|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good. In that case, use your discretion to make the ring work as always intended: when activated it lasts until you attack, de-activate it or remove the ring. That's a far better use of discretion than choosing to have it end after three minutes or speak out loud every three minutes.
You do realize that that the ring of invisibility has always abided by the limitations of the spell invisibility ever since AD&D, don't you?
The wearer of an invisibility ring is able to become invisible, at will, instantly. This non-visible state is exactly the same as the magic-user invisibility spell (q.v.), except that 10% of these rings also have inaudibility as well, making the wearer absolutely silent. If the wearer wishes to speak, he or she breaks all silence features in order to do so.
The difference is that the 1e AD&D invisibility spell didn't have a timed duration:
The spell remains in effect until it is magically broken or dispelled, or the magic-user or the other recipient cancels it or until he, she, or it attacks any creature.
The spell lasted indefinitely until one of those conditions ended the spell. Therefore, the effect the ring provided lasted indefinately until one of those conditions ended the spell.
My 2nd edition AD&D books are packed away, but I have a hunch that things were very similar to 1st edition.
My 3rd edition books are also packed away, but according to the the 3rd edition SRD (not 3.5, 3rd edition)—located at www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd.html, the invisibility spell had a duration of 10 minutes/level. The language for the description of the ring states: "By activating this ring, the wearer can become invisible, as the spell".
The duration of the spell in 3.5 was changed to 1 minute/level.
So, the ring has always been adjudicated as per the spell. It's just that in the beginning, the spell didn't have a duration. The spell, and thus the ring, has had a time limited duration for 14 years now. That you don't like it doesn't change the facts.
|
|
Why is the maintenance of invisibility when the ring is removed even under debate? If we had an item like Gloves of Aid, which allowed you to touch someone and provide an 'Aid' effect like the spell to them for a limited duration, do we really think the Aid effect should go away if the caster removed the gloves?
Why would effecting an invisibility spell effect on yourself be any different?
Or lets take a look at a real magic item:
Do people think that the temporary hit points will go away as soon as the gloves are removed, or after 1 hour like the spell description?VAMPIRIC GLOVES
Price 18,000 gp; Aura moderate necromancy; CL 5th; Weight —
These pale, elegant-looking leather gloves have blood-red stitching on the fingers—which bears a startling resemblance to blood-encrusted fingernails. Three times per day, the wearer can use vampiric touch and bleed. If the wearer uses vampiric touch and holds the charge, the charge dissipates if the gloves are removed.
Because a) your "gloves of aid" are imparting an effect on someone else and b) Vampiric Gloves are allowing you to actually cast the spell. These two examples are entirely different than the ring of invisibility.
|
Now if you think the ring is no longer good for a price tag of 20000gp that is another argument altogether. You can probably get it changed if you can get the community to back you on it.
The price being either too cheap or too expensive has never been a subject of my posts.
So is your issue mainly the price of the ring compared to what it does or is your issue that the words in the book are not specific enough for you?
My issue is that, of the two possible categories, this item has been filed in the wrong category. I have absolutely no problem, nor misunderstanding, with the way each of those categories works!
There are some, including you, who want to add an extra rule to one category, that never had that rule: if you remove the item the spell effect ends. This has never been the rule for items of that category, but has always been the rule for items of the other category. You seem to think that the lack of the rule (in the category that lacks it) is an oversight and the devs should add it in immediately, for those of us poor saps who don't realise the way it's 'meant' to be. But it isn't a mistake; the items which 'cast a spell' on you work like any SLA, and those rules are complete.
If the idea that removing the item doesn't end the spell effect bothers you, then take comfort in the fact that this is a rule for the other category of items: the ones that, while worn (and activated) let you act as if you were affected by the spell. Like the ring, you have the state of invisibility while wearing it, unless that state is ended (by attacking, dispelling, etc), therefore you don't get that state if you're not wearing it.
A three minute duration (or any duration) is not a benefit of the state of invisibility. 'Duration' and 'effect' are different things.
|
|
You do realize that that the ring of invisibility has always abided by the limitations of the spell invisibility ever since AD&D, don't you?
