|
RoSK text says "Thereafter..." not "Until retaught". Cannot retrain them. Awful to buy them used.
Also says "...of a single spell..." so wearing a second does nothing. But ring merchant not say that, heh heh.
Back to original question, Sorcerer much better. Ever tasted that junk in spell component pouches? Totally ruins the person's flavor.
You are taking a single word and applying it out of context.
The word thereafter is simply stating the caster can use a spell after it has been taught to the ring. No language is included preventing the user from teaching the ring of different spell at a later time.
If you want a single spell, you use a page of spell knowledge.
|
|
Have you even seen the cost for PoSK? A Sorcerer dumping too much of his money into that is going to be in serious trouble.
I've looked at the price.
1,500 for the level 1 Ring of Spell Knowledge vs the 2000 for a 1st level pearl of power.
24,000 for the level 4 Ring of Spell Knowledge vs the 25,000 for a 4th level pearl of power.
Since you only need a single ring, it is not overly priced. If there were a wizard version available I would have already purchased one on my level 2 wizard.
The only options are the dubious UE items. Any GM that lets you get away with PoSK crafting without the spell or cheese the RoSK the way you claim is a failure as a GM for letting you walk all over him.
I play primarily PFS. Since the items are PFS legal, the GM has no choice in the matter.
Have you even seen the cost for PoSK? A Sorcerer dumping too much of his money into that is going to be in serious trouble.I've looked at the price.
1,500 for the level 1 Ring of Spell Knowledge vs the 2000 for a 1st level pearl of power.
24,000 for the level 4 Ring of Spell Knowledge vs the 25,000 for a 4th level pearl of power.
Since you only need a single ring, it is not overly priced. If there were a wizard version available I would have already purchased one on my level 2 wizard.
The only options are the dubious UE items. Any GM that lets you get away with PoSK crafting without the spell or cheese the RoSK the way you claim is a failure as a GM for letting you walk all over him.I play primarily PFS. Since the items are PFS legal, the GM has no choice in the matter.
Pff who cares about the rings. Pages are were it's at.
Anywho it's pricey (pages) or limited (rings) enough not to be game breaking. Practically speaking, a wizard will still have more spells than you, and is more likely to learn all the spells in an actual game.
|
When a GM goes after your spell book, he's not playing intelligently, he's just being a jerk. People aren't a crybaby if you take away all their class features. Its almost never fun, and its a decision the GM made to screw the player over. Blaming the player or stating the GM was upfront misses the point of the statement. If a GM is going to be that kind of GM, then it also is a moment that may determine if you even want to play with him.
Not necessarily. All depends on the player and situation. Last game I was in the mage lost his spell books for a while, and it was mostly his fault. We were in a major fight and he got captured and spirited away, and locked down so he couldn't teleport or D-Door away. He lost his spell books due to the fact that he always carried all of them with him.
We rescued him eventually, and and eventually we also recovered them. But it wasn't automatic and it was more then a couple sessions. And he learned a lesson.
I play primarily PFS. Since the items are PFS legal, the GM has no choice in the matter.
So, in PFS, it's legal for you to say "I've seen this spell cast before, so I make my DC20 spellcraft check to teach my ring the spell" And random DM's are just supposed to take your word for it?
*Edit - removed overly aggressive tone after a re-read.
I'm all for Pages of Spell knowledge.. there not a bad idea for certain spells. But the ring in the manner you are saying it works, to me, seems a bit cheesy and stretching the verbiage to do more than it was probably intended to do.
Wizard is overpowered if your DM never makes you worry about protecting your spellbook, and never sunders your component pouch, bonded ring, or kills your wand using familiar.
but to a lot of DMs in my area
class features and feats are valid targets. especially when the responsible Achilles heel is so fragile.
This could be said about a lot of classes. Take away key features of a class and they're pretty darn useless. As long as I was warned ahead of time of "that" kind of DM, I wouldn't mind it.
|
|
I play primarily PFS. Since the items are PFS legal, the GM has no choice in the matter.So, in PFS, it's legal for you to say "I've seen this spell cast before, so I make my DC20 spellcraft check to teach my ring the spell" And random DM's are just supposed to take your word for it?
You would advocate the alternative: assuming a mid-level sorcerer has never seen any spells cast before?
Personally: I would document every spell my sorcerer has ever seen, read, or been affected by and acquire a signature at the time. There is no arguing the documentation.
