| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, so if the intent for the 3.5 ring was mental activation, that would be great. It's still limited to a three minute duration. And it can't be passed around.
Works for me.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
The section on rings says that they are usually command word or continuous.
The general rules for magic item activation has two possible activation methods that could apply to this ring: command word or use activated. These are two separate rules paragraphs.
The ring is most definately the poster child for use activated, therefore it is not command word activated. It's the poster child for the kind of use activated item that needs to be worn and then activated.
But wait! This kind of item can still be command word activated, right?
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, RAW, for this kind of item it's usually mentally activated but sometimes command word activated. However, if it is command word activated, 'The description of an item states whether a command word is needed in such a case'.
Since this ring explicitly falls under this category and the description does not state command word, then it cannot be command word and must be mentally activated.
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.
How could it be any other way? If a command word activated item grants you a spell effect with a specific duration, why on earth would it matter if you removed the ring? You're not activating it every round, just the once to get the spell effect. If you're not activating the ring, why does it need to be worn?
Yes, I understand that, thematically, it's goofy to remove your ring of invisibility once you activate it, but clearly RAW is more important than thematic sense.
You claim that you are not 'adding a rule', so what rule are you invoking that would end the spell effect before the duration expired? A link to the RAW would be helpful.
RAI-wise? Who knows. A couple of days ago, I would have maintained that the PDT would have said that, RAI, you don't need to keep reactivating the ring of invisibility, so clearly I have no particular insight as to what they consider RAI.
Actually I am pretty good at figuring out RAI, even if the RAW is not clear or actually goes against it.
Some things are not directly written because the devs assume we can figure them out. I don't need RAW to tell me that if I stop wearing an item I don't get the benefits of it.
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.The section on rings says that they are usually command word or continuous.
The general rules for magic item activation has two possible activation methods that could apply to this ring: command word or use activated. These are two separate rules paragraphs.
The ring is most definately the poster child for use activated, therefore it is not command word activated. It's the poster child for the kind of use activated item that needs to be worn and then activated.
But wait! This kind of item can still be command word activated, right?
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, RAW, for this kind of item it's usually mentally activated but sometimes command word activated. However, if it is command word activated, 'The description of an item states whether a command word is needed in such a case'.
Since this ring explicitly falls under this category and the description does not state command word, then it cannot be command word and must be mentally activated.
Malachi do you think the magic item, such as hat of disguise or ring of invisibility must continue to be worn in order for you to keep benefiting form the affect it provides?
I am just repeating because I asked you upthread and you probably missed it.
Malachi do you think the magic item, such as hat of disguise or ring of invisibility must continue to be worn in order for you to keep benefiting form the affect it provides?I am just repeating because I asked you upthread and you probably missed it.
As far as I've understood it, Malachi's claim is that _command word_ items do not need to be worn to keep benefitting from them, and as such _if_ the RoI or HoD were command word item they could be passed around. But, their stance also includes that the RoI is not a command word item, but a use activated item that also needs mental activation. Hence, it would need to be continuously worn to keep benefitting from it.
Their argument on being able to take it off and pass it around was a counter-argument to the claim that it was a command word item. If it was a command word item, you would be able to pass it around, like with say a pair of Vampiric Gloves.
On the whole, I must say that for once I agree fully with Malachi. That's got to be a first :)
Malachi do you think the magic item, such as hat of disguise or ring of invisibility must continue to be worn in order for you to keep benefiting form the affect it provides?I am just repeating because I asked you upthread and you probably missed it.
As far as I've understood it, Malachi's claim is that _command word_ items do not need to be worn to keep benefitting from them, and as such _if_ the RoI or HoD were command word item they could be passed around. But, their stance also includes that the RoI is not a command word item, but a use activated item that also needs mental activation. Hence, it would need to be continuously worn to keep benefitting from it.
Their argument on being able to take it off and pass it around was a counter-argument to the claim that it was a command word item. If it was a command word item, you would be able to pass it around, like with say a pair of Vampiric Gloves.
On the whole, I must say that for once I agree fully with Malachi. That's got to be a first :)
I want to hear Malachi say you can pass command word items around that duplicate spell affects so he can't say "but I did not say that.
@Malachi: Do you think it is RAI for a magic item such as the ring of invis or hat of disguise to be mentally activated?