Yes. Thank you for quoting the description of the 1st ed ring to support my position.
The wearer of an invisibility ring is able to become invisible, at will, instantly. This non-visible state is exactly the same as the magic-user invisibility spell...
It doesn't affect you with the spell in the way some items are really an SLA, it simply grants the state of invisibility, just like that described in the spell.
So the 1st ed spell didn't have a duration? Well the 2nd ed spell did: 24 hours. Yet the 2nd ed ring worked dxactly like the 1st: granted the invisible state as described in the spell.
Once again, 'duration' and 'effect' are different things. If a magic item gives you the same effect as a spell effect, this does not mean it has the duration of that spell.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You do realize that that the ring of invisibility has always abided by the limitations of the spell invisibility ever since AD&D, don't you?Yes. Thank you for quoting the description of the 1st ed ring to support my position.
The wearer of an invisibility ring is able to become invisible, at will, instantly. This non-visible state is exactly the same as the magic-user invisibility spell...It doesn't affect you with the spell in the way some items are really an SLA, it simply grants the state of invisibility, just like that described in the spell.
So the 1st ed spell didn't have a duration? Well the 2nd ed spell did: 24 hours. Yet the 2nd ed ring worked dxactly like the 1st: granted the invisible state as described in the spell.
Once again, 'duration' and 'effect' are different things. If a magic item gives you the same effect as a spell effect, this does not mean it has the duration of that spell.
Well, considering you're placing emphasis on the wrong part of the sentence, I can understand why you're thinking the way you do.
|
|
Because a) your "gloves of aid" are imparting an effect on someone else and b) Vampiric Gloves are allowing you to actually cast the spell. These two examples are entirely different than the ring of invisibility.Why is the maintenance of invisibility when the ring is removed even under debate? If we had an item like Gloves of Aid, which allowed you to touch someone and provide an 'Aid' effect like the spell to them for a limited duration, do we really think the Aid effect should go away if the caster removed the gloves?
Why would effecting an invisibility spell effect on yourself be any different?
Or lets take a look at a real magic item:
Do people think that the temporary hit points will go away as soon as the gloves are removed, or after 1 hour like the spell description?VAMPIRIC GLOVES
Price 18,000 gp; Aura moderate necromancy; CL 5th; Weight —
These pale, elegant-looking leather gloves have blood-red stitching on the fingers—which bears a startling resemblance to blood-encrusted fingernails. Three times per day, the wearer can use vampiric touch and bleed. If the wearer uses vampiric touch and holds the charge, the charge dissipates if the gloves are removed.
a) So what? What rules are you invoking to support this difference? Either spell effects end when an item is removed, or they don't. The target of the effect is irrelevant.
b) Wrong. The gloves let the wearer 'use' vampiric touch. It doesn't say that the wearer must use somatic gestures and verbal incantations to cast the spell. The gloves invoke vampiric touch, as the spell, just like the ring of invisibility invokes invisibility, as the spell. What words make you think that the gloves allow the user to 'cast the spell'? Are you then claiming that using these gloves provoke an attack of opportunity?
"Casting" is not necessarily the best phrase on my part, but the point is still relevant. You are actually using the spell, even if you don't "cast" it like a wizard.
Temporary hit points have nothing to do with the magic of Vampiric Touch as an ongoing thing. Just like using an arcane signet to create a permanent effect (arcane mark) that doesn't go away, the same is true for the temporary hit points. Plus, you're actually casting the spell by using the item.
Different situation than benefiting from the ring of invisibility. Which, while we're on it, does not cast or do anything like create the effect of a spell-like ability. That is another thing which has been "made up" (to once again borrow the phrase).
But ultimately, Wraith is right; discussion isn't going to go anywhere else. If you're comfortable playing the game how you have been at home, I encourage you to continue doing so. If a FAQ was released on the pass-around issue, I'm quite confident on how it would turn out, barring the PDT completely reversing direction from their latest FAQ.
Cheers!
|
|
"Casting" is not necessarily the best phrase on my part, but the point is still relevant. You are actually using the spell,...