I play primarily PFS. Since the items are PFS legal, the GM has no choice in the matter.So, in PFS, it's legal for you to say "I've seen this spell cast before, so I make my DC20 spellcraft check to teach my ring the spell" And random DM's are just supposed to take your word for it?You would advocate the alternative: assuming a mid-level sorcerer has never seen any spells cast before?
Personally: I would document every spell my sorcerer has ever seen, read, or been affected by and acquire a signature at the time. There is no arguing the documentation.
I'm not advocating anything, only demonstrating the absurdity of the method of which simply "Seeing" a spell cast at any point in ones past to teach the ring.
To me, the verbiage of the rings requirements require that they be met at the time of teaching the ring. It says "must encounter" as in "right now" not "must have previously encountered".
The simplest, non-arguable solution is to just get a scroll and use it to teach ring.
The way you're advocating requires GM's to "trust" that you have seen the spells (even with a signed doc that may or may not be your nephews signature)
Really, if I was GMing and someone pulled out that doc to use as justification for teaching their ring, I would laugh and say no. If they insisted, I'd tell them roll a D20 and add your int. If you get a 20 + spell level, you remember how the spell was cast and can go ahead and use it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Good thing about a sorceror that is often overlooked is that if they have a spell they can spam it as many times as necessary as opposed to the wizard who most likely has it once.
Example: Say a party of 4 comes to a chasm with no easy way to cross. If there is a Wizard with the fly spell, he will most likely have it memorised once, and that means only one character can fly across (presumably trailing rope) and he will be subject to any ambushes on the other side. If they have a sorceror with the fly spell, he can spam it 4 times and they all cross together.
The disadvantage is the lower chance of having the Fly spell in the first place (or whatever spell the situation demands). Optimizing a sorceror involves picking spells with a high likelihood of being used. Optimizing a Wizard invollves preparing spells with a high likelihood of being used. Both can use scrolls for those spells you don't use often but when you need them, you REALLY need them.
As regards skills, Sage archetype is based off INT so will have the same skills as Wizard, otherwise a Sorceror can max out UMD and be able to use wands of e.g. cure light wounds or other divine spells as well as his arcane repertoire.
Sorcerors also get bloodline powers and bonus spells which can give them a unique feeling (Magic-user with an animal companion? Sylvan Bloodline, fancy a specilist summoner? Abyssal will do it. Want a Holy Sorceror? try Empyreal or Celestial. fancy a Fey Sorceror? etc.)
The Ring of Spell Knowledge sounds like a good FAQ candidate.
I see it differently. I see the two requirements as needing to be fulfilled at the exact moment the sorc teaches the spell into the ring.Show me something in RAW that places a time restriction on the sorcerer's experiance.
OR and I may be crazy
Lets not get off track
These rings only cover 1-4th lvl spells. Most of us agree on how PoSK work and that more or less fills the RoKS function.
Take away point for this discussion:
Sorcerers can spend money and time to learn spells too, Wizards can do it cheaper and faster, but they both can do it.
If anything these items help balance out pearls-of-power.
Really the difference comes down too prepared or spontaneous casting. With enough gear sorcerers and wizards converge into essentially the same casting. Now at WBL or lower (like most games) the difference between them is noticeably higher.
So can you teach the ring more than one spell? Can it forget the old one?
This could be said about a lot of classes. Take away key features of a class and they're pretty darn useless. As long as I was warned ahead of time of "that" kind of DM, I wouldn't mind it.Wizard is overpowered if your DM never makes you worry about protecting your spellbook, and never sunders your component pouch, bonded ring, or kills your wand using familiar.
but to a lot of DMs in my area
class features and feats are valid targets. especially when the responsible Achilles heel is so fragile.
the Same DM, Weekly William also uses
all sorts of crippling Dillemae
Murdering combat Pets and Cohorts
looking for ways to penalize you for having alignment restrictions, for example, looking for moral dillemae to Depower a paladin into an NPC class.
using cross genre or cross continental options gives him a license to use the same against you at another point. the same with 3rd party or 3.5 material with the exception, that 1 3.5 feat, class, or spell opens up unrestricted 3.5 access for him to threaten you with by means of using a similar option type.
Build an Ubercharger, and he Will use one against you later on, or in a different campaign.
hell, anything the players use is fair game for the DM.
but yes, he frequently seeks excuses to remove key features. which is why sorcerers and oracles tend to be popular casters. and why barbarians and rangers are popular martial classes.
