|
note that in both case the ring description says nothing about command word or "on command" - these are stealth rings - I'd settle for limited duration use (i.e. must reactivate when duration expires i.e. NOT continuous) but will not waver on the mental activation as it makes no bloody sense both due to the purpose of the ring and pricing
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
And yet, James, according to what you wrote in a previous post, you thought it was activated by 'silent act of will' and not 'command word', even during the PDT's deliberations which led to the current FAQ!
As intimately involved in the arbitration of the rules as you are, your word carries a lot of weight. And that weight has you believing that it was not a 'command word' item for however many decades.
Can the arbiters of the game rules be wrong? Yes, if they contradict their own rules.
The rules, as set out, result in two possibilities (ignoring the 'mental activation/command word' divide for the moment):-
• the wearer of the item may 'cast the spell'. Note the inverted commas: no-one things it's actual spellcasting, but 'using' the item has all the intendant affects as if the wearer had cast the spell himself. The consequences include target (personal or touch for Invisibilty) and duration. If it 'casts' the spell and must follow the rules for duration, then it must follow all of the rules for duration! You can't pick and choose the parts of that rule you want and discard the rest, unless the description of the item says so. The consequence of the rules is that, once 'cast' the duration of the invisibility from the ring is precisely governed by the same rules as the duration of the spell. Three minutes, or until dispelled/ended in some written way, which for this particular spell includes attacking. However, removing the ring is not a way that the spell ends
• the wearer of the item is subject to a spell effect, as described in the description of (this) spell. This item doesn't 'cast' (or allow the wearer to 'cast') the spell. The wearer is simply affected by that effect for as long as they wear it. For items of this nature that must be activated (command word or otherwise), then they are affected by that magic for as long as they wear the activated item. So in this case, the person will no longer benefit from that magical affect either when the item is removed or when the item is de-activated
So, although items can certainly have exceptions to any of these rules, any such exception must be specifically written in the item description. If it doesn't, it defaults to the rules of whichever type it belongs.
So James, which type of item is the ring of invisibility?
|
|
There have been many quotes of the essay on magic item pricing which uses the ring as its example.
And then say, 'See! It is 10,800gp therefore it is command word activated!'
Er...nope. It is 20,000gp, and you can't infer anything from that.
Although some have posted with their opinion of whether at a certain price the ring was 'worth it' or not, I'm only interested in the price as an excersise in reverse engineering.
I 'know' that the hat of disguise is command word activated, because I can plug in the final price (1,800gp) to the formulas for both command word and use activated to see which it matches. It matches command word, therefore it must be command word.
I do the same for the ring, and it's much more expensive than either formula, so the reverse engineering doesn't give you an answer to the command word/use activated question.
There was the essay on magic item pricing. It says the 20,000 was arbitrary, because being able to use it over and over again negates the disadvantage of the effect ending when you attack. Well, this would be true for both command word and use activated, so that doesn't help.
Why would creators ever create their items as command word activated when they could just as easily make them activated by a silent act of will? Especially a stealth item like the ring! The answer is that it's cheaper; you get a 10% discount for making it command word activated.
Okay, I'm creating a ring of invisibility. How much does the use activated version cost? 12,000gp. How much does the command word version cost? Only 10,800gp. Brilliant! I'll get the cheap version and save 1,200gp! Er...no...it's actually 20,000gp.
Oh! Well in that case, I might as well have the 'use activated/silent act of will' version! You'd have to be insane not to!
Given these circumstances, it's not credible that any command word versions were ever made at all.
|
No. The ring (and the hat and the boots and anything else that works that way) is stupidly limited because the limitation of being able to use the item indefinitely as long as you turn it on every few minutes is inherently stupid. Especially with the other items, it doesn't limit anything except in the most extreme of edge cases, but it still justifies a huge price difference.The rule isn't stupid. You just don't like it because it goes against your preconceived notions of what it should be—whether you played older editions or you are influenced by other sources. And that is fine, just house rule it to be the way you want it to be. But that doesn't make the rules as they are written wrong or stupid. It's just a different paradigm.The rule is stupid. Look at it for the boots of levitation: What limit does it actually provide? How does that justify it being less than half the price of a continuous pair of boots?
In fact, I'd argue that the reason the Ring needed the price bump was that the price bump brings it inline with the continuous item it really should be.
No, you think it's stupid. That doesn't mean the rule is stupid. It goes against your preconceived notions about what you think it should be and you're upset about it.
Being invisible has a greater impact than being able to levitate, that likely explains the price difference, don't you think—I mean, if you look at it objectively...if you're willing to do that.
