Not really sure what to tell you if you don't see the differences in the above scenarios. I mean seriously, you're trying to convince me that speaking every 3 minutes while invisible isn't really that big of a deal when you're trying to stay non-detected.
Nobody is saying there isn't a difference. We're just saying it's still very useful and serves its role just fine. This isn't the end of the world you're making it out to be. PF's Ring was never intended to be a stealth I Win button, which is what you're looking for.
_Ozy_, perhaps you should read what I actually write. I did not say half speed. I said <half speed.
See that little "<" mark? That means less than.
Here you go:
Stealth+20(invis)-20(speaking)+20(stationary) = Stealth+20
Stealth+20(invis)+0(moving <half) = Stealth+20
See? All modifiers are there. The correct moving modifier is there. The correct speaking penalty is there.
Please try to do the math correctly next time.
My problems with the ruling are chiefly that (1) it causes problems for my favorite character concept, and (2) makes it impossible to have a long-lasting disguise or invisibility before you get to really high levels (where things like the ninja capstone or the veil spell are more common place)--which simply crushes a lot of stealth/spy character concepts out there.
The first is my problem. The latter, however, is the problem of anyone who ever wanted to play a magical-based sneak or spy.
You might have missed it, but this is a reply to why we don't like this. I'm not asking anyone to feel what I feel, just explaining why I do to fretgod99, so I'm unsure why you replied to me.No, it feels wrong to you. To me, it feels like it's always felt, because that's the way I've always seen it played and run.No, I get it. I really do. But that it operates differently isn't necessarily bad. It's not necessarily wrong.LOL it's worse that being wrong. It FEELS wrong, deep down in your gut. No matter how correct it is, it just feels so wrong.The way you responded made it seem like you were speaking in the definitive "this is how it is" sense, seeing as you said "It FEELS wrong, deep down in your gut." The word you want there is "my", not "your."
Based on his response, I'm pretty sure at least Jason Wu read it the way I did.
It's an extention of ravingdork's post "It's clearly a train wreck for ME" post. It seems in context to me, but if you misunderstood it sorry.
How long have you been in the hobby of fantasy roleplaying, Jeff Merola?Logical fallacy. Experience is not an arguement.
For the record, I have no issues with the ruling. It is what the designers of THIS game intend. They are not bound to follow tropes from previous games, fiction, or other sources.
For the record, MY gaming experience is over 30 years. But it's not an arguement, so it's irrelevant.
-j
He said this. " To me, it feels like it's always felt, because that's the way I've always seen it played and run." It's a question on how long "always" was not saying one experience is better than another. When he says "My first introduction to D&D was when 3.5 came out." that lets us know his "always" goes back that far. There seems to be a lot of conclusion jumping.
Nobody is saying there isn't a difference. We're just saying it's still very useful and serves its role just fine. This isn't the end of the world you're making it out to be. PF's Ring was never intended to be a stealth I Win button, which is what you're looking for.Not really sure what to tell you if you don't see the differences in the above scenarios. I mean seriously, you're trying to convince me that speaking every 3 minutes while invisible isn't really that big of a deal when you're trying to stay non-detected.
No, that's not what I'm looking for. I haven't had a character with an invisibility ring for well over a decade, and in general I don't play sneaky characters. So please, let's not try to invent motivations where none exist.
I'm saying that no, an invisibility ring DOES NOT work just fine for thematic sneakiness. For combat sneakiness? Sure, no problem.
But no, having to speak every 3 minutes while scouting an enemy just doesn't work. In fact, it's worse than someone just using normal stealth because speaking normally will trigger a normal, non-stealthy, non-invisible, hearing perception check.
Then regular stealth when you don't need to be invisible and use the ring only when you have to to facilitate being stealthy. Or get creative and find a solution to recon other than "I turn invisible forever", because that wasn't ever the intent of PF's Ring.
I still don't really see the problem. It's a problem for you because it doesn't work how you thought it worked, not because it doesn't still work within the intended scope.
_Ozy_, If you are not moving half speed then you are moving LESS than half speed. There is no penalty for that.
