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.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?
Or when the ruling explicitly changes the item from how it used to work in older editions.
I have been playing since 2nd ed, and I don't go out a read FAQ religiously, so this thread is literally the first time I have even had to consider that things changed, because the wording of the RAW alone really didn't make it seem like it worked any differently.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
So A) the Devs in 3.5 priced it as Command Word and not Use Activated and B) This is not 3.5, it is Pathfinder and the Devs have also priced it in Pathfinder as Command Word.
It is Command Word in Pathfinder. If this were 3.5 you might have an argument as there were two conflicting statements.
Do you disagree that both in 3.5 and PF the Devs have priced it as Command Word? If so please provide proof. We have provided proof that they have priced it as Command Word. For you to continue to claim it falls under Use Activated it must be priced as Use Activated.
Until you can prove that there is really no argument you can present that will have any merit.
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
There are quiet a few items/feats/etc that make no sense. The evidence does not support Malachi. The ring rules are "command word" by default unless another method is called out. At no point is another method called out.
"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."
Ring of invisibility-->"By activating this simple silver ring, the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell."
The options are
A. command word(supported by the devs, 3.5 and PF)
B. Continuous use(refuted by the devs themselves based on the pricing model
C. unusual activation(not supported by the ring which is needed according to the rules)
Mental activation is not an option.
--------------------------------
3.5 rules
Activation
Usually, a ring’s ability is activated by a command word (a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity) or it works continually. Some rings have exceptional activation methods, according to their descriptions.
The 3.5 version says "exceptional", but that is the same as unusual for all intended purposes.
By activating this simple silver ring, the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell.
This also has no special activation method.
PS: Most of this is really for Malachi. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I don't care about your personal experience. I have no need to measure my gaming dong against yours. Enough people didn't read it the way you did to cause questions. They are backed up by the way the item worked in legacy editions of the game (ie, on with no duration; not this particular ruling). There is a legitimate concern that this FAQ changes other functional aspects of the item. This concern it made legitimate because one of the design team members made a comment less than 50 posts after the PDT post that he didn't have a clear understanding of how the item was activated. This is presumably AFTER he discussed the FAQ in the design team meeting. This would be a clear indication that the meeting in which the FAQ was discussed did not cover the full range of questions pertaining to the issue.
The pricing does seem to contradict. OTOH, the 3.5 version was included as an example in the "Use Activated" section. Not...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.
So A) the Devs in 3.5 priced it as Command Word and not Use Activated and B) This is not 3.5, it is Pathfinder and the Devs have also priced it in Pathfinder as Command Word.
It is Command Word in Pathfinder. If this were 3.5 you might have an argument as there were two conflicting statements.
Do you disagree that both in 3.5 and PF the Devs have priced it as Command Word? If so please provide proof. We have provided proof that they have priced it as Command Word. For you to continue to claim it falls under Use Activated it must be priced as Use Activated.
Until you can prove that there is really no argument you can present that will have any merit.
It also did not get a rules exception as needed per the "ring" section, and it was priced as a command item.
So we have a contradiction(in 3.5). Now with that being the case I would take the rules, and a dev statement along with a later supporting example over an earlier example.
Monte Cook(who helped create the 3.5 system) was a consultant. SKR and Jason also worked with 3.5. They kept the 10800 price tag, and dropped the example of the ring as use activated example.
So what do you think the PDT team will say if this is FAQ'd, not that it needs to be because there are no Pathfinder rules to support mental activation. If you think Paizo dropped the ball, and forgot to mention them then start an FAQ on it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, I had to look that up, because it really bugged me. Here is a complete list of all of the changes through various editions that have affected the Ring of Invisibility.
2nd ed or earlier. Wear ring to activate. Last forever. Breaks on attack, but cannot turn back on for 1 round which is 10 minutes.
3rd ed
- 1 round changed from 10 minutes to 6 seconds.
- Ring changed to use activated
- Duration of invisibility changed from 24 hours to 10 min/level
3.5 ed
- Duration of invisibility changed from 10 min/level to 1 min/level
So 3.0 changed the item from infinite to 30 minutes per use. 3.5 changed it from 30 minutes to 3.
|
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
The bump to 20 grand is for continuous use... it's been said before, just don't ask me where... might have been back in 3.5... basically you're always invisible unless you gank someone; at which point it must be reactivated as a standard
thejeff, you are correct, IF this was 3.5 there would be a contradiction here. But this is not 3.5, it is Pathfinder. Whether or not the example was stripped out because the example was not part of the SRD is irrelevant. The Devs could have created their own example. They chose not to.