This could be said about a lot of classes. Take away key features of a class and they're pretty darn useless. As long as I was warned ahead of time of "that" kind of DM, I wouldn't mind it.Wizard is overpowered if your DM never makes you worry about protecting your spellbook, and never sunders your component pouch, bonded ring, or kills your wand using familiar.
but to a lot of DMs in my area
class features and feats are valid targets. especially when the responsible Achilles heel is so fragile.
the Same DM, Weekly William also uses
all sorts of crippling Dillemae
Murdering combat Pets and Cohorts
looking for ways to penalize you for having alignment restrictions, for example, looking for moral dillemae to Depower a paladin into an NPC class.
using cross genre or cross continental options gives him a license to use the same against you at another point. the same with 3rd party or 3.5 material with the exception, that 1 3.5 feat, class, or spell opens up unrestricted 3.5 access for him to threaten you with by means of using a similar option type.
Build an Ubercharger, and he Will use one against you later on, or in a different campaign.
hell, anything the players use is fair game for the DM.
but yes, he frequently seeks excuses to remove key features. which is why sorcerers and oracles tend to be popular casters. and why barbarians and rangers are popular martial classes.
Nothing in there express how your DM was great at story telling and pulling you into the world as the a party of protagonist.
I don't play player vs the DM (the DM always wins). To me it's not about "winning" the game. I follow the rules and like doing so because it reels in the imagination to something limited. My party and DM work together to craft a memorable story. If I wanted to assert my superior role-playing skill, I would be in more PFS games where the GMs have to play by the rules.
This could be said about a lot of classes. Take away key features of a class and they're pretty darn useless. As long as I was warned ahead of time of "that" kind of DM, I wouldn't mind it.Wizard is overpowered if your DM never makes you worry about protecting your spellbook, and never sunders your component pouch, bonded ring, or kills your wand using familiar.
but to a lot of DMs in my area
class features and feats are valid targets. especially when the responsible Achilles heel is so fragile.
the Same DM, Weekly William also uses
all sorts of crippling Dillemae
Murdering combat Pets and Cohorts
looking for ways to penalize you for having alignment restrictions, for example, looking for moral dillemae to Depower a paladin into an NPC class.
using cross genre or cross continental options gives him a license to use the same against you at another point. the same with 3rd party or 3.5 material with the exception, that 1 3.5 feat, class, or spell opens up unrestricted 3.5 access for him to threaten you with by means of using a similar option type.
Build an Ubercharger, and he Will use one against you later on, or in a different campaign.
hell, anything the players use is fair game for the DM.
but yes, he frequently seeks excuses to remove key features. which is why sorcerers and oracles tend to be popular casters. and why barbarians and rangers are popular martial classes.
Nothing in there express how your DM was great at story telling and pulling you into the world as the a party of protagonist.
I don't play player vs the DM (the DM always wins). To me it's not about "winning" the game. I follow the rules and like doing so because it reels in the imagination to something limited. My party and DM work together to craft a memorable story. If I wanted to assert my superior role-playing skill, I would be in more PFS games where the GMs have to play by the rules.
his fun, isn't storytelling
it is thinking of ways to survive without giving him ideas.
PoSK itself isn't game breaking. The problem with the PoSK is the interaction with the relaxed prerequisites for items that are not spell trigger or spell completion items. It's that ability to get an extra spell without finding a teacher and do so at half price that's the issue. At half price they really aren't that expensive. You're not going to learn every spell ever like a wizard might attempt, but the worthwhile situational spells aren't going to break your budget. If it had the same crafting requirements as scribing a spell in a spellbook (ie. that the person making it knows the spell) it wouldn't be an issue, but the person I was objecting to was saying that his sorcerer could craft PoSK for spells he didn't know. It is both common sense and necessary to prevent abuse that a PoSK be treated more like scribing a spell in a spellbook than the creation of a wondrous item as far as the ability to bypass prerequisites with an increased skill DC goes.
If you feel like making up rule, go on ahead.
I disagree with you though about there being a problem. When a DM is keeping their PCs to WBL he counts crafted items at the full price. Regardless even at half price PoKS are too expensive to be game breaking. They allow a Sorcerer to invest money and time to rectify errors they had in their build. They also allow a Sorcerer to learn spells. That is fun and has been the only downside for me when I play a sorcerer is that knowing regardless of how much wealth and power I amass I could not learn an extra cantrip if I wanted too.