? I thought that's what everyone has been saying about the ring of invisibility. That you get invisibility 'as the spell'. You are failing to elucidate the difference between the two.
Are they not both command word magic items? Is there another category for items which let you 'use the spell', like the gloves, compared to whatever the heck it is you are claiming the ring of invisibility is?
Surely you're not claiming that the gloves are a spell trigger item...are you?
Let me at least put it to you this way: that you would continue to be invisible after you remove a ring of invisibility is a concept that is new to me after just reading the comments about it in this thread today. Never, in my entire experience of gaming, has this been a thing with anyone that I have played with.
|
|
The idea that every 3 minutes you would have to speak a command word to remain invisible is a concept that is new to a large number of people in this thread.
Therefore we have ample evidence that new ideas are not necessarily incorrect ideas, no?
A command word activated ring of invisibility has no need to stay on the ring after activation by any RAW in Pathfinder.
I agree that many people play command word activation items as use activated, or like 'continuous' items that require wearing after activation. To me, this just reinforces the idea that command word activation for the ring of invisibility is thematically dumb.
Because, thematically, I agree with you 100%.
So a ring of jumping grants you the +5 bonus after you take it off just because it is a command-word-activated item?
|
|
Here are a couple of related items that have a more complete description, mainly because their similarity requires specifying how they differ: the major and minor Cloaks of Displacement:-
This item appears to be a normal cloak, but on command its magical properties distort and warp light waves. This displacement works just like the displacement spell and lasts for a total of 15 rounds per day, which the wearer can divide up as she sees fit.
The spell has a duration of 1 round/level, which would be 7 (consecutive) rounds. However, the duration of the spell is not a factor, because this item doesn't 'cast' the spell (as an SLA), the displacement works like the displacement of the spell works, and it 'displaces' you while worn for a total of 15 rounds per day, split up in one round chunks.
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.
Again, the spell upon which this item is based lasts for one minute/per level, which would be three minutes for this item. However, this cloak doesn't 'cast' the spell on you (as an SLA) either, it just makes you blurry in the same way the spell makes you blurry, while you wear it.
The 1st and 2nd ed versions of the ring of invisibility never 'cast' the spell on you either; they just made you invisible! The details of the spell are irrelevant, except for the effects of being invisible, as described in the spell. In this case, that kind of invisibility ends if you attack, but this is part of the effect, not part of the duration.
So the ring originally let you benefit from the effect of being invisible, but what about now? does the current description say that you benefit from the state of invisibility like you always did, or does it say, 'While wearing this ring you may use invisibility, as the spell'? If it says that, then it would 'cast' the spell as a spell-like ability when activated, and then the spell would affect the target for the duration of the spell, regardless of whether the ring is worn or not.
So what does it say now?
By activating this simple silver ring, the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell.
So, you benefit from the spell effect of the spell, but as always, the effect of a spell is a different thing than the duration of a spell. Even now, the ring doesn't 'cast' the spell on you, you just benefit from the state of invisibility.
|
|
So a ring of jumping grants you the +5 bonus after you take it off just because it is a command-word-activated item?The idea that every 3 minutes you would have to speak a command word to remain invisible is a concept that is new to a large number of people in this thread.
Therefore we have ample evidence that new ideas are not necessarily incorrect ideas, no?
A command word activated ring of invisibility has no need to stay on the ring after activation by any RAW in Pathfinder.
I agree that many people play command word activation items as use activated, or like 'continuous' items that require wearing after activation. To me, this just reinforces the idea that command word activation for the ring of invisibility is thematically dumb.
Because, thematically, I agree with you 100%.
Dude, you're not even trying:
This ring continually allows the wearer to leap about, providing a +5 competence bonus on all his Acrobatics checks made to make high or long jumps.Does that sound like a command word activated item to you?
Is there anything in that description that talks about a spell?
Come on, man. You're better off just admitting that you were mistaken rather than trying to pass off that nonsense.
You posted this as I was editing the post, in which I came to the same conclusion.