What we are left with is that 3.5 had a contradiction, one that Pathfinder does not have. Remember, 3.5 was not a huge system of consistency either. Pathfinder cleared up many inconsistencies and contradictions even while it was creating it's own.
This is not one of those inconsistencies or contradictions. The rules are clear here. The Ring is priced as Command Word so you use the Command Word rules.
BTW, for those that might say that the pricing is legacy and that Paizo is just regurgitating the 3.5 pricing statement: If Paizo could not print examples then they must have created their own pricing statement showing that the Ring is priced as Command Word.
Purple Dragon Knight,
The bump to 20grand is not for continuous use. It has never been for that. It was not stated as that in 3.5 or Pathfinder.
It was specifically stated in Pathfinder's GameMastery Guide that it was bumped due to being able to be used as much as you want.
However, if you can provide 3.5 Developer commentary that specifically states that it is continuous use I'd be curious to see it, even if it has no bearing on this conversation since this is Pathfinder.
|
|
The bump to 20grand is not for continuous use. It has never been for that. It was not stated as that in 3.5 or Pathfinder.
It was specifically stated in Pathfinder's GameMastery Guide that it was bumped due to being able to be used as much as you want.
Use-activated or continuous Spell level × caster level × 2,000 gp2
2 If a continuous item has an effect based on a spell with a duration measured in rounds, multiply the cost by 4. If the duration of the spell is 1 minute/level, multiply the cost by 2, and if the duration is 10 minutes/level, multiply the cost by 1.5. If the spell has a 24-hour duration or greater, divide the cost in half.
Ring of Invisibility: spell level 2 x caster level 3 x 2000 = 12000
x2 for 1min/lev spell: 24000
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 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.
-----> description of item does not state command word is needed = mental activation
----> command word activation price: 10800; actual ring price: 20000; yes you get it at a bargain compared to normal 24000 use activated price, but no command word required unless the item specifically says so for wearable gear i.e. use activated
Ok, I had to look that up, because it really bugged me. Here is a complete list of all of the changes through various editions that have affected the Ring of Invisibility.
2nd ed or earlier. Wear ring to activate. Last forever. Breaks on attack, but cannot turn back on for 1 round which is 10 minutes.
3rd ed
- 1 round changed from 10 minutes to 6 seconds.
- Ring changed to use activated
- Duration of invisibility changed from 24 hours to 10 min/level3.5 ed
- Duration of invisibility changed from 10 min/level to 1 min/levelSo 3.0 changed the item from infinite to 30 minutes per use. 3.5 changed it from 30 minutes to 3.
Note that the changes in the item from 2E to 3.0 and from 3.0 to 3.5 were not explicit. The change in duration is not mentioned, but has to be derived from the change in language about how it works like the spell.
And most in this argument would say that the ring in 3.0 & later is not "use-activated", but "Command word". :)
Agreed, but command activated at 30 minutes per use is still a lot more viable than 3 minutes.
This feels more and more like an issue where the item has not changed, but all of the rules around the item have with a net result of nerfing the crap out of it.
|
|
(use-activated / continuous is the only case marked by superscript "2" which shows how to calculate price for continuous items... command word ring usable once per day would be 2160 - calculated the same way as Cape of Mountebank... i.e. you divide cost by 5 for items that are once per day; an unlimited use command word ring of invisibility would be 10800)
|
|
boots: caster level 3 x spell level 1 x 2000 x 1.5 x 0.5 (because hours per level is less than 24 hours a day, so I use combo of 10min/level and 24 hour duration) = 4500 (additional 1000 for skill bonus but it's only situational for jump checks... so 5*5*100 = 2500 was deemed too much, lessened to 1000)
Ok, I had to look that up, because it really bugged me. Here is a complete list of all of the changes through various editions that have affected the Ring of Invisibility.
2nd ed or earlier. Wear ring to activate. Last forever. Breaks on attack, but cannot turn back on for 1 round which is 10 minutes.
