Purple Dragon Knight, "core math" would have priced the Continuous Ring of Invisibility at 24,000gp. Since it is not priced that way and we have Developers from two different editions giving us the same statements don't you think perhaps that the Devs are correct and this is not some 'random' person writing something incorrectly?
Perhaps you should set aside your dislike of the ruling and look at the facts.
|
Yes i think they were incorrect. My question to YOU is: which would you prefer for a 20k investment? (Both as player and DM) (mental activation + continuous) OR (command word and 3min)
I value the bump to mental activation continuous as a 9200 value i.e. it is a big deal in my games separates the real rogues from the suckers who paid for that 10800 "I'm invisible every 3 minutes" trinket
Please note that the gamemastery "pricing is more art than science" argument is not really an ironclad statement you should sell the farm for...
Yes i think they were incorrect. My question to YOU is: which would you prefer for a 20k investment? (Both as player and DM) (mental activation + continuous) OR (command word and 3min)
I value the bump to mental activation continuous as a 9200 value i.e. it is a big deal in my games separates the real rogues from the suckers who paid for that 10800 "I'm invisible every 3 minutes" trinket
Please note that the gamemastery "pricing is more art than science" argument is not really an ironclad statement you should sell the farm for...
Is doesn't really matter? What would you rather have for an 8k investment, a +2 longsword or a +5 Keen Flaming Burst longsword?
It doesn't matter if you'd rather have a better item for the price it's listed at. You get what the price gives you. In this case, the relevant organizations have been pretty clear in both 3.5 and PF that what you get is a command word item with a three minute limit. So that a mental activation, continuous item would be more desirable is irrelevant.
Were I setting it up, I'd have it be a mental activation item with a three minute time limit. It's even marginally arguable this may have been the intent in 3.5 based on fluff text in the magic item section. But again, it's not really my call.
And yes to answer any follow up question on that I'd gladly pay 24k for a proper ring of invisibility. Maybe the reduction to 20k is due to the built in flaw of the invisibility spell which auto deactivates upon attacking... ;)
But it's not a reduction in price to 20k. So ...
I mean, you can argue that you think it'd be a better item all you want. But you really can't argue against the fact that the pricing is set up as an increase from 10,800 to 20k. It's quite literally been stated to be precisely that in official material.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
And yes to answer any follow up question on that I'd gladly pay 24k for a proper ring of invisibility. Maybe the reduction to 20k is due to the built in flaw of the invisibility spell which auto deactivates upon attacking... ;)
Maybe you missed the previous posts. But the item was designed in 3.5 and maintained in PF as a 10,800 item with it's price increased to 20,000 because it is "just that good" as a "command word 3 minute" effect.
So it wasn't reduced from 24k to 20k because the spell is bad. It was increased because a command word activated thing is just that good.
If you have already been told this, then stop trying to re-frame the discussion into an incorrect assertion.
Yes i think they were incorrect. My question to YOU is: which would you prefer for a 20k investment? (Both as player and DM) (mental activation + continuous) OR (command word and 3min)
I value the bump to mental activation continuous as a 9200 value i.e. it is a big deal in my games separates the real rogues from the suckers who paid for that 10800 "I'm invisible every 3 minutes" trinket
Please note that the gamemastery "pricing is more art than science" argument is not really an ironclad statement you should sell the farm for...
You seem to be missing the point by a country mile. My preferences are 100% irrelevant. What is relevant is that this is the Rules Forum. In this here Rules Forum we discuss the rules of the game, rulings by Devs, and related information. Preferences are not part of that.
1) The Devs (in both 3.5 and PF) have explained the pricing used for the Ring of Invisibility was to start with 10,800gp (Command Word pricing) and then increase it to 20,000gp because it was deemed that infinite (at-will) uses of Invisibility was too much for 10,800gp.
You seem unable to accept this statement. You even go so far as to say they were outright wrong. (How can the people who wrote the game be wrong as to why they did something?)
If I were you, I would look at why you have an inability to accept this statement.
Whether this price increase is worth it for an item that can only be used as a Command Word item and only for 3minutes at a time is...irrelevant to the discussion of the rules of the game.