It does say "[w]hen activated", so it would seem to me that it requires a command word (not the on-off paradigm that I'm used to). So, pass the ring around to give the party 3 minutes of invisibility for 20,000 gp? Yeah, I can accept that.
EDIT: Statement retracted. The Shamrock made a good point to me (off board): with an FAQ declaring the intent of how it works, it's doubtful the PDT would then allow its power to be increased by letting it be passed around; plus, what happens if you take it off, then put on another ring?
In short, it still works the way it's always worked for 14 years—with an adjustment to its duration after the first five.
|
|
This ring continually allows the wearer to leap about, providing a +5 competence bonus on all his Acrobatics checks made to make high or long jumps.
The ring of jumping is a continuous item. It affects the wearer whenever it is worn. It is not command word activated.
There are items which continually affect the wearer when worn. These are 'use activated' items. They do not need an action or a command word or a silent act of will to work. They just work while you wear it. The One Ring from LOTR worked like this.
There are items which allow the wearer to 'cast' a spell (as a spell-like ability that doesn't require concentration) upon command; i.e. 'command word' items. Some people thing that the D&D/PF ring works like that; they're wrong. However, if they were right, then once the command word is spoken and the action spent while wearing it, it affects the target for the duration of the spell whether the ring is worn or not, because that how spells/SLAs work in the game.
There are items which have to be both worn and need to be activated. These are 'use activated', but require a (usually) standard action and (usually) activated by a silent act of will, and last until they are de-activated or the item is removed. The ring of invisibility is one of these.
|
|
This ring continually allows the wearer to leap about, providing a +5 competence bonus on all his Acrobatics checks made to make high or long jumps.The ring of jumping is a continuous item. It affects the wearer whenever it is worn. It is not command word activated.
There are items which continually affect the wearer when worn. These are 'use activated' items. They do not need an action or a command word or a silent act of will to work. They just work while you wear it. The One Ring from LOTR worked like this.
There are items which allow the wearer to 'cast' a spell (as a spell-like ability that doesn't require concentration) upon command; i.e. 'command word' items. Some people thing that the D&D/PF ring works like that; they're wrong. However, if they were right, then once the command word is spoken and the action spent while wearing it, it affects the target for the duration of the spell whether the ring is worn or not, because that how spells/SLAs work in the game.
There are items which have to be both worn and need to be activated. These are 'use activated', but require a (usually) standard action and (usually) activated by a silent act of will, and last until they are de-activated or the item is removed. The ring of invisibility is one of these.
Per the ring rules, rings are either command word or continuous. If something else, it is specifically mentioned. Since the ring of invisibility doesn't have a specific exception, it's either continuous or command word. You yourself admit that it isn't continuous. That leaves only one option.
|
|
@Malachi: it doesn't grant the invisibility condition directly, it grants invisibility per the spell. The benefit of the spell lasts 1 minute/level.
It grants the state of invisibility as the spell, in the same way a minor cloak of displacement makes you 'blurry' like the spell.
If the ring let you 'use' invisibility like 'using' the spell (or SLA), then not only would it only last 3 minutes, it would affect you for the duration whether or not you wear the ring (although attacking would negate the invisibility), and it would be 'useable' at a range of either 'personal' or 'touch', just like the spell.
It isn't.
|
|
@Malachi: it doesn't grant the invisibility condition directly, it grants invisibility per the spell. The benefit of the spell lasts 1 minute/level.It grants the state of invisibility as the spell, in the same way a minor cloak of displacement makes you 'blurry' like the spell.
If the ring let you 'use' invisibility like 'using' the spell (or SLA), then not only would it only last 3 minutes, it would affect you for the duration whether or not you wear the ring (although attacking would negate the invisibility), and it would be 'useable' at a range of either 'personal' or 'touch', just like the spell.
It isn't.
you need to make up your mind. Either it activates by a command word, or it activates merely by putting it on. You can't have it both ways.
|
|
Per the ring rules, rings are either command word or continuous. If something else, it is specifically mentioned. Since the ring of invisibility doesn't have a specific exception, it's either continuous or command word. You yourself admit that it isn't continuous. That leaves only one option.This ring continually allows the wearer to leap about, providing a +5 competence bonus on all his Acrobatics checks made to make high or long jumps.The ring of jumping is a continuous item. It affects the wearer whenever it is worn. It is not command word activated.