Personally the mental activation might be possible I will have to look at the rules, but as for passing the item around, I do want an answer for that since he challenged me on the issue. On the other hand if he was just disagreeing to prove another point we can move on to something that matters ie "he actually thinks is true".
edit:
Activation: 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. Some rings have unusual activations, as mentioned in the ring's specific description.
The specific ring rules call out a "spoken command word". It then says some have unusual activation methods. The ring does not have any usual methods listed, and we know it is not continuous so it defaults back to "command word". Since the ring rules would trump the general magic item rules because specific beats general.
edit2: The hat of disguise I can buy being mentally activated because it does not say a command word is needed, and the general rules for wondrous items say use activated or command word.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I'm pretty much in team Malachi, right now (I certainly believe that the ring falls into the "worn, then activated mentally" category).
Regarding the ability to trigger an item and then pass it around, I present the following:
Many magic items need to be donned by a character who wants to employ them or benefit from their abilities. It's possible for a creature with a humanoid-shaped body to wear as many as 15 magic items at the same time. However, each of those items must be worn on (or over) a particular part of the body, known as a slot.A humanoid-shaped body can be decked out in magic gear consisting of one item from each of the following groups, keyed to which slot on the body the item is worn.
Now, this is mildly convoluted, but since rings are a slot-item, and "these items must be worn on [...] a particular part of the body" and "need to be donned [to] benefit from their abilities", does it follow that rings need to be worn on a particular part of the body to benefit from their abilities?
People are still arguing that this is Use Activated? Despite official statements to the contrary in both 3.5 and PF? Just...wow.
The price is 10,800gp before they raised it to 20,000gp folks. 10,800gp is "Command Word", not "Use Activated or Continuous". It cannot get any clearer. If it were "Use Activated" the price would have started at 24,000gp before being raised to...whatever.
There is nothing in the text for "Command Word" that allows mental activation. That is an aspect of "Use Activated" which this item is not priced at.
If you are going to argue RAW you might at least want to be in the correct section (Command Word).
Here are the facts:
1) In both 3.5 and Pathfinder the Developers explained that the pricing is 10,800gp before being raised to 20,000gp (In PF this is found on page118 of the GameMastery Guide). This correctly matches the pricing for Command Word (2*3*1800=10800).
So, the ring is Command Word.
2) Command Word states that if no activation method is stated in the item description then assume a command word is needed to activate it.
3) There is nothing in the text for "Command Word" that allows mental activation. That is an element of the rules for "Use Activated".
4) If the Ring of Invisibility specified a mental activation then you could use that, but it doesn't. There is no text that specifies an activation method so you MUST use the default, Command Word.
5) People are just upset to learn that their favorite item to maintain perma-invis while scouting never worked the way they thought it did. Too bad, it happens.
Yes, it sucks you have to give a verbal command while scouting. So, don't use the Ring of Invisbility if you want to scout longer than 3 minutes and people can hear you. Or, you can houserule it and move on.
Summary: The Ring is, and has been since at least 3.5, Command Word activated with a duration of 3minutes. Deal with it, houserule it, or petition Paizo to change the activation method.
But, arguing it is mentally activated is grasping at straws as there is nothing in the rules to support that. (Saying it is Use Activated and then trying to use those rules does not make it true, it is priced as Command Word.)
Now, this is mildly convoluted, but since rings are a slot-item, and "these items must be worn on [...] a particular part of the body" and "need to be donned [to] benefit from their abilities", does it follow that rings need to be worn on a particular part of the body to benefit from their abilities?
Thanks for the assist. I think that gets rid of the "pass around" idea. Now I just need to relocate any dev post saying the ring uses a command word.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Malachi do you think the magic item, such as hat of disguise or ring of invisibility must continue to be worn in order for you to keep benefiting form the affect it provides?I am just repeating because I asked you upthread and you probably missed it.
As far as I've understood it, Malachi's claim is that _command word_ items do not need to be worn to keep benefitting from them, and as such _if_ the RoI or HoD were command word item they could be passed around. But, their stance also includes that the RoI is not a command word item, but a use activated item that also needs mental activation. Hence, it would need to be continuously worn to keep benefitting from it.
Their argument on being able to take it off and pass it around was a counter-argument to the claim that it was a command word item. If it was a command word item, you would be able to pass it around, like with say a pair of Vampiric Gloves.