That is a discussion for another forum. Perhaps you should create a thread in the "Pathfinder RPG General Discussion" forum to discuss your feelings on this matter.
|
|
You seem to be missing the point by a country mile. My preferences are 100% irrelevant. What is relevant is that this is the Rules Forum. In this here Rules Forum we discuss the rules of the game, rulings by Devs, and related information. Preferences are not part of that.
1) The Devs (in both 3.5 and PF) have explained the pricing used for the Ring of Invisibility was to start with 10,800gp (Command Word pricing) and then increase it to 20,000gp because it was deemed that infinite (at-will) uses of Invisibility was too much for 10,800gp.
You seem unable to accept this statement. You even go so far as to say they were outright wrong. (How can the people who wrote the game be wrong as to why they did something?)
If I were you, I would look at why you have an inability to accept this statement.
Whether this price increase is worth it for an item that can only be used as a Command Word item and only for 3minutes at a time is...irrelevant to the discussion of the rules of the game.
That is a discussion for another forum. Perhaps you should create a thread in the "Pathfinder RPG General Discussion" forum to discuss your feelings on this matter.
*Looks at the thread title* Hmmm.... no... I think I'm in the right thread, and since you quote rules, let me quote rule No. 1: Don't be a jerk.
How can devs be wrong? well, because they're human, and because math, and because frankly, power creep. The "oh so powerful power of invisibility" has been made nigh useless along the years, so you can't blame them for overpricing it then, but certainly doesn't hold any water now. 20K for a regular invisibility spell? please! the ninja can do it almost right away and not so long later he doesn't become visible after he attacks.
Right now I'm tempted to throw a personal comment your way, but I won't. Because of rule number 1. Please be respectful. If my belief that the 20K ring of invisibility is meant to be a continuous use mental activation item angers you, then I'm sorry. But I have a feeling (yes, another one of those dreaded "feelings") that you are not that susceptible.
I have been respectful, I have not been making any comments regarding your feelings even though you keep making them regarding mine. I have not posted any insults.
Perhaps you could point out where I have been a jerk?
Oh, you have not angered me, I am very difficult to anger and frankly, it takes someone who I actually have emotions for. A faceless person on a message board does not qualify. You are an intellectual exercise at best.
Question should be something like this:
Do magical effects with a specified duration, activated from command word magic items terminate before the duration is up if the magic item 1) leaves the possession of the activator for non-slotted items or 2) is removed from the worn slot for slotted items.
1) would be like the previously proposed orb that bestows a 1 hour mage armor 5/day
2) would be like the 3 minute invisibility from the ring of invisibility, or the 1 hour temporary hit points from the vampiric gloves
That was good to being up non-slotted items, but I would specify wondrous items just so people are sure that we don't mean wands and staves.
Mental activation is not an option.Mental activation is the only option.
Not according to the options I listed which came from the prd/crb. What ring rules did you read that allow for mental activation?
|
|
Not according to the options I listed which came from the prd/crb. What ring rules did you read that allow for mental activation?Mental activation is not an option.Mental activation is the only option.
it's listed in prd under magic items, use activated -- it says that if you wear it like a hat or ring, it's mental activation unless specifically calls for a command word
Yes i think they were incorrect. My question to YOU is: which would you prefer for a 20k investment? (Both as player and DM) (mental activation + continuous) OR (command word and 3min)
I value the bump to mental activation continuous as a 9200 value i.e. it is a big deal in my games separates the real rogues from the suckers who paid for that 10800 "I'm invisible every 3 minutes" trinket
Please note that the gamemastery "pricing is more art than science" argument is not really an ironclad statement you should sell the farm for...
They wrote the rules so they were not incorrect, and remember one of the other writers of 3.5 consulted on the CRB. So how can they be incorrect?
Let me put it another way. 2 of the 3 3.5 writers had a hand in this.
Do you need for Jonathan Tweet to come in and be the 3rd voice to be convinced, and say those other two guys actually know what they were doing when they wrote the 3.5 FAQ and consulted with Paizo on Pathfinder?
edit: Monte Cook who consulted for Paizo was in charge of the DMG, which is where the ring of invisibility came from. He sorta had to know the rules.
|
|
Do you need for Jonathan Tweet to come in and be the 3rd voice to be convinced, and say those other two guys actually know what they were doing when they wrote the 3.5 FAQ and consulted with Paizo on Pathfinder?