3rd ed
- 1 round changed from 10 minutes to 6 seconds.
- Ring changed to use activated
- Duration of invisibility changed from 24 hours to 10 min/level3.5 ed
- Duration of invisibility changed from 10 min/level to 1 min/levelSo 3.0 changed the item from infinite to 30 minutes per use. 3.5 changed it from 30 minutes to 3.
In older editions 1 round was 1 minute, not 10 minutes. 10 minutes was a turn.
The rules say to benefit you have to wear it.
Actually, the rules say ""
Where does it say you have to be wearing it to continue benefiting from the spell once activated? I'm just not seeing it outside of this thread discussion.
|
|
The rules say to benefit you have to wear it.Actually, the rules say ""
Where does it say you have to be wearing it to continue benefiting from the spell once activated? I'm just not seeing it outside of this thread discussion.
first line under magic items ring:
RingsRings bestow magical powers upon their wearers.
The bump to 20grand is not for continuous use. It has never been for that. It was not stated as that in 3.5 or Pathfinder.
It was specifically stated in Pathfinder's GameMastery Guide that it was bumped due to being able to be used as much as you want.
Use-activated or continuous Spell level × caster level × 2,000 gp2
2 If a continuous item has an effect based on a spell with a duration measured in rounds, multiply the cost by 4. If the duration of the spell is 1 minute/level, multiply the cost by 2, and if the duration is 10 minutes/level, multiply the cost by 1.5. If the spell has a 24-hour duration or greater, divide the cost in half.
Ring of Invisibility: spell level 2 x caster level 3 x 2000 = 12000
x2 for 1min/lev spell: 24000
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 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.
-----> description of item does not state command word is needed = mental activation
----> command word activation price: 10800; actual ring price: 20000; yes you get it at a bargain compared to normal 24000 use activated price, but no command word required unless the item specifically says so for wearable gear i.e. use activated
Did you even read the GameMastery Guide? They clearly stated that they were raising it from 10,800 to 20,000 as an increase. Not lowering it from 24,000 to 20,000 as a decrease.
Pricing a magic item is more art than science. Guidance on item pricing is given in Table 15–29 on page 550 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, but a trip through the magic item section shows the formulas are often not applied exactly. An example is the ring of invisibility, with a calculated price of 10,800 gp, but a book value of 20,000 gp. This is because the at-will nature of the ring offsets the biggest drawback of invisibility, namely that it ends after attacking. When pricing new magic items, watch out for any item that counteracts a basic weakness of an ability, class, or spell.
This is a case of them seeing that having unlimited access to the invisibility spell is worth way more than than the pricing would have indicated. I wish they had done that with other items.
Where does it state that if there is no description of a command word it is mentally activated? Oh, right, the rules for Use Activated. Ie: Not in the rules for Command Word.
You are not reading the relevant rules, you are reading the rules for Use Activated and trying to apply them to Command Word.
Use Activated *can* use the rules for Command Word. That is what it is stating in the rules you keep quoting. The reverse is not true. Command Word cannot use the rules for Use Activated.
Until you accept that the item is Command Word priced as the GameMastery Guide states there is really nothing you can say that is meaningful regarding how it is activated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
_Ozy_, perhaps you should re-read the quote of what I said. I did not state anything regarding my estimation of the power of a ring of invisibility.
I stated why they increased it's cost. They even said this in the GMG!!
Please try to not take my quotes out of context.
As for how many times? Actually, just about any game that hits level 13+ I have seen have a Ring of Invisibility. I am currently GMing for one that has a Ring of Invisibility. He uses the Ring all the time.
And, I have been using and running it correctly (ie: the same as the FAQ) for years. I have also been enforcing WBL levels of wealth (adjusting for consumables as per table 12-5) for years.
Did you even read the GameMastery Guide? They clearly stated that they were raising it from 10,800 to 20,000 as an increase. Not lowering it from 24,000 to 20,000 as a decrease.
Pricing a magic item is more art than science. Guidance on item pricing is given in Table 15–29 on page 550 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, but a trip through the magic item section shows the formulas are often not applied exactly. An example is the ring of invisibility, with a calculated price of 10,800 gp, but a book value of 20,000 gp. This is because the at-will nature of the ring offsets the biggest drawback of invisibility, namely that it ends after attacking. When pricing new magic items, watch out for any item that counteracts a basic weakness of an ability, class, or spell.