Spot on!
On the whole, I must say that for once I agree fully with Malachi. That's got to be a first :)
Who are you? Have we crossed swords in a thread before? : )
An example is the ring of invisibility, with a calculated price of 10,800 gp, but a book value of 20,000 gp
In case anyone needs the math broken down for them:
2*3*1800=10800
6*1800=10800
10800=10800
PRD= "Command word Spell level × caster level × 1,800 gp"
Skip also said the same thing in a 3.5 article he wrote while still employed with WoTC.
|
|
Malachi do you think the magic item, such as hat of disguise or ring of invisibility must continue to be worn in order for you to keep benefiting form the affect it provides?I am just repeating because I asked you upthread and you probably missed it.
As far as I've understood it, Malachi's claim is that _command word_ items do not need to be worn to keep benefitting from them, and as such _if_ the RoI or HoD were command word item they could be passed around. But, their stance also includes that the RoI is not a command word item, but a use activated item that also needs mental activation. Hence, it would need to be continuously worn to keep benefitting from it.
Their argument on being able to take it off and pass it around was a counter-argument to the claim that it was a command word item. If it was a command word item, you would be able to pass it around, like with say a pair of Vampiric Gloves.
On the whole, I must say that for once I agree fully with Malachi. That's got to be a first :)
I want to hear Malachi say you can pass command word items around that duplicate spell affects so he can't say "but I did not say that.
@Malachi: Do you think it is RAI for a magic item such as the ring of invis or hat of disguise to be mentally activated?
You deserve a precise answer, Wraithstrike, and that takes more than a simple yes or no.
For worn items that need to be activated, there are two possibilities:-
• they can be effectively switched on or off, like a torch. While switch on (activated), the wearer benefits from the magic. Since wearing the activated item grants the benefit, then if you take them off then you stop benefitting. Such items grant you the benefit as if your were under a particular spell effect, like being invisible, blurred, ethereal, whatever. These items don't have a duration (unless they say they do), their duration is simply 'when activated'. The ring of invisibility is of this type.
• they allow the wearer to use the item to 'cast a spell' as a SLA that doesn't require concentration. Such items are 'used' by 'activating' them, as opposed to by wearing them. They must be worn to be 'used', but 'using' them is simply getting them to cast their spell. These items have the parameters of a cast spell in terms of duration, target, etc. But after activating them you are no longer 'using' the item, even though you might be the subject of the spell it cast. In this case, removing the item after you have already 'used' it in no way affects the spell that has already been cast.the item just let's you create the magical effect, and once 'cast' only stops when the spell itself would stop. If the item can be used without limit, then someone else can also 'use' it to cast its spell and this has no way of affecting the previous casting (unless the spell description says it would).
I do not believe that the ring is of the second type, but if it were, then it would obey those rules, the consequences of which include a three minute duration, cast as either a personal or touch range effect, and 'using' it meaning 'casting the spell/SLA', thus not tying the wearing of it to maintaining the spell.
So how do we know which type a worn item is? Well, if it explicitly says one or the other, that's a big help! : )
Otherwise, certain phraseology evolved. If it says something like, 'Upon command the wearer can use (this spell) 3/day', then it's the second type, allows the wearer to 'cast' a spell using the normal rules for SLAs, and 'using' it is the same as 'activating' it. Wearing the item is a prerequisite for 'using' it, but once 'cast' then the effect lasts just like the spell, and continuing to wear it is irrelavent.
If it uses phrases like, 'While worn the wearer benefits from (this magical state)', then it's the first type. It may also say something like, 'The wearer of this item may (act as if under this spell effect)', and this also indicates the first type, i.e. must continue to be worn, no duration other than 'while worn', or in some cases, 'while worn and activated'.
So what about the hat and the ring? Which type ae they?
This apparently normal hat allows its wearer to alter her appearance as with a disguise self spell.
So it's the first type. It doesn't let you 'cast' the spell. It isn't 'used' by casting disguise self the spell on you, fire and forget. No, while you wear it you may command it (this definately is the kind of use activated item that requires a command word) to alter your appearance in the same way that someone under the effects of the spell can alter his appearance. Hence, no duration but the hat must continue to be worn.
What about the ring?
By activating this simple silver ring, the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell.