<half speed = no penalty
Half speed = -5
Full (Normal) speed = -10
Edit:
The rules on Stealth are slightly different but they provide descriptions for <half speed and >half speed but <normal speed.
You can move up to half your normal speed and use Stealth at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than half but less than your normal speed, you take a –5 penalty.
We have been discussing the normal hearing check for many pages before you got on the -20penalty for talking while pinpointing. YOU, not I, brought up the Pinpointing rules. I have been saying it is a DC15 (ie, not much different than DC20) for pages.
Also, read the Stealth section of the rules. It explains the less than half speed, more than half speed but less than full speed bit. I added that to my post earlier but you had already responded.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dude, when you yourself admit that regular stealth is better than adding a ring of invisibility into the mix for anything outside of a short duration combat scenario, and can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that some of us think this is a completely ridiculous result, well there's probably not much more to gain from the discussion.Then regular stealth when you don't need to be invisible and use the ring only when you have to to facilitate being stealthy. Or get creative and find a solution to recon other than "I turn invisible forever", because that wasn't ever the intent of PF's Ring.
I still don't really see the problem. It's a problem for you because it doesn't work how you thought it worked, not because it doesn't still work within the intended scope.
1. I didn't say it was better. I suggested a course of action if you think it's better.
2. There hasn't been a point in this for a couple pages. This is how it works. This is how PF always intended it to work. That you misunderstood it isn't really a big deal, but your complaining is misplaced. Stealth and recon is still doable. But again, maybe the point is that it's not supposed to be as easy as you have been playing it. Maybe it should be more of a challenge than "I turn invisible forever".
It's an extention of ravingdork's post "It's clearly a train wreck for ME" post. It seems in context to me, but if you misunderstood it sorry.Just for future reference, the "your" still should've been "my" as "your" implies you're either: 1) referring to the person you're directly speaking to (which in this case was fretgot99, not ravingdork) or 2) referring to everyone in general.
It's like saying 'when you get a migraine, you feel queasy in the pit of your stomach'. Meaning people having migraines feel that way not that YOU feel queasy. The 'your' in my post is those that feel the same way. It was neither #1 or #2. It's #3, everyone that thought that way.
It's like saying 'when you get a migraine, you feel queasy in the pit of your stomach'. Meaning people having migraines feel that way not that YOU feel queasy. The 'your' in my post is those that feel the same way. It was neither #1 or #2. It's #3, everyone that thought that way.It's an extention of ravingdork's post "It's clearly a train wreck for ME" post. It seems in context to me, but if you misunderstood it sorry.Just for future reference, the "your" still should've been "my" as "your" implies you're either: 1) referring to the person you're directly speaking to (which in this case was fretgot99, not ravingdork) or 2) referring to everyone in general.
For the record, I knew what you were getting at.
Then why are you asking my why we were discussing it? At no point did you announce your error.
Ozy has the right of it. Couldn't have said it better myself.
So Ozy, your point is any of us that find value in the Ring of Invisibility using the rules that the FAQ has reinforced is "dumb"? Interesting.
Having run it this way for years people still buy it and make excellent use out of it. It is not an "I win" button though. People look at it, think "wooo constant invisibility" and then think about the actual mechanics and back off a bit. This is how it should be.
It should not be an "I win" but it should be useful. Plenty of people find it useful.
Regarding the "iconicness" of the item. This is a game. It is not a literary or history lesson. It is not relevant to the rules or this thread.
In none of the three posts you posted did you announce that you made an error changing the discussion to pinpointing. If you would like to quote the line where you announced that you had made an error please do.
But Pathfinder wasn't the group who "messed it up". PF runs it the same way 3.5 ran it.
And if it's not something you ever use or purchase, why all the angst? It's not even something that impacts any of your characters? You haven't used one in 10+ years and you're about that long too late. This how the rules have been for basically that long.
So Ozy, your point is any of us that find value in the Ring of Invisibility using the rules that the FAQ has reinforced is "dumb"? Interesting.