There are items which continually affect the wearer when worn. These are 'use activated' items. They do not need an action or a command word or a silent act of will to work. They just work while you wear it. The One Ring from LOTR worked like this.
There are items which allow the wearer to 'cast' a spell (as a spell-like ability that doesn't require concentration) upon command; i.e. 'command word' items. Some people thing that the D&D/PF ring works like that; they're wrong. However, if they were right, then once the command word is spoken and the action spent while wearing it, it affects the target for the duration of the spell whether the ring is worn or not, because that how spells/SLAs work in the game.
There are items which have to be both worn and need to be activated. These are 'use activated', but require a (usually) standard action and (usually) activated by a silent act of will, and last until they are de-activated or the item is removed. The ring of invisibility is one of these.
Oops, you left out the vital word which shoots your 'either/or' false dichotomy down in flames:-
A ring's ability is usually activated by a spoken command word (a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity) or its effects work continually.
The cloaks are different than the spell re: duration because the items explicitly tell you they are different.
|
|
Per the ring rules, rings are either command word or continuous. If something else, it is specifically mentioned. Since the ring of invisibility doesn't have a specific exception, it's either continuous or command word. You yourself admit that it isn't continuous. That leaves only one option.This ring continually allows the wearer to leap about, providing a +5 competence bonus on all his Acrobatics checks made to make high or long jumps.The ring of jumping is a continuous item. It affects the wearer whenever it is worn. It is not command word activated.
There are items which continually affect the wearer when worn. These are 'use activated' items. They do not need an action or a command word or a silent act of will to work. They just work while you wear it. The One Ring from LOTR worked like this.
There are items which allow the wearer to 'cast' a spell (as a spell-like ability that doesn't require concentration) upon command; i.e. 'command word' items. Some people thing that the D&D/PF ring works like that; they're wrong. However, if they were right, then once the command word is spoken and the action spent while wearing it, it affects the target for the duration of the spell whether the ring is worn or not, because that how spells/SLAs work in the game.
There are items which have to be both worn and need to be activated. These are 'use activated', but require a (usually) standard action and (usually) activated by a silent act of will, and last until they are de-activated or the item is removed. The ring of invisibility is one of these.
Oops, you left out the vital word which shoots your 'either/or' false dichotomy down in flames:-
A ring's ability is usually activated by a spoken command word (a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity) or its effects work continually.
Considering the rest of the quote that I left off states that the exceptions are specifically mentioned in the item's description, you'd better refer to the entire rule next time. Oops on you.
|
|
you need to make up your mind. Either it activates by a command word, or it activates merely by putting it on. You can't have it both ways.@Malachi: it doesn't grant the invisibility condition directly, it grants invisibility per the spell. The benefit of the spell lasts 1 minute/level.It grants the state of invisibility as the spell, in the same way a minor cloak of displacement makes you 'blurry' like the spell.
If the ring let you 'use' invisibility like 'using' the spell (or SLA), then not only would it only last 3 minutes, it would affect you for the duration whether or not you wear the ring (although attacking would negate the invisibility), and it would be 'useable' at a range of either 'personal' or 'touch', just like the spell.
It isn't.
Again, false dichotomy:-
Many use-activated items are objects that a character wears. Continually functioning items are practically always items that one wears. A few must simply be in the character's possession (meaning on his person). However, some items made for wearing must still be activated. Although this activation sometimes requires a command word (see above), usually it means mentally willing the activation to happen. The description of an item states whether a command word is needed in such a case.
So there are three types:-
• command word
• use activated/just need to be worn
• use activated/need to be both worn AND activated
The ring of invisibility is the third type.
I wonder if the Devs read threads like this and just laugh at us fighting like dogs over a tiny bone.
|
|
you need to make up your mind. Either it activates by a command word, or it activates merely by putting it on. You can't have it both ways.@Malachi: it doesn't grant the invisibility condition directly, it grants invisibility per the spell. The benefit of the spell lasts 1 minute/level.It grants the state of invisibility as the spell, in the same way a minor cloak of displacement makes you 'blurry' like the spell.
