| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i'm not certain, you can also teach it from 'active or cast versions of the spell' (presumably by being in proximity) which doesn't consume anything... (except said spells, already being cast, already consumed either a spell slot or a scroll)
you allude to the consequences of failure, presumably based on how wizards 'learn' spells by adding them to their spellbook from a scroll... if you fail, you can't try again with the same spell for 1 week. if we are applying those rules, than i would say that the scroll is consumed.
the only problem is that the item DOESN'T specifically invoke those rules, and in fact the spellcraft check given just has a static 20 DC, unlike the 15+spell level used for adding scroll spells to a spellbook. if the adding scroll spell to spellbook rules AREN'T invoked, then nothing would indicate the scroll is consumed, and there isn't any penalty for failure. there also wouldn't be any action or time duration indicated for how long it takes to teach a spell to the ring, unlike the rules for scrolls/spellbooks (1 hr study + 1hr/level to scribe the spell, at least the 1st hour of study would apply to the ring, IF the scroll/spellbook rules are understood to apply).
i hit fAQ.
EDIT: i also dont' like how the item hand-waves casting spells off of your list. it doesn't actually say you can use it for that, it just says arcane spells not on your list are treated as 1 level higher for storage and casting, without actually saying you treat it as 1 level higher ON YOUR LIST. without stating that, you shouldn't be able to cast off-list arcane spells any more than you can cast off-list divine spells.
right, in the bard giving the ring to wizard example (actually SORCEROR, since it's for spontaneous casters), the spell level or what LIST it's on doesn't matter for teaching the spell to the ring... a sorceror can teach the ring a bard spell from a scroll and then give it to a bard, and it would work fine.
the issue is it says that off-list (of the wearer) arcane spells are treated as 1 level higher for storage and casting. so if a 4th level bard spell is stored in it a bard can cast it as a 4th level spell using the ring, but it's 'effectively' a 5th level spell for a sorceror, so it won't do anything for them since it's only meant to provide 4th level spells known/stored. (when worn by the sorceror, the item just shouldn't be holding that spell, but i assume that the spell isn't actually destroyed, so should be accessable once worn by a bard)
my point is that when it says '1 level higher for purpose of casting' that is clearly implying that you CAN cast the spell (at 1 level adjustment) even though it's off-list, but it doesn't actually spell out that you CAN cast the off-list spell in the first place (even if the spell level would be adjusted if you could somehow).
i would go with RAI there, and allow casting off-list spells (arcane only), but that's not really RAW. off-list arcane spells are no more castable with your spell slots than are off-list divine spells, there isn't really a relevant distinction there AFAIK, and the item doesn't say it only works with arcane spells, so there isn't a RAW basis for saying a sorceror could cast bard spells with it but not oracle spells (using their own sorceror spell slots).
likewise, since the ring isn't limited to arcane spells, you just need to be an arcane caster to use it, it seems like a sorc1/oracle15 could use the ring to learn oracle spells and cast them with their oracle slots... i don't really feel that's the intended use of the item, but per RAW it should work fine.
deciphering a scroll doesn't have any listed time/action AFAIK, whether using spellcraft or using read magic (automatic/no check), albeit read magic as a spell uses an action itself.
wizards adding them to a spellbook have a separate requirement for 1 hour of study + 1hr/spell level to scribe them.
(spellcraft screws this up, it says it takes 1hr/spell level to learn a spell from another spellbook, when it is really 1hr+1hr/spell level, and only the first hour is the one that involves a spellcraft check, the latter part is just scribing that doesn't need a check - which is nice because if you roll badly you don't need to waste the whole scribing time)
your example of using 1 round of combat to teach the spell is what i am saying, there is no action requirement given, full-round, standard, or free action. if you want to use the wizard spellbook teaching rules (1 hr of study, not including scribing), that is well outside of what you can do in 1 round... but that isn't stated in the RAW of the item. maybe if you have 'encountered' the spell in combat, you can LATER teach it to the ring, using 1 hour of time, but the RAW is unclear... if you wanted to say it's a standard action only (letting you ready it during instantaneous spells, or just needing 1 round duration to observe), i'm fine with that, but the RAW doesn't say that, and it doesn't say you need to be observing the spell effect continuously or at the same time as you are teaching it, you just need to have encountered the spell.
if you fail to teach it a spell, nothing suggests you would lose the spell previously in it.
although since the item doesn't discuss it, you may not actually be meant to 're-teach' a new spell in place of an old one,
once a spell has been taught to the ring, that's it. i don't think that's the intent,
but if one is going to allow 're-teaching' (replacing one spell with another) nothing suggests that failure would leave the ring empty.
i really don't know how wording like this can get thru editing, EVERY SINGLE CRUNCH ITEM should be edited from the beginning keeping in mind what exactly it is doing in regards to the game mechanics it interacts with, and specifying those interactions.
that entire book needs clarification and fixes. it is unfortunate the thread list of problems with it is so huge, just with editorial mistakes, much less items that lack clear definition of how they work within the game.