The wearer can benefit from the state of being invisible, and that state is described in the text of that spell. It doesn't 'cast' invisibility on you, nor allow the wearer to 'cast' it. It simply makes the wearer invisible when activated. It's the first type, so it needs to continue to be worn but the only duration is between activating it and either de-activating it, removing the ring (because it only affects someone who's wearing it), or attacking (because that is the kind of invisibility it bestows, check the spell description).
Here's an example of the other type:/
This ring allows the caster to use the spell telekinesis on command.
So, upon cammand, the wearer can 'cast' (it even actually says 'caster') the spell as an SLA. Once cast, it works just like any other spell/SLA, and once cast it only ends when the spell would end: it's duration runs out, you lose concentration, it is dispelled or you used the instantaneous version. Removing the ring is not defined in the came as a way the spell ends. In this respect, it's like a wand or a scroll; the source of the spell effect is of absolutely no relevance once the spell is 'cast'.
|
|
People are still arguing that this is Use Activated?
You must have missed some posts. The rules at the beginning of the magic item chapter in the CRB were copy/paste from the 3.5 DMG. The only difference is that PF were not allowed to use the examples that the DMG used.
The ring of invisibility is actually one of those examples, but not an example of a command word item but of a use activated item.
Specifically, in the section of use activated items, it says that some items just need to be worn (it gives the Headband of Intellect as an example of one of those), some just need to be on your person (Pearl of Power is the example), and some need to be worn and then activated (and the example given is the Ring of Invisibility!).
So yes, we are continuing to say that it's use activated, just like explicitly written in the 3.5 DMG. There is no difference at all in these rules between 3.5 and PF; they were copy/paste. They only left out the examples.
I'm sorry I can't link to my post where I quoted it, but you can find it easily enough, or even check out a physical copy of the 3.5 DMG (page 213, under 'Use Activated') to see for yourself.
Malachi, while I agree with your stance, I don't think you should use the word "SLA" as an analogy of how command word items work; SLAs are a specific and distinctly different thing, and while they are similar, using the word SLA gives the wrong connotations.
And I don't know if we've crossed swords, but I'm a very long time lurker and tend to not agree with you on a lot of things.
Vampiric Gloves actually cast the spell. Typically once a spell is cast, you can do whatever with it. You're right that Vampiric Gloves are an exception to a rule, you're just incorrect on which rule they're an exception to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if the Devs read threads like this and just laugh at us fighting like dogs over a tiny bone.I think it is more like why do so many read the rules so pedantically?
Because the game has over 2000 pages as rules content. A certain amount of pedantry is required. This is doubly so when a ruling comes down that changes someone's understanding of the rules.
For that matter, the rest of the Vampiric Gloves description is also relevant:
Though vampiric touch is normally a touch attack, the wearer may instead use that ability as a ranged touch attack with a range of 30 feet, but only against a dying target or a target suffering from a bleed effect. When using vampiric touch in this way, the wearer may hold the charge on a missed ranged touch attack.
If the wearer is suffering from a bleed effect, he may expend one use of vampiric touch to end the bleed effect.
If the gloves were casting the 'Vampiric Touch' spell, not only would he not be able to use it at range, it wouldn't be able to expend one use to end a bleed effect.
So clearly the gloves do not cast 'Vampiric Touch', they just activate the ability as described by the item.
So what you're saying is that since the item explicitly tells you that it functions differently from the spell in that regard, it functions differently.
"Use the spell, but with this minor difference."
I fail to see a problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ultimately, my question is what you're trying to get at. Are you simply dissatisfied with the clarity of the rules? Do you legitimately believe that PF's intent of the Ring of Invisibility is other than:
1. On "command" (whether that be word or mental activation), you benefit from being Invisible
2. It's subject to the same attack restrictions as the spell
3. It's subject to the same durational restrictions as the spell, were it cast with the item's CL
4. The item is not intended to be passed around once the effect is activated
Honestly, I'm asking. What do you think is the intended function of the Ring, based upon the FAQs presented, legacy from 3.5, and the rules of PF?