Having run it this way for years people still buy it and make excellent use out of it. It is not an "I win" button though. People look at it, think "wooo constant invisibility" and then think about the actual mechanics and back off a bit. This is how it should be.
It should not be an "I win" but it should be useful. Plenty of people find it useful.
- See Invisibility. 2nd level spell on all but 5 lists, 10 minutes per caster level. Or as a sense.
- Scent. Possessed by any number of animals and other creatures and can be garnered from spells such as Bloodhound.
- True Seeing. Sense or spell.
- Closed doors in view of someone. Squeaky hinges remove the need for line of sight too.
- Snow. Water. Flour. Anything that makes footprints or steps obvious.
- Narrow hallways.
- Blindsense. Blindsight. Tremorsense. Detect magic, or the appropriate alignment, as a sense.
- The alarm spell. Or even the invisibility alarm spell.
It's hardly "I win."
And if you are so inclined, add "needing to reactivate my ring with a spoken command word, possibly breaking stealth altogether" to the list too.
Activating the ring doesn't break stealth. It does no more than Scent, Closed Doors, Snow, Water, Flour, or Alarm. What it does is inform others that a hidden creature is in the area.
That happens anyhow.
Activating the ring doesn't break stealth. It does no more than Scent, Closed Doors, Snow, Water, Flour, or Alarm. What it does is inform others that a hidden creature is in the area.
That happens anyhow.
Kind of the point. It isn't an "I win" button regards of duration.
According to the magic item creation rules, the hat is command word activated and cast at 1st level, thus lasting ten minutes.
A continuous hat would cost 3000gp, but would have a single disguise built in; not what we're looking for, really.
A better alternative would be a hat activated by a silent act of will, which would be 2000gp. Then you wouldn't have to say the magic word every ten minutes; very suspicious if you're in disguise.
I can't believe anyone would not pay the extra 200gp for the silent version! You've already spent 1800gp!
Or you could make the magic word be something that could easily be fit into almost any conversation. Articles like "a" and "the" or common interjections like "um" would probably work.
My problems with the ruling are chiefly that (1) it causes problems for my favorite character concept, and (2) makes it impossible to have a long-lasting disguise or invisibility before you get to really high levels (where things like the ninja capstone or the veil spell are more common place)--which simply crushes a lot of stealth/spy character concepts out there.
The first is my problem. The latter, however, is the problem of anyone who ever wanted to play a magical-based sneak or spy.
For long-lasting invisibility, couldn't you simply have two rings? Activate one, then before it runs out, activate the other, then before that runs out, activate the first etc?
Gaberlunzie, you do not need two rings for that. You only need one. Just keep activating it (thereby resetting the duration).
The problem that people are having is that in order to use a command activated item you have to speak. Speaking while stealthing is problematic.
Gaberlunzie, you do not need two rings for that. You only need one. Just keep activating it (thereby resetting the duration).
The problem that people are having is that in order to use a command activated item you have to speak. Speaking while stealthing is problematic.
Oh, sorry, was under the impression that the ring of invisibility was activated by putting it on (hence two rings or a moment out of sight would be needed). Note though that the command word description, at least as far as I could tell, lacks the specific rule that verbal spell components have that you need to speak in a loud and clear voice - you could very well say the command word as silently as you want, as long as you say it. Which would probably put the DC somewhere closer to 15 (hear the details of a whispered conversation) which by RAW (though not very logical and I assume table variance) would increase to 35 due to invisibility. Add in distance modifiers, and a stealthy ring-wearer would have to be conscious of the limitations, but it would be far from impossible.
My problems with the ruling are chiefly that (1) it causes problems for my favorite character concept, and (2) makes it impossible to have a long-lasting disguise or invisibility before you get to really high levels
This, from a game balance perspective, would seem to be a good thing. Perma-invisibility is something that really SHOULD only appear at really high levels.
(where things like the ninja capstone or the veil spell are more common place)--which simply crushes a lot of stealth/spy character concepts out there.
The first is my problem. The latter, however, is the problem of anyone who ever wanted to play a magical-based sneak or spy.
