invisibility" or "invisible, as mislead (i.e. greater invisibility)".
The text says Invisible. If it had meant Greater Invisibility, you'd see it spelled out. The ring does a better job at the illusion part while trading out some of the effectiveness of the invisibility provided by the latter spell.
Not that it really makes a difference unless you're planning on launching a direct attack while using the effect.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Except there's no "greaterly invisible" condition, nor is the anti-attack clause part of the "invisible" condition. It's a condition, not a spell. The spell is invisibility.
Lopke wrote: Go with Invisibility as in the 2nd level spell. That fits in with the price range. Seems to me that mislead fits the price much better, but without knowing what the divisor is for "activates when you withdraw or become helpless", it's going to be hard to really break down the price. (Though considering you can get unlimited at-will invisibility for only 8k more...)
Pricing aside, there's one thing that I can't reconcile if it's invisibility, and that's the duration. I can't find a single magic item with a minutes/level spell which extends the duration by counting it in rounds instead. Here's a good example, which in fact confers invisibility. Notice that the CL (5th) matches the total duration, and that the increment conferred by a single use matches that of the spell.
A CL of 11 (as Decoy Ring has) would grant 11 minutes of invisibility per day, usable in 1-minute increments. Such an item would cost 8800gp as a use-activated item. However, you could NOT say that such an item would grant 110 rounds of invisibility per day, usable in 1-round increments. It doesn't work like that.
Mislead, on the other hand, mentions "3 rounds" quite a few times in its duration, specifically as the duration of the duplicates after the time that the caster is no longer concentrating on them. Since the item doesn't specify that you have to concentrate on the duplicates, it's reasonable to point to that as the origin of the 3 rounds/use... in which case we're using mislead, so the condition conferred would be as greater invisibility, no?
I agree. The item does not say that the invisibility goes away from attacking. If it was as the spell invisibility or it went away when you attacked it would say so. You have three rounds of being invisible without any specific rules otherwise. This is the ring of choice for rogues.
Seriphim84 wrote: I agree. The item does not say that the invisibility goes away from attacking. If it was as the spell invisibility or it went away when you attacked it would say so. You have three rounds of being invisible without any specific rules otherwise. This is the ring of choice for rogues. It doesn't have to say that. the listing of the effect as Invisibility instead of Invisibility, Greater does so on it's own. This is a get out of Dodge ring.
^Exactly.
It is an 'escape or I will die' ring.
It is not a 'Multi-use greater invisibility and then some cause my allies can still see me and I have decoys prancing around' ring.
A Ring of Invisibility is 20,000 gp. This ring, if it works like Oladon suggests, would blow a RoI out of the water. 12,000 gp for unlimited Greater Invisibility and my allies can still see me? yes, please.
It's far too good for that price.
|
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
It does not need to say as greater invisibility. It is not referencing a Spell. You are invisible, period, end of story. You have the Invisible condition for 3 rounds (one you can't use) with no rules set for it going away.
And Really 2 useable rounds of invisibility with a full round action to activate is better than unlimited invisibility with a standard action to activate? It's a good item to be sure, even a great item. But its not that as powerful as a RoI.
LazarX wrote: the listing of the effect as Invisibility instead of Invisibility, Greater does so on it's own. As I've pointed out before, it doesn't say "invisibility" anywhere. Invisible is a condition. Invisibility is a spell. Guess what... the spell greater invisibility also makes you invisible.
Lopke wrote: 12,000 gp for unlimited Greater Invisibility and my allies can still see me? Except that it's not "activate this as a standard action and it lasts as long as you like (provided you don't attack)" -- it's "activate this as a full-round action (or standard action if you're restricted to only a standard action in your turn), and it lasts for three rounds. If you want it to last longer, you're going to have to spend another full-round action activating it again."
Edit for end quotes!
I personally don't think that the fact that it requires mislead to create is pertinent to the invisibility/greater invisibility question - the ring and spell have similar effects, in that it is some form of invisibility combined with a decoy (or decoys), but I wouldn't think it was odd at all if the ring didn't confer greater invisibility.
Assuming that it wasn't just an oversight (the intent of the ring was obviously an "I've gotta get outta here" tool, so whoever wrote the description may just have not considered whether attacking would break the invisibility), it comes down to the wording of the ring's power. I'm leaning more towards the 'greater invisibility' side of things, mostly because there aren't any qualifiers on the invisibility in the description other than the duration.
Oladon wrote: Pricing aside, there's one thing that I can't reconcile if it's invisibility, and that's the duration. I can't find a single magic item with a minutes/level spell which extends the duration by counting it in rounds instead. Here's a good example, which in fact confers invisibility. Notice that the CL (5th) matches the total duration, and that the increment conferred by a single use matches that of the spell. The item that you reference in your link also mentions that the invisibility can be broken for the standard reasons, including attack in it's supplementary text. I can see arguments for ruling both ways, I always lean to the strict side when questions like this come up.
LazarX wrote: Oladon wrote: Pricing aside, there's one thing that I can't reconcile if it's invisibility, and that's the duration. I can't find a single magic item with a minutes/level spell which extends the duration by counting it in rounds instead. Here's a good example, which in fact confers invisibility. Notice that the CL (5th) matches the total duration, and that the increment conferred by a single use matches that of the spell. The item that you reference in your link also mentions that the invisibility can be broken for the standard reasons, including attack in it's supplementary text. I can see arguments for ruling both ways, I always lean to the strict side when questions like this come up. Again, that item sais "as the spell Invisibility" on it. Which the item is question does not. The Item in questions simply says you become invisible for three rounds. No additional limits are put on it besides duration.