Nope. I'm confident in my math and ability to interpret the rules and understand game balance in the context of the current game system.
Nope. I'm confident in my math and ability to interpret the rules and understand game balance in the context of the current game system.
Do you need for Jonathan Tweet to come in and be the 3rd voice to be convinced, and say those other two guys actually know what they were doing when they wrote the 3.5 FAQ and consulted with Paizo on Pathfinder?
Your confidence is misplaced if you think you know more than the person who wrote the rule, and your math is wrong if you can't get 6x1800=10800
|
|
Your confidence is misplaced if you think you know more than the person who wrote the rule, and your math is wrong if you can't get 6x1800=10800Nope. I'm confident in my math and ability to interpret the rules and understand game balance in the context of the current game system.
Do you need for Jonathan Tweet to come in and be the 3rd voice to be convinced, and say those other two guys actually know what they were doing when they wrote the 3.5 FAQ and consulted with Paizo on Pathfinder?
It is not misplaced as I do not claim to know more than anyone
it's listed in prd under magic items, use activated -- it says that if you wear it like a hat or ring, it's mental activation unless specifically calls for a command wordNot according to the options I listed which came from the prd/crb. What ring rules did you read that allow for mental activation?Mental activation is not an option.Mental activation is the only option.
Specific(ring rule) trumps general, and ring rules call out command words or "unusual activation".
Now we dont' see any unusual activation so that means the option is the command word.
Are you going to say the "ring rules" are wrong also?
edit: quote the ring rules and tell me options they give you.
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.
Alright, perhaps you can share where "mental activation" is listed in that description? I see that there are two usual options: Command Word (went so far as to state spoken) and Continual use. If it has an unusual activation method it is specified in the ring's description.
So, lets see what the Ring says:
By activating this simple silver ring, the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell.
Any unusual activation method stated? Hmmm, nope.
Ok, lets see what it is priced as to determine if it is Command Word or Continuous:
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.
Hmmm, it starts at 10,800gp and is then raised to 20,000gp to offset the infinite use ability of the ring (at-will).
Does this match the pricing of Continuous? Nope, the price did not start out at 24,000gp
Does this match the pricing of Use Activated? Nope, the price did not start out as 24,000gp
Does this match the pricing of Command Word? Yes, the price started out as 10,800gp
Lets see what Command Word says:
Command Word: If no activation method is suggested either in the magic item description or by the nature of the item, assume that a command word is needed to activate it. Command word activation means that a character speaks the word and the item activates. No other special knowledge is needed.
A command word can be a real word, but when this is the case, the holder of the item runs the risk of activating the item accidentally by speaking the word in normal conversation. More often, the command word is some seemingly nonsensical word, or a word or phrase from an ancient language no longer in common use. Activating a command word magic item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Is there text in the Ring to indicate an activation method? Looks up at the earlier quote, nope.
Thus it defaults to the standard Command Word rules.1) The Devs priced it at Command Word.
2) The Devs then raised the cost and stated this was due to the "at-will" nature of the item.
3) Rings are either Command Word or Continuous unless they have a special statement to the contrary.
4) The Ring of Invisibility is not Continuous so it must be Command Word.
5) Command Word does not have rules for mental activation. That is a section of the Use Activated rules.
6) Use Activated is not the standard method of activation for Rings.
Guys, this cannot get ANY clearer. It is there, repeatedly. The Ring of Invisibility is not and has never been (in 3.5/PF) "Use Activated". There is no provision for it to be so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, out of question, how do you look at Malachi's earlier quote from 3.5 that uses the ring of invisibility as an example of a use activated item that requires further activation? If you have addressed it already, sorry, I must have passed over it.
So, out of question, how do you look at Malachi's earlier quote from 3.5 that uses the ring of invisibility as an example of a use activated item that requires further activation? If you have addressed it already, sorry, I must have passed over it.
At best in 3.5 it was a conflict because in 3.5 they also used the 10800 gp example for pricing the ring.
It should also be noted the in PF/3.5 that specific beats general. Malachi quoted general rules, and the ring rules list unusual activation or a command word. No mental activation.
So we have the ring rules and a 3.5 dev statement breaking down magic items which lines up with the command word price.
In addition even if the ring was mentally activated in 3.5, which there is more evidence for it not being that way, Pathfinder would still have the rule as being a command word due to pricing explained in the GMG, and it no longer having that example in any printed material.