Been playing a magic based sneak ninja for two years. Haven't ever had a problem despite not ever owning the ring. I just rely on his ridiculous stealh most of the time, and reserve his invisibility for getting past difficult bits.
Besides, with the ninja's considerable other sneaky abilities, they should really rarely ever have to worry about being detected if they don't want to. Especially if you dip Shadowdancer.
-j
|
Magic items frequently require spells as a prerequisite for crafting them. This doesn't mean that the item functions exactly like the spell, although it might.
Some definately work like a spell being cast:-
allows the wearer to use fly on command (as the spell) once per day
In this case, it's just like someone cast the spell on you, including duration.
Other items allow you to benefit from a particular state, as the state described in a spell description:-
This item appears to be a normal cloak, but when worn by a character, its magical properties distort and warp light waves. This displacement works similar to the blur spell, granting a 20% miss chance on attacks against the wearer. It functions continually.
So if you want to know the game rules for the state of being blurred, reference the spell. But this does not mean that the magic item must switch itself off after a period of time which matches the duration of a blur spell had been cast on you!
So, what about the ring?
By activating this simple silver ring, the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell.
This reads like you benefit from the state of invisibility, as described in the spell, not that you've had an invisibility spell cast on you!
What about the hat?
This apparently normal hat allows its wearer to alter her appearance as with a disguise self spell.
This doesn't read like you had the spell actually cast on you, with it's attendant duration. It reads like, when you wear the hat and activate it with a command word, you can alter your appearance in the same manner that someone who has had the spell cast on them can alter their appearance.
You make yourself—including clothing, armor, weapons, and equipment—look different. You can seem 1 foot shorter or taller, thin, fat, or in between. You cannot change your creature type (although you can appear as another subtype). Otherwise, the extent of the apparent change is up to you. You could add or obscure a minor feature or look like an entirely different person or gender.
The spell does not provide the abilities or mannerisms of the chosen form, nor does it alter the perceived tactile (touch) or audible (sound) properties of you or your equipment. If you use this spell to create a disguise, you get a +10 bonus on the Disguise check. A creature that interacts with the glamer gets a Will save to recognize it as an illusion.
So this is what you can do. It doesn't otherwise follow the rules for a spell actually cast on you (duration, for example), just that you can act as if you were benefitting from the spell effect.
So, items EITHER work as if, when activated, they cast the spell on you OR items let you benefit from the effects described in the referenced spell for as long as the activated item is worn.
Each item works EITHER one way OR the other, and each way has consequences. For example, if you benefit from the state as described in the spell, then it doesn't have a duration; it works as described in the spell descriptive text, but is not subject to the stat block of a spell. The only way the duration of the effect would come into play would be if the descriptive text says so. Like with invisibility, 'The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature,' is part of the text. Or true strike, 'during your next attack. Your next single attack roll...', shows that even it the duration was infinite that the effect of the spell only affects your next single attack roll.
If an item works the other way, just like activating the item works as if the spell had been cast on you, then this has its own consequences. It has the duration of the cast spell (3 minutes for the ring, 10 for the hat), but it only needs to be worn to be activated; there is no requirement to continue to wear the item for the duration of the spell effect any more than there is a requirement to keep waving the wand every round for the duration of the spell the wand has just cast on you. One consequence of working like the spell has been cast on you is that the item may be worn, activated and removed, and the spell has no reason to end, even if worn and activated by another. To rule otherwise would be a houserule!
|
|
I've just been looking at other incarnations of The World's Oldest Role-Playing Game to see if anything interesting turned up on this subject.
I threw away all my 3.0 stuff as soon as 3.5 came out (so I can't check the wording of the ring, although IIRC it was less brief than it became in 3.5), but for some reason I still have my 3.0 PHB. This shows that, although invisibility has a duration of one minute/level in both 3.5 and PF, it had a duration of ten minutes/level in 3.0. My memory of earlier editions is of a similarly long duration.
This means that, even with the ring working like a spell had been cast on you, it would last half an hour before ending. That a huge difference in the usefulness of the item.