You want to add a needless restriction to something that is not broken because it makes a class option more fun.
IMO Wizards can research spells too, How do you think spells were made in the first place?
I should note not everyone agrees with that FAQs or runs it that way. I also still have no idea how that ring works. I'd think it would get expensive to keep a pile of magic rings and pages around.
The bolded is incorrect according to the FAQ The only reason you see the price as too high to abuse is that you are already houseruling wealth...PoSK itself isn't game breaking. The problem with the PoSK is the interaction with the relaxed prerequisites for items that are not spell trigger or spell completion items. It's that ability to get an extra spell without finding a teacher and do so at half price that's the issue. At half price they really aren't that expensive. You're not going to learn every spell ever like a wizard might attempt, but the worthwhile situational spells aren't going to break your budget. If it had the same crafting requirements as scribing a spell in a spellbook (ie. that the person making it knows the spell) it wouldn't be an issue, but the person I was objecting to was saying that his sorcerer could craft PoSK for spells he didn't know. It is both common sense and necessary to prevent abuse that a PoSK be treated more like scribing a spell in a spellbook than the creation of a wondrous item as far as the ability to bypass prerequisites with an increased skill DC goes.If you feel like making up rule, go on ahead.
I disagree with you though about there being a problem. When a DM is keeping their PCs to WBL he counts crafted items at the full price. Regardless even at half price PoKS are too expensive to be game breaking. They allow a Sorcerer to invest money and time to rectify errors they had in their build. They also allow a Sorcerer to learn spells. That is fun and has been the only downside for me when I play a sorcerer is that knowing regardless of how much wealth and power I amass I could not learn an extra cantrip if I wanted too.
You want to add a needless restriction to something that is not broken because it makes a class option more fun.
IMO Wizards can research spells too, How do you think spells were made in the first place?
READ
It doesn't matter if it is half price or full price. PoSK is still too expensive to abuse.
5th and 6th lvl spells take an average of 1 month to make or 4 months of adventuring days to finish. With as average cost of 15,000 gold
now for wizards
6th lvl spell*11*25 = 1650 for a scroll and 600 gold for ink (is it still 100gold per page? don't play wizards often)
so lets round that up to 2,500gold for a spell that takes them 1 day (or a few hours?) to learn.
Using most expensive way possible the wizard's spell are 1/6 the price and 1/30 the time needed. The money they save? I introduce pearls or power which are the wizard gear they use to do what sorcerers do. AND GUESS WHAT? They are the same price as PoSK.
I see it differently. I see the two requirements as needing to be fulfilled at the exact moment the sorc teaches the spell into the ring.Show me something in RAW that places a time restriction on the sorcerer's experiance.
I see there's no reasoning with you on this. Fine, keep your stretched version of RAW. Still, If I were a PFS GM, I would never allow you to do it. There is no legitimate proof you can bring me that you have "seen" this spell cast let alone succeeding in identifying the spell in the first place.
Bring me hard evidence in the form of scrolls or spellbooks and I'll be more than happy to let someone do this.
And, since we're going the "Show me RAW" route. Show me in the RAW where you are allowed to re-train the ring. After all, the raw says the ring is an empty storage space in which you can train a spell.. Once a spell is in it, the ring is no longer an empty storage space. Per RAW you cannot re-train.
If we're talking PFS then crafting for oneself isn't an option anyway. So the sorcerer would pay the appropriate extra amount to the ring-crafting wizard of Ye Olde Magick Shoppe to install the spell for you.
I don't see that re-training a ring or page would be game-breaking, as the sorcerer would have to pay to have it done each time.
Rings and Pages of Spell Knowledge are expensive but useful options for increased flexibility.
You're missing the point entirely. The point is, when RAW isn't clear. You have to use a little common sense. Is it OK for my char to say "Umm.. For my back-story, I grew up in a wizard college and saw all spells from levels 1-4 and therefore I can use this single ring to know every spell imaginable despite the intent of my class as having limited spells known."
There's so many holes in this rings description that you need to apply some common sense.
I could easily say: Yes it's intended to be just like the Cracked Orange Prism, but with the caveat that it is not "determined when the stone is created" but instead "taught to the ring by the wearer".
I could also say: Well there's no action given to teach the ring.. The closest RAW about teaching a spell known would be the wizard adding spells to his spellbook, therefore it should take an hour to teach the ring. After all, the words "Through Study" are present in both the RoSK, and the wording for adding spells to a spellbook, You must study for an hour before you can add to your spellbook, why should the sorc's ring be any different?