The official version is wrong. It happens
... Seriously? It's wrong, despite clear descriptions to the contrary and despite them basically just reaffirming an aspect of the same position in this very FAQ?
Not really sure what to do with this, honestly.
Yup, good point.That was good to being up non-slotted items, but I would specify wondrous items just so people are sure that we don't mean wands and staves.Question should be something like this:
Do magical effects with a specified duration, activated from command word magic items terminate before the duration is up if the magic item 1) leaves the possession of the activator for non-slotted items or 2) is removed from the worn slot for slotted items.
1) would be like the previously proposed orb that bestows a 1 hour mage armor 5/day
2) would be like the 3 minute invisibility from the ring of invisibility, or the 1 hour temporary hit points from the vampiric gloves
I have one hour to edit it so let me know if you need any changes.
It is not misplaced as I do not claim to know more than anyoneYour confidence is misplaced if you think you know more than the person who wrote the rule, and your math is wrong if you can't get 6x1800=10800Nope. I'm confident in my math and ability to interpret the rules and understand game balance in the context of the current game system.
Do you need for Jonathan Tweet to come in and be the 3rd voice to be convinced, and say those other two guys actually know what they were doing when they wrote the 3.5 FAQ and consulted with Paizo on Pathfinder?
But you said the official rules are wrong. That kind of implies that you think you know how the rules should work better than those who wrote them, particularly because we're not talking about something like scrivener's error.
The Archive, I did address it but I will restate what I said.
If this were 3.5 I would agree that would be a contradiction that would need Dev resolution.
While examples are not rules this would be a case of two specific examples contradicting each other.
However, this is not 3.5, it is Pathfinder and the contradiction appears to be resolved by the removal of the example that Malachi quoted.
Now, you might think that the removal is an oversight or due to the lack of examples being ported over from 3.5 except that the Paizo Devs then once again posted an example of the pricing of the Ring where it was priced as a Command Word item.
3.5: Contradictory information.
PF: No such contradictory information.
3.5 can help us with direction but not if it contradicts changes made in Pathfinder.
One other note: In the 3.5 section on Rings it states they are Command Word or Continuous, not Use Activated.
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.
What it looks like is that the Use Activated section of the 3.5 DMG contradicted the rules for Rings to begin with. Either rings are usually command word or continual or they are usually mental activation or continual.
They cannot be both.
It is not misplaced as I do not claim to know more than anyoneYour confidence is misplaced if you think you know more than the person who wrote the rule, and your math is wrong if you can't get 6x1800=10800Nope. I'm confident in my math and ability to interpret the rules and understand game balance in the context of the current game system.
Do you need for Jonathan Tweet to come in and be the 3rd voice to be convinced, and say those other two guys actually know what they were doing when they wrote the 3.5 FAQ and consulted with Paizo on Pathfinder?
Confidence being misplaced means that you are overestimating yourself in a particular area, at least in this case was all I was saying.
However I am curious as to how you think a bunch of guys that know each other personally, and 2 of them wrote the DMG, with one being the lead designer for that book somehow don't know how the ring of invisibility was intended to work.
|
So, out of question, how do you look at Malachi's earlier quote from 3.5 that uses the ring of invisibility as an example of a use activated item that requires further activation? If you have addressed it already, sorry, I must have passed over it.
The fact that the ring has to be worn to gain its effects was never in question. In fact, this lends further support to the understanding that if you take the ring off, its effects end immediately.
Malachi's quote doesn't do anything to change the specific rules in the "Rings" section that says that they are Command Word activated (unless the ring has some other unusual activation method which is mentioned in its description).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, out of question, how do you look at Malachi's earlier quote from 3.5 that uses the ring of invisibility as an example of a use activated item that requires further activation? If you have addressed it already, sorry, I must have passed over it.The fact that the ring has to be worn to gain its effects was never in question. In fact, this lends further support to the understanding that if you take the ring off, its effects end immediately.
Malachi's quote doesn't do anything to change the specific rules in the "Rings" section that says that they are Command Word activated (unless the ring has some other unusual activation method which is mentioned in its description).
Sorry, you can't eat your cake and have it too. Either the quote is relevant (b/c legacy), and the RoI is use-activated, or it is irrelevant (b/c different edition or b/c overruled) and it says nothing.