If you were using the item with limited duration and command word before 2000, you were doing it wrong. This does not fill me with confidence in your experience.If you were using the item without durations, you were doing it wrong. See the FAQ.
Which one? The 3.5 one that said it was spell durations, the 3.0 one that said the same exact item desciption meant continuous use, or something for earlier editions?
I don't think the 3.5 one really indicates how the AD&D versions worked.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
And that weight has you believing that it was not a 'command word' item for however many decades.
Can the arbiters of the game rules be wrong? Yes, if they contradict their own rules.
You can't understand their ruling and you apparently can't understand my responses. It has always been command word, verbal. At least as far as I ever remember the ring. The duration may have changed based on the duration mechanics of the base spell.
The devs may contradict, but they didn't in the case of these rings.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
'See! It is 10,800gp therefore it is command word activated!'
Er...nope. It is 20,000gp, and you can't infer anything from that.
It is 20,000 for command word activated because the price was raised from 10,800 to 20,000 because of how the item creation rules work. The item is too good for 10,800 gp.
Therefore a continuous one is too good for 24,000 gp. It would cost 60% more than the formula or more.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Why, in this case or in the case of similar items with short durations but unlimited uses, is continuous valued so much more than command word?
Because you are less likely to be caught if you don't need to reactivate ever so often.
The ring was likely designed to activate to go into combat for a sneak attack with only limited stealth applications.
The fact that a continuous use item is exception for stealth is probably the reason the ring isn't continuous and is command word in the first place.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And what are the other items?
Welsh mythology( Culhwch and Olwen). a "Mantle of Invisibility"
Second Branch of the Mabinogi. a "Mantle of Invisibility"Jack the Giant Killer. a coat of invisibility
Tale of Tom Thumb. a coat of invisibility
Mabinogion. a coat of invisibility
Momotarō, a cape of invisibility
kakuremino. a magical "straw cape" or "raincoat" of invisibilty
Grimm's Fairy Tales(in The Twelve Dancing Princesses and in The King of the Golden Mountain). cloak of invisibility
Nibelungenlied. cloak of concealment
Laurin. Cap of Invisibility
minnesang. Hide of Concealment
Der Ring des Nibelungen. Helm of invisibility
Die Nibelungen. Veil of invisibility
The Thief of Bagdad. cloak of invisibility
A Fighting Man of Mars. cloak of invisibility
Dhalgren. Camouflaging cloak
EDIT: D&D cartoon, Sheila the Thief. cloak of invisibility
The one ring is a drop in the bucket for invisibility items.
note that in both case the ring description says nothing about command word or "on command" - these are stealth rings - I'd settle for limited duration use (i.e. must reactivate when duration expires i.e. NOT continuous) but will not waver on the mental activation as it makes no bloody sense both due to the purpose of the ring and pricing
What you think makes sense has nothing to do with what the rule is. The game has quiet quiet a few things i dont like but I dont pretend they are not rules just because i feel like they not be rules.
Malachi go to the ring section and quote the methods of activation then using those rules tell me how the ring works. Everyone else has ducked the question so far.
This will NOT make me happy in the slightest, as it relies on a custom magical item, which many GMs simply don't allow.Heck, just give the prices for the always on items and we have both. That makes everyone happy.Keep their FAQ ruling as is ... Errata both the ring of invisibility and the hat of disguise say "It functions continually."This is a reasonable course of action. Frankly I don't care how the ring works, it just needs to be clear so we know how other similar items work.
I meant "official" prices, so they wouldn't be custom. A blog post with both types of items and a note that they aren't counted as custom items (just two versions of the same item) should do it.
|
|
Malachi go to the ring section and quote the methods of activation then using those rules tell me how the ring works. Everyone else has ducked the question so far.
nobody's ducked the question - there's two rules - command or something else. Then there's that other rule specifically saying that if hat or ring, mental unless command is specifically called for. Therefore if command is not stated --> mental
|
|
No. No "continuous use multiplier". The chameleon ring has a 1.5 multiplier on the disguise self ability because it's a second ability and you raise the cost for items with more than one power.
ah i see... i remember that rule at the end of 3.5 where they started allowing item customization to allow stat boosting items like gloves of dex of archery etc. PATHFINDER RPG has added slots so as not penalize high level pc for stat boosting. Did they also carry over that 1.5 rule for dual function items?
|
|
true... so in both case they used the "continuous use" multiplier with the 1800 rationale? advantage: players = give them benefit of doubt on mental activation / continuous use as it was built into the price.... certainly do not penalize players as if they would have spent money or a regular command word itemNo. No "continuous use multiplier". The chameleon ring has a 1.5 multiplier on the disguise self ability because it's a second ability and you raise the cost for items with more than one power.