If the ring let you 'use' invisibility like 'using' the spell (or SLA), then not only would it only last 3 minutes, it would affect you for the duration whether or not you wear the ring (although attacking would negate the invisibility), and it would be 'useable' at a range of either 'personal' or 'touch', just like the spell.
It isn't.
Again, false dichotomy:-
Many use-activated items are objects that a character wears. Continually functioning items are practically always items that one wears. A few must simply be in the character's possession (meaning on his person). However, some items made for wearing must still be activated. Although this activation sometimes requires a command word (see above), usually it means mentally willing the activation to happen. The description of an item states whether a command word is needed in such a case.So there are three types:-
• command word
• use activated/just need to be worn
• use activated/need to be both worn AND activatedThe ring of invisibility is the third type.
It would hep when quoting rules, that you state where you're quoting them from. It helps is refer to what you are saying.
|
|
Considering the rest of the quote that I left off states that the exceptions are specifically mentioned in the item's description, you'd better refer to the entire rule next time. Oops on you.
According to the rule for 'use activated/must be worn AND activated' I quoted in my last post:-
Although this activation sometimes requires a command word (see above), usually it means mentally willing the activation to happen. The description of an item states whether a command word is needed in such a case.
Since it doesn't say it needs a command word, then (according to the rules for this class of item) it doesn't need a command word.
|
|
Considering the rest of the quote that I left off states that the exceptions are specifically mentioned in the item's description, you'd better refer to the entire rule next time. Oops on you.According to the rule for 'use activated/must be worn AND activated' I quoted in my last post:-
Although this activation sometimes requires a command word (see above), usually it means mentally willing the activation to happen. The description of an item states whether a command word is needed in such a case.Since it doesn't say it needs a command word, then (according to the rules for this class of item) it doesn't need a command word.
Ok, but where do I find what you quoted.
|
|
The cloaks are different than the spell re: duration because the items explicitly tell you they are different.
I'm glad they are explicit! They should have gone to the same trouble with the ring, among others.
The reason even the devs realised they couldn't get away with a description as brief as the ring's became is that there are two types of cloaks of displacement and they were obliged to clarify the differences between the two types.
|
|
@Malachi: ok, I found where you quoted that text from. It's from the rules that describe what "spell completion", "spell trigger", "command word", and "use activated" are defined. (EDIT: specifically, it is the second paragraph of the "use activated" description in the magic items chapter).
Ok, now go to the rings section under "Activation" and show me where it says that rings are use activated. I'll give you a hint: it doesn't say that anywhere. Rings are either command word or they are continuous when they are put on. If there is a different activation method, it will be specifically mentioned in the item's description.
The ring of invisibility is a command-word-activated item.
|
|
It would hep when quoting rules, that you state where you're quoting them from. It helps is refer to what you are saying.you need to make up your mind. Either it activates by a command word, or it activates merely by putting it on. You can't have it both ways.@Malachi: it doesn't grant the invisibility condition directly, it grants invisibility per the spell. The benefit of the spell lasts 1 minute/level.It grants the state of invisibility as the spell, in the same way a minor cloak of displacement makes you 'blurry' like the spell.
If the ring let you 'use' invisibility like 'using' the spell (or SLA), then not only would it only last 3 minutes, it would affect you for the duration whether or not you wear the ring (although attacking would negate the invisibility), and it would be 'useable' at a range of either 'personal' or 'touch', just like the spell.
It isn't.
Again, false dichotomy:-
Many use-activated items are objects that a character wears. Continually functioning items are practically always items that one wears. A few must simply be in the character's possession (meaning on his person). However, some items made for wearing must still be activated. Although this activation sometimes requires a command word (see above), usually it means mentally willing the activation to happen. The description of an item states whether a command word is needed in such a case.So there are three types:-
• command word
• use activated/just need to be worn
• use activated/need to be both worn AND activatedThe ring of invisibility is the third type.