Over the years and editions, editors conscious of page count made descriptions briefer and briefer, counting on the fact that everyone knows how it works anyway. Big mistake. We now have a ring which casts a spell which lasts three minutes, and can be removed and used by someone else without affecting the spell ready cast.
Just for amusement, here's what 5th ed does:-
Invisibility, the spell: 'A creature you touch becomes invisible until the spell ends....The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell.'
The duration of this spell is 'Concentration, up to one hour.'
In 5th ed, the general rules for magic rings are, 'Unless a ring's description says otherwise, a ring must be worn on a finger, or a similar digit, for the ring's magic to function.'
The Ring of Invisibility: While wearing this ring, you can turn invisible as an action...You remain invisible until the ring is removed, until you attack or cast a spell, or until you use a bonus action to become visible again.'
This clearly shows that the duration does not run out after an hour, unlike when the spell is cast on you.
To me, this shows the clear intent of D&D through the ages, by someone who has the forethought to write the description with complete clarity. This contrasts with a succession of careless edits in previous editions where the assumption that 'everyone knows how it's supposed to work' allowed them to reduce the word count so that a new reader didn't understand what the old readers always knew.
As for the disguise self spell in 5th ed, it's duration is a flat one hour.
The hat of disguise says: 'While wearing this hat, you can use an action to cast the disguise self spell from it at will. The spell ends if the hat is removed.'
This indicates that, unlike the ring, the disguise would go away after one hour, although you could reactivate it at will.
Note that neither item requires a command word. In 3.5/PF, the hat definately does need a command word, but there is no reason for the ring to require a command word. Since it would normally cost 10,800 for a command word version and 12,000 for a silent act of will version, and it actually costs 20,000, who in their right mind would create a command word version?
Make the command word to activate be in Drow Sign Language.
For the record, I knew what you were getting at.It's like saying 'when you get a migraine, you feel queasy in the pit of your stomach'. Meaning people having migraines feel that way not that YOU feel queasy. The 'your' in my post is those that feel the same way. It was neither #1 or #2. It's #3, everyone that thought that way.It's an extention of ravingdork's post "It's clearly a train wreck for ME" post. It seems in context to me, but if you misunderstood it sorry.Just for future reference, the "your" still should've been "my" as "your" implies you're either: 1) referring to the person you're directly speaking to (which in this case was fretgot99, not ravingdork) or 2) referring to everyone in general.
Thank you.
I'm feeling a little bit calmer this morning. After some thought, it occurred to me that this could all be easily resolved. What Paizo should do to accomplish that is as follows:
- Keep their FAQ ruling as is, as it does make an awesome amount of sense in the larger picture and serves to clear up the rules ambiguity beyond any shadow of a doubt.
- Errata both the ring of invisibility and the hat of disguise (and possibly a select few other similar items) to say "It functions continually." at the end of their respective descriptions just like the cloak of minor displacement.
It would allow the items to function as expected from both groups (since they would now match the rules intent and the expectations of fantasy literature buffs) and would make it absolutely clear how future items are intended to function when referencing spells.
Among other more obvious complications (like hosting dinner parties), turning into a mammoth during the night makes it kind of hard to sleep.
How do you propose I fix this?
Okay, this made me laugh out loud.
For starters, I would recommend a bigger bed.
Hama's a lady! People aren't supposed to know her true weight!
I'm just amused that the current argument seems to be simultaneously both that using command word to turn the ring on every three minutes isn't a big deal and doesn't really effect how useful the ring is and that a ring without that limitation would need to be priced at least double to avoid being game-breakingly broken.
It really has to be one or the other doesn't it?
No. The argument is that the ring functioning this way isn't as problematic as people are making it out to be. That's a different connotation.
What Paizo should do:
- Keep their FAQ ruling as is, as it does make an awesome amount of sense in the larger picture and serves to clear up the rules ambiguity beyond any shadow of a doubt.
- Errata both the ring of invisibility and the hat of disguise (and possibly a select few other similar items) to say "It functions continually." at the end of their respective descriptions just like the cloak of displacement.