The invisibility ring has been explicitly stated to work out to 10800 by the formula, but was boosted to 20000 by the devs because invisibility is so powerful.
By the book, they're both command word items. I think they should be continuous and priced as such, because that's what "Command word with unlimited uses" really comes down to, with the possible exception of round/level where action economy starts to count.
AGREED SIR! THAT 10% DISCOUNT FOR COMMAND WORD IS RIDICULOUS! Be cause thieves really love the challenge and risk of getting caught as they sneak into a vault for the high savings of a 10% discount! Lol
So I'm cool with ring of chameleon but still very not cool with ring of invis being double priced for no reason. Also I'm still of the opinion that benefit of doubt should be given when command activation not explicitly stated for wearables...
Specifically: Invisible creature is... in combat or speaking. And that's a modifier to the DC to pinpoint your location, not to hear you say the command word.I'm talking about out of combat every 2 minutes so there's no possibility of things going wrong when you're likely +52 or more stealth which would be straight dice vs the great old ones at CR 30. If you have Level +5 base stealth the check is straight up impossible without using a spell/ability.From a stealthiness perspective isn't this moot? +40 on the turn you reactivate means it's nigh impossible to find you anyway.lot of things can happen in one round! ;)
And what are the other items?Welsh mythology( Culhwch and Olwen). a "Mantle of Invisibility"
Second Branch of the Mabinogi. a "Mantle of Invisibility"
Jack the Giant Killer. a coat of invisibility
Tale of Tom Thumb. a coat of invisibility
Mabinogion. a coat of invisibility
Momotarō, a cape of invisibility
kakuremino. a magical "straw cape" or "raincoat" of invisibilty
Grimm's Fairy Tales(in The Twelve Dancing Princesses and in The King of the Golden Mountain). cloak of invisibility
Nibelungenlied. cloak of concealment
Laurin. Cap of Invisibility
minnesang. Hide of Concealment
Der Ring des Nibelungen. Helm of invisibility
Die Nibelungen. Veil of invisibility
The Thief of Bagdad. cloak of invisibility
A Fighting Man of Mars. cloak of invisibility
Dhalgren. Camouflaging cloak
EDIT: D&D cartoon, Sheila the Thief. cloak of invisibilityThe one ring is a drop in the bucket for invisibility items.
And how many of those items do not follow the same limitations as PF's ring of invisibility? Do they all break their enchantment upon attack? Are they all limited to only one benefactor? Are there other means of detecting the invisible wearer?
Because here's the thing, even a cursory glance at most of those items shows that the wearer can attack while wearing it. That is also a departure from PF's rules. So why aren't people up in arms about that? Where in all of literature are there invisibility items that break the state when you attack? Doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose, too? If I can be seen as soon as I attack someone, how am I supposed to carry out a stealth mission which involves attacking someone?
But we're only arguing about one difference.
Which is my point - you can't really look to outside literary references if you're not going to actually look to those outside literary references. It's hard to argue there is a flaw in PF's ring because it doesn't comport with other examples of similar items if you're not going to argue in favor of it having all the other common attributes of the same items.
Your GM may well also rule that you can't be using Stealth and speaking at the same time, though I don't see an explicit rule on it.Specifically: Invisible creature is... in combat or speaking. And that's a modifier to the DC to pinpoint your location, not to hear you say the command word.I'm talking about out of combat every 2 minutes so there's no possibility of things going wrong when you're likely +52 or more stealth which would be straight dice vs the great old ones at CR 30. If you have Level +5 base stealth the check is straight up impossible without using a spell/ability.From a stealthiness perspective isn't this moot? +40 on the turn you reactivate means it's nigh impossible to find you anyway.lot of things can happen in one round! ;)
You are skilled at avoiding detection, allowing you to slip past foes or strike from an unseen position. This skill covers hiding and moving silently.
I don't think 'hiding' or 'moving silently' really cover speaking.
And it's a different perception check to hear you speak anyway; it is not the same as pinpointing your location while invisible.
Ring of chameleon power is properly priced for +10 bonus squared times 100gp plus 1st level disguise self times caster level one times command word 1800 times 1.5 (duration 10 min/level)
THAT is a properly priced ring.
Your math is correct but the reasons are wrong. The second ability has a cost increase of 50% (multiplier of 1.5) because it is the second ability. If it were continuous pricing it would be CL*SL*2000*gp not CL*SL*1800gp.
You should really learn the rules.