Withdraw action doesn't require you are in melee to start (though its intent is for then).
So a rogue can use withdraw wearing ring, ring activates (ring activates whenever conditions apply), you sneak attack full attack on your next turn (as it is invisible condition).
It is really a decent ring for its price.
I just went through every occurrence of the word "invisible" on d20pfsrd.com, and found a few very interesting things.
First, the Cloak of Fiery Vanishing from Ultimate Equipment. The main thing to notice is that it specifies that "[t]he wearer’s invisibility and his illusory remains last for 5 rounds or until the wearer attacks any creature." This is consistent with the Wayfinder of Vanishing, the vanish spell, and even the Ring of Invisibility. All of them specify that the condition is negated if the wearer/recipient attacks. (Notice the cloak's price, too... and that for an immediate action to activate.)
Second, I found the spell mage's faithful hound, which specifies that the dog has the invisible condition, which is not negated if the dog attacks. This is not specified, but is clear from the wording, and provides a precedent.
The ethereal jaunt spell doesn't help much, because although it references the invisible condition, the ethereal creature can't attack other creatures.
Lastly, we have invisibility sphere, which also clearly specifies the conditions under which the invisible condition is negated.
Unless someone can provide some real evidence one way or another (and not simply "I think it should work this way"), we seem to be left with flagging it as FAQ and hoping for an official clarification.
(Edit for spell italicization.)
|
2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
Sorry for the thread necromancy but discussed this a bit tonight and I feel it should be offically clarified or errataed, one way or the other.
1) can you withdrawl and activate it out of combat?
2) Does it grant you the invisible condition, as mislead (As I would tend to think, based on the spell used to create) and thus not end on attacking?
It'd be nice if more people could FAQ this.
Hey David. It doesn't seem like this is a question people have very often ("frequently asked" and all that), so I can completely understand it not being high on the priority list of things to answer in FAQ. :)
In the event that it may be of assistance to you, here are the "settlements" we've agreed to at the table that originally prompted this thread.
1) My DM says no. Withdrawing is a combat action that has no meaning without threatened squares, so no activating it in preparation for the fight (though you can still activate it in the surprise round).
2) We settled on no for this one as well. I think I did a pretty good job of summarizing the arguments both ways in this thread, but the long and short of it is that making it work like greater invisibility would be pretty powerful, and when rules are in question we tend to go with the less powerful option until told otherwise.
Hopefully this helps your table's discussion a bit.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
There's no reason why you can't withdraw out of combat.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
1. Read what its based on people the ring created uses mislead and mislead provides greater invisibility, I know its powerful but that is a 5/6 level spell on it. So attacking would be allowed (perhaps to help out the rogues that are outshined if the party doesn't help out). Either way it is not the spell invisibility it is a condition, and the spell it is based on is what you have to use not the I dont like it so it doesnt exist mentallity.
2. No you cannot use it outside of combat as per WITHDRAW is a combat action that is discribed as actions in combat therefore not a viable non combat action.
Some great reasoning for withdraw-out-of-combat not working, aside from that it doesn't make sense, is that compared to the ring of invisibility and the price of the two rings, it just doesn't fit.
If you can activate both rings at will like that, but the decoy ring has the better function when it's used in that way, why would it be almost half the price?
The decoy ring is designed help you escape, and I think that is why it is priced that way, but since it can be used to attack I do think the price should be higher.
Heh, surprising to see this one show back up yet again (this is the second time it's been raised).
Avatar-1 wrote: If you can activate both rings at will like that, but the decoy ring has the better function when it's used in that way, why would it be almost half the price? Decoy ring isn't activated "at will" — it activates when you withdraw, which is normally a full-round action. Enough of a drawback to justify the price? Maybe, maybe not... but wanted to clarify it nonetheless.
Additionally, it only lasts three rounds at a time. That means every three rounds, you have to spend another full round activating it again. That's also a pretty significant difference from the ring of invisibility, which stays on indefinitely.
yah ill admit for the price the ring is a great option, as I stated maybe someone at paizo has a rogue that they wanted to actually help the party with damage. (lol please dont spam me) As for price a level 5 spell (repeatedly) for 12k does seem underpriced but maybe the cost lessening is in the activation as previously stated and the fact u cannot do it out of combat. On a rules lawyer note, what do you guys think about sparring with a buddy to activate it heh.
Slyph wrote: yah ill admit for the price the ring is a great option, as I stated maybe someone at paizo has a rogue that they wanted to actually help the party with damage. (lol please dont spam me) As for price a level 5 spell (repeatedly) for 12k does seem underpriced but maybe the cost lessening is in the activation as previously stated and the fact u cannot do it out of combat. On a rules lawyer note, what do you guys think about sparring with a buddy to activate it heh.
You mean having a team mate knock you out? For now I would allow it since it seems suboptimal.
If you mean withdraw from your ally to get past the requirement of withdrawing from melee I would not allow it since that is too big of a loophole for me.
I meant "at will" to mean "whenever you want", ie. "withdrawing in or out of combat" - that's the context of the confusion over the decoy ring in half of this thread.
Avatar-1 wrote: I meant "at will" to mean "whenever you want", ie. "withdrawing in or out of combat" - that's the context of the confusion over the decoy ring in half of this thread. I got that you meant that, but since "at will" is a specifically defined game term, I wanted to clarify for the rest of the thread. Also, that's only the context for the most recent necro. :P
of course I meant team mate knocking you out, its so op!;)
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