This is a case of them seeing that having unlimited access to the invisibility spell is worth way more than than the pricing would have indicated. I wish they had done that with other items.
Thanks for posting the quote, its not in the PRD.
That's a wierd rationale they put out for the pricing discrepancy.
Activation means they have to spend half the combat putting themself invisible again after attacking. Giving up half your actions in combat to be invisible half the time does not seem like a big deal worth making rules exceptions and idiosyncratic deviations for.
Wands of invisibility can be used round after round as well after breaking invisibility. They only cost 4,500 gp and can be used on a whole group at the same time.
A wand of improved invisibility is 21,000 gp. If the consideration is invisibility for multiple rounds in combat that seems a relevant point.
Voadam, it is basically the same rationale they put in 3.5. Paizo didn't just reprint it, they made a point of re-stating it.
As for the quote, it has been quoted in this thread multiple times. Both the 3.5 statement and the PF statement say about the same thing.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
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.So, in all and everyone of those events you have played and/or Gmed with people that use the ring of invisibility and/or hat of disguise exactly as FAQ?
I have understood so well how these two items worked for so long and it precisely matched the FAQ, that had there been an incident where these items would have been ruled differently that I would have objected at the table.
So yes, every table with either item used it as per the FAQ.
Or when the ruling explicitly changes the item from how it used to work in older editions.
They are backed up by the way the item worked in legacy editions of the game (ie, on with no duration; not this particular ruling). There is a legitimate concern that this FAQ changes other functional aspects of the item.
1st, 2nd, and 3rd all ran the same way. As per the spell. In 2nd edition there was a duration. So when you were playing 2nd edition you were not following the rules. The quotes are above in this thread from previous editions.
This isn't a change to the way the item worked.
The rules say to benefit you have to wear it.Actually, the rules say ""
Where does it say you have to be wearing it to continue benefiting from the spell once activated? I'm just not seeing it outside of this thread discussion.
first line under magic items ring:
Rings
Rings bestow magical powers upon their wearers.
If I wear a ring, activate it, then remove it, has it not bestowed the power unto me?
Arrggh, again, where are the game mechanics that make the gloves 'casting a spell'. Can it be used to counterspell? Can it be counterspelled? Where are the mechanics that differentiate this from what you claim the ring is doing? You can't hand wave this difference, you have to demonstrate it with rules.
I don't think it is casting a spell like wands do. I think it is giving the spell to the wearer. For all intents and purposes the spell is given to the wearer as if he was the caster. <--Is that easier to understand?
Also one person finally saying "do not take the item off" is not proof that all other items work a certain way.
The ring is granting you the benefit 'as the spell' not of a spell. 'Of a spell' was my previous interpretation which didn't duplicate the stat block and duration. 'As a spell' is the FAQ ruling, which enforces the duration. And again, nowhere in the gloves description does it say that the gloves 'cast a spell'. That is purely an invention on your part.
I am just giving you the truth. If you think I am wrong about the intention post an FAQ.
I see no reason why they would rule that the duration terminated early, given there are no rules to support that.
They do not rule based on what is written. They rule based on what they meant.
I don't really care what the fluff says...
What are you talking about?
The bump to 20grand is not for continuous use. It has never been for that. It was not stated as that in 3.5 or Pathfinder.
It was specifically stated in Pathfinder's GameMastery Guide that it was bumped due to being able to be used as much as you want.
Use-activated or continuous Spell level × caster level × 2,000 gp2
2 If a continuous item has an effect based on a spell with a duration measured in rounds, multiply the cost by 4. If the duration of the spell is 1 minute/level, multiply the cost by 2, and if the duration is 10 minutes/level, multiply the cost by 1.5. If the spell has a 24-hour duration or greater, divide the cost in half.
Ring of Invisibility: spell level 2 x caster level 3 x 2000 = 12000
x2 for 1min/lev spell: 24000
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 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.
-----> description of item does not state command word is needed = mental activation
----> command word activation price: 10800; actual ring price: 20000; yes you get it at a bargain compared to normal 24000 use activated price, but no command word required unless the item specifically says so for wearable gear i.e. use activated
I quoted the ring specific rules for activation upthread. You might need to read them.