Adding New Abilities
Sometimes, lack of funds or time make it impossible for a magic item crafter to create the desired item from scratch. Fortunately, it is possible to enhance or build upon an existing magic item. Only time, gold, and the various prerequisites required of the new ability to be added to the magic item restrict the type of additional powers one can place.
The cost to add additional abilities to an item is the same as if the item was not magical, less the value of the original item. Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal sword minus the cost of a +1 longsword.
If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character’s body, the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%. For example, if a character adds the power to confer invisibility to her ring of protection +2, the cost of adding this ability is the same as for creating a ring of invisibility multiplied by 1.5.
Malachi go to the ring section and quote the methods of activation then using those rules tell me how the ring works. Everyone else has ducked the question so far.nobody's ducked the question - there's two rules - command or something else. Then there's that other rule specifically saying that if hat or ring, mental unless command is specifically called for. Therefore if command is not stated --> mental
Please quote or provide the page number that states a Ring is mental activation unless otherwise called for. I provided the exact opposite quote.
Here it is again:
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.
I guess if you're going to repeat arguments, I'll repeat responses:
There are obvious balance reasons to break invisibility on attacking. That's also the basic way invisibility works in D&D. There are specified interactions between invisibility and detection spells and other means of detecting invisible creatures in D&D. I wouldn't expect any items to vary from the basic rules of the game.
However this one type of item bothers me, because I've never seen anything work this way in anything I've come across. The justifications seem very weak to me. Slightly stronger in the case of the Ring of Invisibility and other stealth items, but much less in cases like the boots: For all intents and purposes they're continuous items. With an annoying feature.
If I had an example of something in the genre that worked like that, I could look at how it was done and draw on how the author made it seem reasonable. It wouldn't have to be invisibility, any item that let the user do a thing continuously, but only with a command every few minutes.
My apologies. I didn't realize you are also graystone, who directly responded to me with that post.
And that there are obvious balance reasons to break invisibility on attack is irrelevant when the complaint raised by more than a few people in this thread (again, note that this isn't necessarily directed at you) amounts to: NAME ME ONE OTHER INVISIBILITY ITEM IN ALL OF LITERATURE THAT HAS A LIMITED DURATION!
Fine. Then name me one other invisibility item in all of literature that breaks its state when you make an attack.
So once again, I'm not addressing you.
And how many of those items do not follow the same limitations as PF's ring of invisibility? Do they all break their enchantment upon attack? Are they all limited to only one benefactor? Are there other means of detecting the invisible wearer?
My point was that there are far more examples of continuous use invisibility items than JUST Tolkiens ring. And none I could find that where limited to a few minutes.
And to be clear, we're having a debate on the feature of the ring that was FAQ'd. The duration. If a FAQ of one of those other features you talked about shows up, I'd debate on those too.
Even if you ignore all of literature and many players' expectations that stem from said literature, it just doesn't make logical sense for someone to create a ring that is more likely to get you caught then if you didn't have it in the first place. Why would anyone ever make such an item? Unless the creator was mad, or the item cursed, they generally wouldn't.
That's a big part of why a lot of us are unhappy with the ruling. There is a serious logical disconnect there.
|
|
Malachi go to the ring section and quote the methods of activation then using those rules tell me how the ring works. Everyone else has ducked the question so far.nobody's ducked the question - there's two rules - command or something else. Then there's that other rule specifically saying that if hat or ring, mental unless command is specifically called for. Therefore if command is not stated --> mentalPlease quote or provide the page number that states a Ring is mental activation unless otherwise called for. I provided the exact opposite quote.
Here it is again:
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.
couldn't be more plain than this. You should really read the rules
Malachi go to the ring section and quote the methods of activation then using those rules tell me how the ring works. Everyone else has ducked the question so far.nobody's ducked the question - there's two rules - command or something else. Then there's that other rule specifically saying that if hat or ring, mental unless command is specifically called for. Therefore if command is not stated --> mental
You are ducking it again. Quote where the general magic rules call out "rings" as being activated mentally. You cant because they dont. They give general rules. Then quote the ring section and the ring of invisibility and tell me what you get.
I am expecting more ducking.
|
|
And how many of those items do not follow the same limitations as PF's ring of invisibility? Do they all break their enchantment upon attack? Are they all limited to only one benefactor? Are there other means of detecting the invisible wearer?My point was that there are far more examples of continuous use invisibility items than JUST Tolkiens ring. And none I could find that where limited to a few minutes.
And to be clear, we're having a debate on the feature of the ring that was FAQ'd. The duration. If a FAQ of one of those other features you talked about shows up, I'd debate on those too.