Or even: Following the Sorcerers Spells known mechanics, they can swap them out at even levels, so when the sorc levels up go right ahead and swap.
|
|
You're missing the point entirely. The point is, when RAW isn't clear. You have to use a little common sense.
I see nothing unclear with RAW. From my point of view, somebody is trying to add limits to an item that were never intended by inserting requirements they feel should exist but do not.
Quite people feel the same way I do regarding the functioning of the RoSK.
I fact there is a build advice thread running for a PFS caster at the moment where quire a few people are advocating exactly what I have brought up in this thread.
Sage bloodline, Ring of Spell Knowledge and Pages of Spell Knowledge are being advocated over wizard.
Is there? I see a thread where people suggest sorcerer for focus. I also still have no idea how the Ring works because its completely unclear to me.
Personally, I like getting my spells a level earlier.
You're missing the point entirely. The point is, when RAW isn't clear. You have to use a little common sense.I see nothing unclear with RAW. From my point of view, somebody is trying to add limits to an item that were never intended by inserting requirements they feel should exist but do not.
Quite people feel the same way I do regarding the functioning of the RoSK.
I fact there is a build advice thread running for a PFS caster at the moment where quire a few people are advocating exactly what I have brought up in this thread.
Sage bloodline, Ring of Spell Knowledge and Pages of Spell Knowledge are being advocated over wizard.
Well, if you don't see that there are holes in the RAW of this ring big enough to drive a phantom chariot through, that's your prerogative I suppose.
I've given you countless examples of why the "seeing" mechanic is unmanageable, how the "retrain" option is questionable, and how the "Through study" mechanic would indicate the requirement of an hour to teach the ring.
I understand your reluctance to acknowledge those problems. You don't want to lose out on your overpowered magic item. But I would hope that most people would look at the way you are trying to use it and say: "This is too good to be true".
And if you are like me, once you really look at the description... It is. Quite frankly, it doesn't work as you describe.
|
|
A ring of spell knowledge is only a storage space; the wearer must still encounter a written, active, or cast version of the spell and succeed at a DC 20 Spellcraft check to teach the spell to the ring.
This is the relevant sentence.
1. I have no difficulty tracking which spells a character has encountered. Compared to the printouts I maintain for FAQs, Errata, and developer rules clarifications on the forums, this is simple.
2. The ring simply stores the knowledge to cast a spell. Like a storage locker you keep random items in. If you park your motorcycle in a storage space does that storage space become motorcycle only (unless labeled as such)? The ring does not mandate a permanent choice, unlike certain other items where such choices are very explicitly included in the item description.
3. No action requirement is defined for the training. The default action type for interaction with wondrous items is "standard" unless the item specifies otherwise. The spellcraft skill does not specify actions types or time requirements for this usage of the skill. The default action type for wondrous items is used since no other value is defined.
Are you reading it as 1500 gold to learn every first level spell? Because that's a little insane.
A ring of spell knowledge is only a storage space; the wearer must still encounter a written, active, or cast version of the spell and succeed at a DC 20 Spellcraft check to teach the spell to the ring.This is the relevant sentence.
1. I have no difficulty tracking which spells a character has encountered. Compared to the printouts I maintain for FAQs, Errata, and developer rules clarifications on the forums, this is simple.
2. The ring simply stores the knowledge to cast a spell. Like a storage locker you keep random items in. If you park your motorcycle in a storage space does that storage space become motorcycle only (unless labeled as such)? The ring does not mandate a permanent choice, unlike certain other items where such choices are very explicitly included in the item description.
3. No action requirement is defined for the training. The default action type for interaction with wondrous items is "standard" unless the item specifies otherwise. The spellcraft skill does not specify actions types or time requirements for this usage of the skill. The default action type for wondrous items is used since no other value is defined.
1. I couldn't help but notice you used the past tense "Encountered" while the spells description uses present tense "Encounter". Could it be your past encounters do not apply? (We're going in circles here) I don't care how well you maintain your records, you have no way of proving it to me if I wasn't the DM who cast that spell.
2. The ring also doesn't explicitly say whether or not you can remove your motorcycle and put a car in there. Without that instruction it's at best unclear. You cite the orange prism stone saying that if it were meant to be that way, they would have used this language.
which brings me to my next point:
3. Default is indeed standard, however, "through study" would imply similar mechanics (aka wizard study of spells). An hour is perfectly reasonable assumption here. Take your hour to study, and then standard to teach the ring. If you're going to insist on similar mechanics for one unclear area, then I will insist on the same.