The rules say to benefit you have to wear it.Actually, the rules say ""
Where does it say you have to be wearing it to continue benefiting from the spell once activated? I'm just not seeing it outside of this thread discussion.
Someone posted rules on how donning an item allows you to get the benefits. It is posted upthread.
edit: Are you also saying the PDT intends for you to remove the item and still benefit?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you also saying the PDT intends for you to remove the item and still benefit?
*Pauses for a moment to think about what he's arguing about*
You know, I think I just got caught up in it all and was just being argumentative.
To answer your question: No, not necessarily. However, it could certainly be argued, and the recent rulings that the PDT have made do seem to support that notion, even if unintentionally.
I mostly just didn't like people saying "it couldn't possibly work that way" when, with all of the evidence we have at hand, it most certainly could work that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you also saying the PDT intends for you to remove the item and still benefit?
More like the PDT in this FAQ in conjunction with loose QA in the development of PFRPG/3.x has led to situation where the PDT is making a ruling based on a distinction that is fairly dubious ground and almost cetainly the result of parsing a line of logic that was never sussed out by any of the design teams for any edition of the SRD. Additionally, that distinction leaves extremely messy nuances where you have to read the text just pedantically enough to come to the intended rules interaction. That the "as the spell" means duration but not range or means duration but not really even duration if you take the ring off. Essentially, it leaves people in a position where they will have to dive into the forums to find the correct answer than being in a position where they can reference the FAQ once and understand how the rule works for any similar item in the future. The fact that a member of the PDT posted shortly after the FAQ that even after the ruling he didn't personally understand how activation occurs is extremely telling in the level of depth the PDT discussion got to.
I don't think it is casting a spell like wands do. I think it is giving the spell to the wearer. For all intents and purposes the spell is given to the wearer as if he was the caster. <--Is that easier to understand?
Arrggh, again, where are the game mechanics that make the gloves 'casting a spell'. Can it be used to counterspell? Can it be counterspelled? Where are the mechanics that differentiate this from what you claim the ring is doing? You can't hand wave this difference, you have to demonstrate it with rules.
I understand you just fine. I'm just asking for the mechanics that differentiate what the gloves are doing from what the ring does. Where is it in the magic item creation table? Where is it in the rules? How do I choose between granting a benefit like the ring, or granting the 'spell' like the gloves?
Furthermore, how can you say that the glove grant the spell when it doesn't actually follow all of the same properties of the spell. The benefits from the gloves are even less like the benefit of the ring, and yet that's supposed to be a 'granted spell'? Nonsense.
You are inventing this entire line of reasoning, this differentiation just simply does not exist. Command word items act like command word items. There are not separate categories for 'granting spells' vs 'granting benefits of spells'.
Well, given that they haven't made their intention clear yet, all we can do is go by RAW. And by RAW, the spell effect lasts the full duration unless specified otherwise.
I see no reason why they would rule that the duration terminated early, given there are no rules to support that.They do not rule based on what is written. They rule based on what they meant.
I have already said RAW does not always match RAI, as has been proven by the latest FAQ. Now if you want to say you disagree with me then I can simply start a new FAQ and we can take care of this issue also.
I don't want you to feel misrepresented so you can tell me how you want me to ask it, and once we both feel it is worded well I will post it.
Are you also saying the PDT intends for you to remove the item and still benefit?*Pauses for a moment to think about what he's arguing about*
You know, I think I just got caught up in it all and was just being argumentative.
To answer your question: No, not necessarily. However, it could certainly be argued, and the recent rulings that the PDT have made do seem to support that notion, even if unintentionally.
I mostly just didn't like people saying "it couldn't possibly work that way" when, with all of the evidence we have at hand, it most certainly could work that way.
The way the games works either something is a certain way or it is not. So when people say "it can't work that way" they are saying that interpretation is entirely incorrect, which is not the same as "there is no reason to feel that way". Yeah, I am aware that for some there is no functional difference depending on your perception of the two statements.
