Price Varies; Aura moderate or strong (no school); CL 7th; Weight —
Type I 1,500 gp; Type II 6,000 gp; Type III 13,500; Type IV 24,000 gp
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).
Construction Requirements
Cost varies
Type I 750 gp; Type II 3,000 gp; Type III 6,750; Type IV 12,000 gp
Forge Ring, creator must be able to cast spells of the spell level to be granted
I think this ring is good for prepared spellcasters also. Here is my breakdown:
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.
Description.
All of them are useful only to spontaneous arcane spellcasters.
Opinion, not mechanics.
Through study, the wearer can gain the knowledge of a single spell in addition to those allotted by her class and level.
Mechanic: wearer knows the spell.
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.
Mechanic: what the ring can hold.
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.
Mechanics: how to load the ring.
Thereafter, the arcane spellcaster may cast the spell as though she knew the spell and it appeared on her class' spell list.
Mechanic: the spontaneous caster can cast the spell.
Arcane spells that do not appear on the wearer's class list are treated as one level higher for all purposes (storage and casting).
Mechanic: off-list spells are at one level higher.
The point is that once the ring is loaded with the spell, a prepared caster 'knows' it and so could write it into a spellbook or teach it to a witch's familiar, provided it is in class.
Opinions?
/cevah
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Where does it state that it being useful only to spontaneous casters being an opinion? It flat out states that they are only useful to spontaneous spellcasters. Useful meaning gains some degree of use from.
To extrapolate.
Useful only to Spontaneous Spellcasters could also be written useless to anyone other than Spontaneous Spellcasters. Means the same thing.
All of them are useful only to spontaneous arcane spellcasters.Opinion, not mechanics.
Actually, I believe that line is mechanics, not opinion. The ring does not function for anyone other than a spontaneous arcane spellcaster (although it still decorates your finger quite well).
I could see where it could be useful to a witch to be able to pick up some spells on the sorcerer/wizard list or vice versa. So it grants some extra utility to cast some spells. Of course, a wand will give you 50 charges of a spell and you don't have to use your spell slots to cast it...which is generally how I would solve the problem. DC 20 UMD can be achieved reasonable well.
Of course, there is the interpretation that the ring is actually restricted to spontaneous casters, which is a possible valid interpretation.
Rereading the description I am more and more convinced that its restricted to spontaneous arcane spell casters only.
@Scavion: If they meant only usable by spontaneous casters, why did they say "useful" and not "usable"?
@mcherm: Useful is when you figured out a use. I think I have.
@Claxon: This item lets spontaneous casters use their own slots on new spells.
@ShadowcatX: Under Wizard (spells) it said:
"To learn, prepare, or cast a spell, the wizard must have ...." and
"A wizard may know any number of spells."
Under Spellbooks (Spells Copied from Another Spellbook or Scroll) it said:
"A wizard can also add a spell to his book whenever he encounters one on a magic scroll or in another wizard's spellbook. No matter what the spell's source, the wizard must first decipher the magical writing (see Arcane Magical Writings). Next, he must spend 1 hour studying the spell. At the end of the hour, he must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell's level). A wizard who has specialized in a school of spells gains a +2 bonus on the Spellcraft check if the new spell is from his specialty."
The spellcraft check is to learn a spell. Just what the ring does. I think the Witch class has similar wordage about knowing spells. I do think that knowing a spell is not the same as preparing a spell.
@All: Keep the comments coming. :-)
/cevah
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Oh I know it wouldn't do a prepared caster any good. Though if it wasn't for the 'dead' part, it would make blood transcription funny. Put ring on, UMD to emulate the spont casting to add it to your spells know, cast blood transcription to put it in your spellbook/familiar...
Like I said, it's useless but funny.
Doesn't matter which you pick. No definition of Useful can be construed to mean "Doesn't appear to be useful until you think of a method to use it." Things are either useful or not.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Useful?s=t
|
useful only to spontaneous arcane spellcasters
There really is no grounds for discussion here, it clearly states it is ONLY useful to spontaneous casters. That's not an opinion, that's a statement of who can use it.
If you want to house rule that prepared casters can use it then go for it, but it will be a house rule. RAW it is clearly not an item prepared casters gain anything from.
Doesn't matter which you pick. No definition of Useful can be construed to mean "Doesn't appear to be useful until you think of a method to use it." Things are either useful or not.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Useful?s=t
How useful are walnut shells? They have been around a long time. Someone changed them from useless to useful: Uses for Discarded Walnut Shells. How useful are worn out tires? Until someone came up with the idea of grinding them up for asphalt material, or cutting up for bases of road hazard markers, it was not useful. Recycling is all about creating usefulness out of uselessness. Just because most people think it is useless does not make it always so. That is why I labeled it opinion.
Should they have used "usable" instead? Maybe, but since they did not, I still like the idea.
/cevah
How do you feel about the terminology ONLY?
ONLY is pretty clear doncha think?
Doesn't matter which you pick. No definition of Useful can be construed to mean "Doesn't appear to be useful until you think of a method to use it." Things are either useful or not.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Useful?s=t
How useful are walnut shells? They have been around a long time. Someone changed them from useless to useful: Uses for Discarded Walnut Shells. How useful are worn out tires? Until someone came up with the idea of grinding them up for asphalt material, or cutting up for bases of road hazard markers, it was not useful. Recycling is all about creating usefulness out of uselessness. Just because most people think it is useless does not make it always so. That is why I labeled it opinion.
Should they have used "usable" instead? Maybe, but since they did not, I still like the idea.
/cevah
Huh? This does not make sense to me at all.
And I agree with the majority here. It is not an opinion, it is not flavor text, it is a statement of fact.