Well that's pretty convenient then isn't it? "I'm going to complain that Pathfinder's ring only lasts 3 minutes because that's not what those others do, but I'm not going to complain that the invisibility ends when I attack because that's not what those others do".
Selective hearing at its finest.
|
|
Even if you ignore all of literature and many players' expectations that stem from said literature, it just doesn't make logical sense for someone to create a ring that is more likely to get you caught then if you didn't have it in the first place. Why would anyone ever make such an item? Unless they were made, or the itme cursed, they generally wouldn't.
That's a big part of why a lot of us are unhappy with the ruling. There is a serious logical disconnect there.
No, you all are unhappy because you're used to playing it in a way that didn't actually comport with the language in the rules, and when that is finally pointed out, you collectively get butt-hurt.
No one said you had to play it that way. It's the crappy attitude that comes along with the complaints that's a problem.
Even if you ignore all of literature and many players' expectations that stem from said literature, it just doesn't make logical sense for someone to create a ring that is more likely to get you caught then if you didn't have it in the first place. Why would anyone ever make such an item? Unless they were made, or the itme cursed, they generally wouldn't.
That's a big part of why a lot of us are unhappy with the ruling. There is a serious logical disconnect there.
Well is your objective is to have a weaker form of a ninja trick for combat, I guess it works. Who WOULDN'T want to get a sneak attack every other round... :P
And how many of those items do not follow the same limitations as PF's ring of invisibility? Do they all break their enchantment upon attack? Are they all limited to only one benefactor? Are there other means of detecting the invisible wearer?My point was that there are far more examples of continuous use invisibility items than JUST Tolkiens ring. And none I could find that where limited to a few minutes.
And to be clear, we're having a debate on the feature of the ring that was FAQ'd. The duration. If a FAQ of one of those other features you talked about shows up, I'd debate on those too.
Well that's pretty convenient then isn't it? "I'm going to complain that Pathfinder's ring only lasts 3 minutes because that's not what those others do, but I'm not going to complain that the invisibility ends when I attack because that's not what those others do".
Selective hearing at its finest.
No, I just have no need to go off topic. Duration IS the topic and the others aren't.
couldn't be more plain than this. You should really read the rulesMalachi go to the ring section and quote the methods of activation then using those rules tell me how the ring works. Everyone else has ducked the question so far.nobody's ducked the question - there's two rules - command or something else. Then there's that other rule specifically saying that if hat or ring, mental unless command is specifically called for. Therefore if command is not stated --> mentalPlease quote or provide the page number that states a Ring is mental activation unless otherwise called for. I provided the exact opposite quote.
Here it is again:
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.
Read the entire text not just the bolded part. It also says or "its affects work continuously".
That rules out the"or" section.The other option at the be nd references "unusual activation" that is mentioned in the ring's description. Well that is not in the ring's description either.
The only option left in the ring section are the command words. If you see another option in the ring section quote it.
Your GM may well also rule that you can't be using Stealth and speaking at the same time, though I don't see an explicit rule on it.Specifically: Invisible creature is... in combat or speaking. And that's a modifier to the DC to pinpoint your location, not to hear you say the command word.I'm talking about out of combat every 2 minutes so there's no possibility of things going wrong when you're likely +52 or more stealth which would be straight dice vs the great old ones at CR 30. If you have Level +5 base stealth the check is straight up impossible without using a spell/ability.From a stealthiness perspective isn't this moot? +40 on the turn you reactivate means it's nigh impossible to find you anyway.lot of things can happen in one round! ;)You are skilled at avoiding detection, allowing you to slip past foes or strike from an unseen position. This skill covers hiding and moving silently.I don't think 'hiding' or 'moving silently' really cover speaking.
And it's a different perception check to hear you speak anyway; it is not the same as pinpointing your location while invisible.I'm not sure where you're coming from?
Are you saying you would allow a character to talk and remain hidden with no more than a check for people to hear what he was saying, but it wouldn't help them find him?Really, you're not moving silently, if you're talking, no matter how quiet your feet are.
There are two different checks I'm referring to:
The perception check to pinpoint an invisible creature's location.The perception check to hear a creature speaking.
I was addressing Purple Dragon saying that needing to say the command word aloud would not matter because it would be hard to find you due to the bonuses to stealth from invisibility. So, I pointed out the penalty related to speaking while invisible. As well, I pointed out that hearing an invisible creature speak is different from pinpointing their exact location.
If you are invisible, speaking makes it easier to find you. And being invisible does not make it harder to hear you speak. That's what I was trying to get at.