Please excuse me. The quote is from page 458 of the CRB, in the 'Using Items' section at the beginning of the Magic Items chapter, under the sub-heading 'Use Activated'.
This is the part of the book which deals with the general rules for how magic items work in the game.
|
|
@Malachi: ok, I found where you quoted that text from. It's from the rules that describe what "spell completion", "spell trigger", "command word", and "use activated" are defined. (EDIT: specifically, it is the second paragraph of the "use activated" description in the magic items chapter).
Ok, now go to the rings section under "Activation" and show me where it says that rings are use activated. I'll give you a hint: it doesn't say that anywhere. Rings are either command word or they are continuous when they are put on. If there is a different activation method, it will be specifically mentioned in the item's description.
The ring of invisibility is a command-word-activated item.
Then I'll remind you again, under the rules for rings specifically:-
A ring's ability is usually activated by a spoken command word (a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity) or its effects work continually.
|
|
@Malachi: ok, I found where you quoted that text from. It's from the rules that describe what "spell completion", "spell trigger", "command word", and "use activated" are defined. (EDIT: specifically, it is the second paragraph of the "use activated" description in the magic items chapter).
Ok, now go to the rings section under "Activation" and show me where it says that rings are use activated. I'll give you a hint: it doesn't say that anywhere. Rings are either command word or they are continuous when they are put on. If there is a different activation method, it will be specifically mentioned in the item's description.
The ring of invisibility is a command-word-activated item.
Then I'll remind you again, under the rules for rings specifically:-
A ring's ability is usually activated by a spoken command word (a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity) or its effects work continually.
And I'll remind you, again, to read the remainder of that section.
Those rings that don't fall into the "usually" category either work continuously or have an activation method that is specified in that ring's description.
So, again, hopefully for the last time, the ring of invisibility is a command-word-activated item.
@Malachi: ok, I found where you quoted that text from. It's from the rules that describe what "spell completion", "spell trigger", "command word", and "use activated" are defined.
Ok, now go to the rings section under "Activation" and show me where it says that rings are use activated. I'll give you a hint: it doesn't say that anywhere. Rings are either command word or they are continuous when they are put on. If there is a different activation method, it will be specifically mentioned in the item's description.
The ring of invisibility is a command-word-activated item.
Well, that's incorrect for one. Continuous rings (with no other activation method) are use-activated. They are the very definition of use-activated. You put them on to activate them.
Secondly, I would suggest that the ring of invisibility does have an odd activation method, if only, in all likelyhood, due to legacy text. Looking at the rings in the CRB, nearly all fall into the neat categories of continual, command word, or detailed special activation method. Two rings don't fall into those categories immediately: the ring of three wishes and the ring of invisibility. Both suffer from a lack of specification of how to activate the item probably due to legacy text.
Now, one could assume that the ring of invisibility is simply command word due to the general rule, however I would bring attention to another ring: the ring of blinking.
On command, this ring makes the wearer blink, as the blink spell.
Versus:
By activating this simple silver ring, the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell.
The differences in the text of the two rings would suggest to me that they have different activation methods, thus the ring of invisibility having a special activation method as opposed to a command word. Ultimately, the legacy text, in my belief, is different enough from other ring text to warrant categorization with the special activation rings.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eureka! I have found it! : )
When Paizo copy/pasted rules from 3.5, it wasn't allowed to copy any examples. This sometimes causes confusion, because the example makes the rule clear and taking the example away can make it unclear.
As an example, does standing up as a move action count as 'moving', thus denying a 5-foot step? Well, the rule is totally unchanged between editions, but the 3.5 example had Tordek the dwarf standing up and then taking a 5-foot step! If PF had included this (or a similar) example it would have saved several threads and thousands of posts!
I've just read the 'use activated' section on page 213 of the 3.5 DMG. The rules are the same; PF just copy/paste them. Crucially, they missed out the examples.
So here is the 3.5 text (which is the same as PF), but I'll bold the examples that 3.5 provides but PF weren't allowed to use:-
Use Activated: This type of item simply has to be used in order to activate it. A character has to drink a potion, swing a sword, interpose a shield to deflect a blow in combat, look through a lens, sprinkle dust, wear a ring, or don a hat. Use activation is generally straightforward and self-explanatory.