Because even if you think the words on the page can be tortured to justify passing the item around, do you honestly believe this is the intent? From your perspective, they just reduced the power level of the item. Do you really think their intent with that was to ramp it up and thereby let everybody in the party benefit from it at the same time? Are there other magic items that do that without explicitly telling you so? And please, for the love of all that is good and holy, do not use the cop out of "Well, based on all these ridiculous rulings they're giving out, who knows what sort of crazy thing they intend!!1!"
If you're dissatisfied with the clarity of the rules, cool. We can hash out how much of a problem that is. But if you're honestly arguing in favor of passing the item around, I don't have any interest in furthering that discussion anymore.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
A certain amount of pedantry is required. This is doubly so when a ruling comes down that changes someone's understanding of the rules.
Changing your understand. It didn't change mine, Skip Williams, SKR, the Dev team, the 250 tables of PFS I've combined played and GM'd (about 130 GM and 120 played.)
I think this is drastically overblown. I just can't match my experience at GenCon, DragonCon, ShadowCon, Dice-siege, and 4 to 6 other Con's I've played and GM'd over the years. I just don't understand how this is more than a niche interpretation. I should have seen a table or player use the item this way in the past.
Consider the Ring of Animal Friendship:
A ring of animal friendship always bears some sort of animal-like design in its craftsmanship. On command, this ring affects an animal as if the wearer had cast charm animal, causing the animal to regard the wearer as a trusted friend.So again, clearly the spell is not cast, but the effect is generated as if the spell were cast. This is what people are claiming for the ring of invisibility.
Are people claiming that if the person removes the ring, the charm animal effect is ended?
If I wanted to get pedantic? Yeah, I probably would. The spell isn't cast by the wearer; the ring provides a similar effect. Why should the effect persist if the wearer isn't using the ring anymore? This is likely to lead to magic item shenanigans.
I'm invisible, but not wearing my ring. This animal is charmed, but I'm not wearing the ring. I've got my Ring of Protection on. I'm also wearing my Ring of Energy Resistance.
Those rules don't exist because nobody thinks you can continue to benefit from an item that you're not wearing anymore, unkess explicitly told otherwise.
It's one of those things that people say in hindsight was an oversight.
----------
What would be the price of gloves that cast vampiric touch three times a day? Right about where it is priced. The range increase is incredibly situational, so it doesn't really factor in to the cost much, if at all. Regardless, that added bonus doesn't really impact the analysis at all.
----------
To create an item that casts a spell, you create an item that says something to the effect of, "When used, this item casts this spell", or "When used, this item allows the user to cast this spell."
That's obviously the easiest way to do it. Some aren't as clear. I don't read "use this spell" as being generally functionally different from "cast this spell".
And again, I fail to see a problem with an item saying "Cast this spell, but it works differently in this specific capacity." Specific and general and all that. For instance, the Eyes of Doom let the wearer cast Doom, but it alters slightly the manner of delivery of the spell.
Of course an orb and a ring would function differently. There are different rules for different items. You don't have to wear Pearls of Power.
Does this orb actually cast Mage Armor? Then why would you need to maintain possession of it? Pass it around, but keep track of the uses per day, because it's relevant.
Rings don't work the same way. I don't see why it's a stretch to expect a ring, which doesn't cast a spell but provides a similar benefit, must be worn to continue benefitting. Ring and wondrous items behave differently by design.
I don't see how mental activation (which seems to be the intent from 3.5) of a ring of invisibility, usable an unlimited number of times per day for up to three minutes is thematically stupid. Being able to take such a ring off and still benefit from it, however, is.
You deserve a precise answer, Wraithstrike, and that takes more than a simple yes or no.
For worn items that need to be activated, there are two possibilities:-
• they can be effectively switched on or off, like a torch. While switch on (activated), the wearer benefits from the magic. Since wearing the activated item grants the benefit, then if you take them off then you stop benefitting. Such items grant you the benefit as if your were under a particular spell effect, like being invisible, blurred, ethereal, whatever. These items don't have a duration (unless they say they do), their duration is simply 'when activated'. The ring of invisibility is of this type.
• they allow the wearer to use the item to 'cast a spell' as a SLA that doesn't require concentration. Such items are 'used' by 'activating' them, as opposed to by wearing them. They must be worn to be 'used', but 'using' them is simply getting them to cast their spell. These items have the parameters of a cast spell in terms of duration, target, etc. But after activating them you are no longer 'using' the item, even though you might be the subject of the spell it cast. In this case, removing the item after you have already 'used' it in no way affects the spell that has already been cast.the item just let's you create the magical effect, and once 'cast' only stops when the spell itself would stop. If the item can be used without limit, then someone else can also 'use' it to cast its spell and this has no way of affecting the previous casting (unless the spell description says it would).