I think that would just about resolve EVERY issue people are having here, big and small.
I could be made happy if they JUST gave me the price/formula to change those items to the way I thought they works. I'd add the sleeves to that list too. Right now, there is no good/consistent way to 'fix' the pricing for the ring or sleeves to work continually(or make real clothes). Just that would solve a LOT of arguments.
So now we're back to people arguing literally the exact same things that were said before the FAQ was released. This is why the legal world has res judicata.
So now we're back to people arguing literally the exact same things that were said before the FAQ was released. This is why the legal world has res judicata.
An FAQ CAN be appealed though as the DEV's have gone back and changed FAQ's (monk flurry or 1/2 elf/orc and being human). They aren't written in stone, so res judicata doesn't apply.
To be clear, this is just a point on res judicata and FAQ's in general.
|
|
Cheers, thejeff. So, in 2nd ed (and most likely 1st ed), the duration of the spell was 24 hours, although attacking still ended it. But the 2nd ed ring does not cast the spell on the wearer! Read it carefully:-
The wearer of an invisibility ring is able to become invisible at will, instantly. This non-visible state is exactly the same as the wizard invisibility spell.
It's saying that the details of this state are as described in the spell, not that the spell has been cast on you! It worked when you willed it to work (when you were wearing it), and you stayed in that invisible state until you attacked, removed the ring or de-activated it. This is why us old timers understand the item as we do, why the editors of the later editions felt safe in making the ring description briefer, because everyone knows how it works, and why brand new readers of the briefer text mistakenly think that the ring casts the spell on you.
For actual intent from a writer more concerned about detailing the parameters to brand new readers, see the 5th ed description:-
While wearing this ring, you can turn invisible as an action...You remain invisible until the ring is removed, until you attack or cast a spell, or until you use a bonus action to become visible again.
So now we're back to people arguing literally the exact same things that were said before the FAQ was released. This is why the legal world has res judicata.An FAQ CAN be appealed though as the DEV's have gone back and changed FAQ's (monk flurry or 1/2 elf/orc and being human). They aren't written in stone, so res judicata doesn't apply.
To be clear, this is just a point on res judicata and FAQ's in general.
The point had less to do with trying to appeal a FAQ and more to do with people nearly verbatim writing out the same arguments that were presented like 8 pages ago, prior to the FAQ being released. It's been considered. There's no new ground being developed here. We're simply restating the same arguments. Unless there's something new to cover, I don't see the point.
On a side note, the Ring doesn't say it casts the spell; it says it provides the same benefits as the spell. Magic items, unless specified otherwise, don't provide their benefit when not worn unless it explicitly states so. The support for the pass-around argument is specious at best and generally appears to be reactionary (hyperliteralism out of frustration and all that).
No. The argument is that the ring functioning this way isn't as problematic as people are making it out to be. That's a different connotation.I'm just amused that the current argument seems to be simultaneously both that using command word to turn the ring on every three minutes isn't a big deal and doesn't really effect how useful the ring is and that a ring without that limitation would need to be priced at least double to avoid being game-breakingly broken.
It really has to be one or the other doesn't it?
So why would it need to be so much more expensive if continuous? (In terms of balance, not in terms of "That's what the formula spits out").
Take another item for an example: Boots of Levitation. As I understand it, they work the same way. 3 minute duration on command. Unlimited use. What's the practical advantage to having them continuous instead? Why would it justify more than twice the price?
Ok, so maybe it doesn't scale the same. Maybe 40k is too much. 30k, then. It doesn't really matter to me. It's going to be somewhat arbitrary, regardless.
And, more importantly, it's going to have to be something to address with your GM anyway, since it's a custom magic item. And while you're talking about it, talk to your GM about whether s/he runs the Ring according to RAW/FAQ or whether s/he runs it the pre-3.5 way. Maybe your GM prefers the house rule.
It really isn't that much of a problem. If your group has been running it one way, and everybody likes that, why are you worried about it changing?
*shrug*