Many use-activated items are objects that a character wears. Continually functioning items such as a cloak of resistance or a headband of intellect are practically always items that one wears. A few such as a pearl of power must simply be in the character's possession (meaning on his person). However, some items made for wearing such as a ring of Invisibilty must still be activated. Although this activation sometimes requires a command word (see above), usually it means mentally willing the activation to happen. The description of an item states whether a command word is needed in such a case.
Here is proof that in 3.5 the ring was most definately not a command word item, and was most definately a use activated item that had to be worn and then activated, just as I've been saying all along.
The general rules for command word items, use activated items, rings, and this ring in particular are all exactly the same in PF as they were in 3.5. The only difference is the missing examples that PF were not allowed to copy.
Be honest, if these examples had been cut/paste along with the rules they illustrate, would we be disagreeing about this now? Would we have ever disagreed in the first place? We would be forced to agree the first time someone quoted the rule complete with the ring of invisibility being the poster child for 'use activated/must be worn AND activated' items!
|
|
Sure, I completely agree that the ring must be worn to be used. But I don't see anything that explicitly states that the ring doesn't require a command word to activate. It just says that it needs to be activated. The specific rule for rings is that they are command word activated unless the description for the ring says otherwise. Now the ring of invisibility does say "by activating this simple silver ring...". How do you activate a ring? The only thing I see is that unless the description says otherwise, you use a command word to activate it. So, I still don't see anything to excuse the use of a command word to activate it.
Your example surely reinforces the fact that taking off the ring ends the effect, essentially it is the "RAW" that _Ozy_ was looking for...or at least in this case, the intent.
Regardless, good find!
|
|
just leave the continuously out of it. Rings usually activate by a spoken command word. Some rings have unusual activations...
Rings with an unusual activation don't qualify as command words. This in no way implies that because they are not command words, that they are use activated.
I could also see your point being perfectly valid and logical in exactly that case. Unfortunately, on a RAW base, the continual bit *is* in there. And that's exactly the problem. If this sentence was binary (is the ring's activation specially described? No? It must be command word activated.) then your interpretation would be the only one here. Personally I have no particular interpretation on the rule, merely one on grammar. And grammar, in this case, points to a "common" activation, a "continual" activation, and the possibility of an "uncommon" activation which will be described.
Since no particular activation appears to be described (to me anyways, even that is brought to doubt by another poster), that leaves me with the first two as options for how the ring is activated.If they had refrained from mentioning continual rings at all, or mentioned them AFTER the period as in my example, I would be left with only one choice, Command Word Activated. With the way the sentence is written now, RAW does not support automatically deciding that the ring is Command Word Activated. It would be easier to assume it was, but not necessary accurate.
so, you acknowledge that there is a common activation, a continual activation, and the possibility of an uncommon activation. You then acknowledge that you strike the uncommon activation, leaving you with the common and continual methods. But the fact that the continual method is in the same sentence as the common method, the common method can't be the common method, even though you know that it's definately not the continual method? That doesn't make any sense. If the uncommon method doesn't pick up the slack not covered by the common method, how can you come to the conclusion that it is then some fourth method that hasn't even been mentioned?
Now if you think the ring is no longer good for a price tag of 20000gp that is another argument altogether. You can probably get it changed if you can get the community to back you on it.The price being either too cheap or too expensive has never been a subject of my posts.
So is your issue mainly the price of the ring compared to what it does or is your issue that the words in the book are not specific enough for you?My issue is that, of the two possible categories, this item has been filed in the wrong category. I have absolutely no problem, nor misunderstanding, with the way each of those categories works!
There are some, including you, who want to add an extra rule to one category, that never had that rule: if you remove the item the spell effect ends.
I am not adding a rule(intention). If you think I am incorrect then we can FAQ that.
Are you saying the "intent" of the rules is for the spell to keep going, even if you remove the ring?
PS:If you say "yes" then I completely understand why but I am sure the PDT team will not take that stance.