Are you also saying the PDT intends for you to remove the item and still benefit?More like the PDT in this FAQ in conjunction with loose QA in the development of PFRPG/3.x has led to situation where the PDT is making a ruling based on a distinction that is fairly dubious ground and almost cetainly the result of parsing a line of logic that was never sussed out by any of the design teams for any edition of the SRD. Additionally, that distinction leaves extremely messy nuances where you have to read the text just pedantically enough to come to the intended rules interaction. That the "as the spell" means duration but not range or means duration but not really even duration if you take the ring off. Essentially, it leaves people in a position where they will have to dive into the forums to find the correct answer than being in a position where they can reference the FAQ once and understand how the rule works for any similar item in the future. The fact that a member of the PDT posted shortly after the FAQ that even after the ruling he didn't personally understand how activation occurs is extremely telling in the level of depth the PDT discussion got to.
They(PDT) tend to answer the specific question asked and leave it at that, so we may require more FAQ's to finish this off. Personally I don't mind. I just want to see how many really think that is the way it works, and how many are just being argumentative. If this is real issue I will post the FAQ myself, but I dont want to waste the PDT's time because someone is arguing for the sake of arguing.
|
|
If I wear a ring, activate it, then remove it, has it not bestowed the power unto me?
No. Not if it's a continuous use item like the ring of invisibility. For those who quote the Gamemastery Guide rationale on the "bump" of the ring of invisibility: I say whoever wrote that made a mistake. Plain and simple. The ring is continuous use, mental activation, this is why it's 20K. The 10800 version would be a command word unlimited cast ring. Which I refute and will never allow in my game. Trust the Core math. Do not lead us into temptation of non Core books. Trust the Core math! :)
If I wear a ring, activate it, then remove it, has it not bestowed the power unto me?No. Not if it's a continuous use item like the ring of invisibility. For those who quote the Gamemastery Guide rationale on the "bump" of the ring of invisibility: I say whoever wrote that made a mistake. Plain and simple. The ring is continuous use, mental activation, this is why it's 20K. The 10800 version would be a command word unlimited cast ring. Which I refute and will never allow in my game. Trust the Core math. Do not lead us into temptation of non Core books. Trust the Core math! :)
You realize the exact same calculation was made for 3.5, right? And the same answers were given to these same questions in the 3.5 FAQs?
|
|
The bump to 20 grand is for continuous use... it's been said before, just don't ask me where... might have been back in 3.5... basically you're always invisible unless you gank someone; at which point it must be reactivated as a standardWhich is basically where it is now. Except you have to keep whispering "I Use Invisibility", every couple minutes.
Practically, it's really not far away from the continuous version, which is much cleaner thematically. Which is my main objection to it.
And in a world where multi tonnes firebreathing lizards fly like jet liners, having to whisper "I'm INVISIBLE! THIS IS FAAAAAAABULOUS!" is comedy, not fantasy
_Ozy_, perhaps you should re-read the quote of what I said. I did not state anything regarding my estimation of the power of a ring of invisibility.
I stated why they increased it's cost. They even said this in the GMG!!
Please try to not take my quotes out of context.
As for how many times? Actually, just about any game that hits level 13+ I have seen have a Ring of Invisibility. I am currently GMing for one that has a Ring of Invisibility. He uses the Ring all the time.
And, I have been using and running it correctly (ie: the same as the FAQ) for years. I have also been enforcing WBL levels of wealth (adjusting for consumables as per table 12-5) for years.
I didn't take your quote out of context. The fact that you 'wish' they had applied this reasoning to other items certainly suggests that you also condone that reasoning for the ring of invisibility. If not, if you think it's overpriced, then by all means mention it.
Did the player actually buy the ring, or did he find it? I've never seen the ring on any optimized build list of equipment. Given just about any character build, there will usually be a better choice for a given WBL. Spending 20k for a ring of invisibility is almost always a mistake.
First, again, please stop inferring things I have not stated.
The Devs priced the Ring of Invisibility above the price arrived at by formula due to the perceived value of infinite uses of Invisibility. Whether I agree with this or not in the specific case of the Ring of Invisibility is irrelevant. I can still wish they applied this sort of logic to other items (such as Bracer's of Falcon's Aim, an item that trumps existing items).
So, yes, you did take my quote out of context.
Regarding the player(s) buying the ring: Yes, all players buy all items in the majority of my campaigns. My opinions regarding the WBL system and it's use are well documented. I do not screw my players by forcing equipment upon them that they do not want. If they sell equipment I bring them up to WBL (by several means such as equipment drops) so that they can buy or craft what they desire.