I do not believe that the ring is of the second type, but if it were, then it would obey those rules, the consequences of which include a three minute duration, cast as either a personal or touch range effect, and 'using' it meaning 'casting the spell/SLA', thus not tying the wearing of it to maintaining the spell.
So how do we know which type a worn item is? Well, if it explicitly says one or the other, that's a big help! : )
Do you believe that any wearable magic item falls into the 2nd category? Just to be clear I am referring to items that have a duration longer than instantaneous, and is not some weird combination of instantaneous duration and another duration, if one does exist.
Now your ring of telekinesis example points to "yes", but I don't want to put words in your mouth.
People are still arguing that this is Use Activated?You must have missed some posts. The rules at the beginning of the magic item chapter in the CRB were copy/paste from the 3.5 DMG. The only difference is that PF were not allowed to use the examples that the DMG used.
The ring of invisibility is actually one of those examples, but not an example of a command word item but of a use activated item.
Specifically, in the section of use activated items, it says that some items just need to be worn (it gives the Headband of Intellect as an example of one of those), some just need to be on your person (Pearl of Power is the example), and some need to be worn and then activated (and the example given is the Ring of Invisibility!).
So yes, we are continuing to say that it's use activated, just like explicitly written in the 3.5 DMG. There is no difference at all in these rules between 3.5 and PF; they were copy/paste. They only left out the examples.
I'm sorry I can't link to my post where I quoted it, but you can find it easily enough, or even check out a physical copy of the 3.5 DMG (page 213, under 'Use Activated') to see for yourself.
The ring rules do not support your interpretation as myself and Gauss have shown. The ring of invis itself has no specific rules exception. The pricing model shown by the devs(3.5 and Pathfinder) does not support your interpretation.
With all of this in mind what do you think the PDT team will say if we FAQ the "mental activation" idea?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with malachi if only because it makes the ring something worth using. Seriosly i dont know, but after all its stupid to create a stealth ring where you have to SAY : I CAST INVISIBILITY every 3 freking minutes. I would totally fire the wizard who invented a ring such as this
Thanks for the assist. I think that gets rid of the "pass around" idea. Now I just need to relocate any dev post saying the ring uses a command word.
Now, this is mildly convoluted, but since rings are a slot-item, and "these items must be worn on [...] a particular part of the body" and "need to be donned [to] benefit from their abilities", does it follow that rings need to be worn on a particular part of the body to benefit from their abilities?
It absolutely does not get rid of the pass around idea. The ring has to be worn in order to activate the invisibility, that is clear, and that is what having a 'slotted' item is all about.
Otherwise the ring could be in your backpack and you could command word activate it.
The issue is that people claim that the duration of invisibility is as per the spell. In this case, where are the rules that say a command word activated spell ability is terminated if the item is removed?
In fact, if you look at the vampiric gloves, the item specifically says that if you activate the gloves, miss with the attack and are 'holding the charge', if you remove the gloves you lose the charge.
Why did they included these words if it they didn't need to? Since the gloves are specifically calling out a termination of the spell effect upon removal, then it clearly falls into the category as an exception to the general rule, unless specified otherwise, spell effects triggered by command word items last their normal duration.
Those are two different items so let me also ask you a simple question.
Do you think the PDT team will say yes if asked can you benefit from the ring of invisibility after it is taken off?
To answer your question it seems as if the vampiric gloves are actually casting the spell on you, while the ring of invis is granting you the benefit of a spell.
Also Paizo has said they don't force all of their writers to use the exact same language, one person might say "use", and another will might say "the item cast this spell on the wearer", and so on.
Now if Paizo had very codified grammar these things would be easier, but they do not. They only have codified game terms.
Wearing the ring clearly grants you the ability to ACTIVATE the effect*. I don't think anyone would disagree on that point. However, I see absolutely no definitive proof anywhere in the rules, much less this thread, that says you must keep wearing the ring in order to continue benefiting from the effect you activated.
The burden is on you to back up your claim.
* Assuming it is a command word activated item