You can't just ignore parts of what it says while claiming it is still relevant in other parts. Not when it's one single sentence.
Personally, I think that quote remains relevant. Ring text largely remains the same between the PRD and d20srd (exceptions, like the ring of regeneration are there however.) And in every case on both, command word activated rings are called out by use of the phrase "on command." Yet, the supposedly command word activated invisibility lacks this phrase entirely. And it's not like the contents of the section was simply C/Ped for Pathfinder. The ring of regeneration was greatly changed and the ring of chameleon power had changes in its phrasing, for example. That's why I feel the legacy is important.
But, eh, it's a thing of whether or not you consider it relevant. Not really any arguable middle ground there; it can't be both.
I'd consider it relevant, but not necessarily determinative. For a home game, I'd have no issues with the Ring being Mental Activation with a 3 minute duration, benefit tied to donning.
Official stance for me at this point, based on a full reading of rules, is command word with a 3 minute duration, benefit tied to donning.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
If my belief that the 20K ring of invisibility is meant to be a continuous use mental activation item angers you, then I'm sorry.
I'll take you at your word that this is true, you believe. But it was absolutely never meant to be that and there is an astonishing amount of contrary indications that it has always been command word and always been such.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The official version is wrong. It happens... Seriously? It's wrong, despite clear descriptions to the contrary and despite them basically just reaffirming an aspect of the same position in this very FAQ?
Yes, it is wrong. Some people just can't (or won't) accept it.
;P
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Yes, it is wrong. Some people just can't (or won't) accept it.
How is it wrong?
It doesn't match an artifact from an iconic book about a halfling? An artifact that controlled other rings and their wearers. An artifact that prevented aging. An artifact that the eventually corrupts the wearer?
I can buy all that for 20,000 gp?
Or is it more reasonable the 20,000 Ring of Invisibility isn't anything like the iconic ring.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
_Ozy_, you are the one being "deliberately obtuse" because it is you who keeps citing 'literary' or 'legendary' items. The rules have absolutely NOTHING to do with what literature or legends did.
This is the Rules Forum. The Rules work a certain way. If you want them to work a different way take it to the appropriate forum such as the Pathfinder RPG General Discussion (which is not the Rules Forum) or houserule it. These are your options.
This forum is for questions and answers about the rules of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. House rules, variants and conversions should be posted in the appropriate Community Content forum.
What we ask for is not the moon, we ask for you to discuss RULES in the RULES FORUM. Any reference to literary or legends is not rules and not part of a Rules Forum discussion.
So, since your posts are inappropriate to the forum you are discussing them in perhaps we should flag the posts?
It was responding to a constant complaint, that the ring doesn't match up with other literary bersions of similar items.
I am curious how many of those other items allowed users tonattack and remain hidden or to affect multiple parties. Because we're not complaining about how that aspect of the ring doesn't match up, either.
Also, I'm not sure why it matters that the One Ring was retconned, because the retconned version is the one we're all familiar with and the retconning was done 50+ years before Pathfinder was even a thing.
And actually, no. I wouldn't complain about a ring of limited duration appearing in a movie. To the contrary, that's actually been a plot device in more than one story - "We can use this power, but I can't guaranty how long it will last."
It can be a nice change of pace.
_Ozy_, his own post was responding to the 'all of this is wrong because of legends....' concepts that have run rampant ever since the FAQ. Concepts that you then reinforced AGAIN.
It is you and those others that keep rehashing that in this thread so why would I feel bad about it when you guys keep trying to insert non-rules arguments into a rules discussion?
And actually, no. I wouldn't complain about a ring of limited duration appearing in a movie. To the contrary, that's actually been a plot device in more than one story - "We can use this power, but I can't guaranty how long it will last."
It can be a nice change of pace.
Limited duration is fine. That's actually a standard feature.
But the nice change of pace goes away when you can just restart the duration. Which is the part I object to and why it makes no sense to me.Especially with something like the boots, where you don't even have the "but I need to find a place where I won't be heard" bit. It's just every two minutes (so you've got a buffer in case you get busy) you have to say "Keep flying".
Sure. But what I was responding to is a complaint that there is a limited duration for the ring and this is wrong because it doesn't match up with different versions of items from different sources.