- Again, RAW is not clear. If it's not clear, use the common sense test.
Are you reading it as 1500 gold to learn every first level spell? Because that's a little insane.
That's exactly what he's saying. As well as 24000 to learn every 1st-4th level spell.
Are you reading it as 1500 gold to learn every first level spell? Because that's a little insane.That's exactly what he's saying. As well as 24000 to learn every 1st-4th level spell.
even if it could learn every 1st-4th level spell for that price, it still has the limited capacity of 1 spell at a time.
so it's not every spell
just one really easily retrainable 1st-4th level spell known.
even if it could learn every 1st-4th level spell for that price, it still has the limited capacity of 1 spell at a time.
so it's not every spell
just one really easily retrainable 1st-4th level spell known.
Even at the cost of a standard to swap a spell, that would be the best bargain of the game.
Even at the cost of a standard to swap a spell, that would be the best bargain of the game.even if it could learn every 1st-4th level spell for that price, it still has the limited capacity of 1 spell at a time.
so it's not every spell
just one really easily retrainable 1st-4th level spell known.
24,000 is a lot of gold. and that is the price of the ring for 4th level and below.
this ring takes a sizable chunk of your wealth until you are way deep into the teens.
and it is no stronger than buying scrolls or using paragon surge.
in fact, retaining spells as a standard action and using a spell slot to fuel the spell, is no stronger than using the darned scroll.
hell, you could keep dozens of scrolls for that price for multiple spells of the listed levels and do something similar.
24,000 is a lot of gold. and that is the price of the ring for 4th level and below.
this ring takes a sizable chunk of your wealth until you are way deep into the teens.
and it is no stronger than buying scrolls or using paragon surge.
in fact, retaining spells as a standard action and using a spell slot to fuel the spell, is no stronger than using the darned scroll.
hell, you could keep dozens of scrolls for that price for multiple spells of the listed levels and do something similar.
It seems like a lot until you realize that for a wizard to "know" all 4th level and under spells, it would cost around 49,000gp (using cost calcs from another thread). And of course he wont be able to just burn a standard to swap them out, and then proceed to spam that spell like only a sorc can.
To give it another standard, its 1000 gold to gain a 1st level spell known as a sorcerer with a page of spell knowledge. However this grows exponentially and its 16,000 for a 4th level spell. 24,000 is a lot less than 2 of those.
This ring comes in four types: ring of spell knowledge I, ring of spell knowledge II, ring of spell knowledge III, and ring of spell knowledge IV. All of them are useful only to spontaneous arcane spellcasters.
Through study, the wearer can gain the knowledge of a single spell in addition to those allotted by her class and level. A ring of spell knowledge I can hold 1st-level spells only, a ring of spell knowledge II 1st- or 2nd-level spells, a ring of spell knowledge III spells of 3rd level or lower, and a ring of spell knowledge IV up to 4th-level spells.
A ring of spell knowledge is only a storage space; the wearer must still encounter a written, active, or cast version of the spell and succeed at a DC 20 Spellcraft check to teach the spell to the ring. Thereafter, the arcane spellcaster may cast the spell as though she knew the spell and it appeared on her class’ spell list.
Arcane spells that do not appear on the wearer’s class list are treated as one level higher for all purposes (storage and casting).
Key word there is "and". To teach the ring the spell the wearer must be encountering the spell while wearing the ring and making the spellcraft check.
You are not allowed to have seen the spell once and then teach the ring the spell. You must be looking at a scroll or a spell book or a PoSK written version of the spell OR you can be observing someone cast it.
The ring by itself doesn't give access to spells. Seeing the spell cast once upon a time doesn't give access to the spell. If they meant that it would be written as "and then" instead of "and". The ring is still very nice and gives a reason for a sorcerer to have a spell book. I do wish they made higher versions of the ring and didn't allow cross-class spells as the trade-off. Still a very decent magical item to learn spells on the fly.
Sorcerer over wiz
1) Sorcerers are sexier
2) Spont-casting; Because 15 minutes of meditation is sexier than 1 hour of book memorizing
3) Bluff and UMD with sexiness synergy
4) Bloodlines; channel the sexiness of your ancestors as awesome powers and spells
5) Cast magic through sheer force of will