fretgod99 |
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.
Then pay more money for a continuous one. There's no price for it, but I'm sure you and your GM can find something worthwhile. I'd maybe put it at 30K.
Gauss |
Gauss wrote:couldn't be more plain than this. You should really read the rulesPurple Dragon Knight wrote:wraithstrike wrote: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:
CRB p478 Rings wrote: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.
You are absolutely correct, it is quite plain. Rings are either Command Word or Continuous unless spelled out in the ring's description. That is exactly what it states in the above quote.
How you then take it to mean 'Mental Activation' is, baffling.
Once again, I will ask: Do you have proof that it is Mental Activation? Please quote the book, page number, and text.
I have provided proof to the contrary.
fretgod99 |
No, I just have no need to go off topic. Duration IS the topic and the others aren't.
Yes, duration is the topic. But if the complaint is it doesn't work like other items in literature in regard to duration, my response is that it doesn't work like other items in literature for other reasons, too. So why would you expect the duration issue to be the same as other sources when other issues aren't, either?
wraithstrike |
HangarFlying wrote:Ravingdork wrote: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.
Dude, how about you stop with the insults and inventing other people's motivations for the discussion. It's a real dick move. You don't know me, and you don't know the other people in the discussion, so how about you just focus on the arguments instead of making it personal.
I don't play with the ring the way it is, and I don't play with it the way I thought it was. It's just not a good enough item to spend the gold on, command word or not.
Ravingdork actually admitted he thought it was stupid and he was not used to playing it that way.
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
Btw, you know that you were indeed wrong about the ring before the year 2000...it's ok to admit it.
Wasn't wrong. 1983 to now the ring worked the same way as it does now. At will command word provides the spell. Prior to 2000 the spell had 24 hr duration or no duration.
That doesn't change my statement, that the ring is at will command word.
HangarFlying |
Dude, how about you stop with the insults and inventing other people's motivations for the discussion. It's a real dick move. You don't know me, and you don't know the other people in the discussion, so how about you just focus on the arguments instead of making it personal.
I'm not make it personal. I was making a statement of observable fact. Though it does sound like someone else is making it personal.
I don't play with the ring the way it is, and I don't play with it the way I thought it was. It's just not a good enough item to spend the gold on, command word or not.
I'm confused, so how did you play with the ring, or was it just never in any of your games.
Cevah |
Multiple different abilities Multiply lower item cost by 1.5
Nope. Later enchantments are +50%
Found in the FAQs for UM (after looking in CRB and APG):FAQ 1 "The text on page 143 is correct."
FAQ 2 "The text on page 153 is correct."
FAQ 3 "The text on page 157 is correct."
It seems text is preferred to table in the FAQs.
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:
CRB p478 Rings wrote: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 provided the link and text in this post above.
Again, here is the referenced text from the PRD: Use ActivatedMany 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.
Unless stated otherwise, activating a use-activated magic item is either a standard action or not an action at all and does not provoke attacks of opportunity, unless the use involves performing an action that provokes an attack of opportunity in itself. If the use of the item takes time before a magical effect occurs, then use activation is a standard action. If the item's activation is subsumed in its use and takes no extra time use, activation is not an action at all.
Use activation doesn't mean that if you use an item, you automatically know what it can do. You must know (or at least guess) what the item can do and then use the item in order to activate it, unless the benefit of the item comes automatically, such as from drinking a potion or swinging a sword.
/cevah
graystone |
graystone wrote:No, I just have no need to go off topic. Duration IS the topic and the others aren't.Yes, duration is the topic. But if the complaint is it doesn't work like other items in literature in regard to duration, my response is that it doesn't work like other items in literature for other reasons, too. So why would you expect the duration issue to be the same as other sources when other issues aren't, either?
How invisibility works in the game and the duration of the item are indeed to different issues. My like or dislike for the other factors being the same or different than the classic examples of invisibility items have nothing to do with my opinion of it's current duration.
Please keep on topic.
HangarFlying |
Cevah, you quoted the general rule for magic items, the rule for rings is specific in that it calls out a command word unless otherwise described.
The ring specific rule trumps the magic item general rule.
The ring description trumps the general ring rule.
Since ring of invisibility doesn't have a specific activating requirement, you fall back to the ring general rule in that it requires a command word to activate. This is supplemented by the "use activated" rule in which it says it needs to be worn in order to be activated (and remember, the use activated rule does allow for command word activation, of which the ring rule specifies).
Ravingdork |
_Ozy_ wrote:Ravingdork actually admitted he thought it was stupid and he was not used to playing it that way.HangarFlying wrote:Ravingdork wrote: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.
Dude, how about you stop with the insults and inventing other people's motivations for the discussion. It's a real dick move. You don't know me, and you don't know the other people in the discussion, so how about you just focus on the arguments instead of making it personal.
I don't play with the ring the way it is, and I don't play with it the way I thought it was. It's just not a good enough item to spend the gold on, command word or not.
lol. Meant to say "Unless the creator was mad, or the item cursed, they generally wouldn't [make it that way]." Edited my previous post for clarity.
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
I provided the link and text in this post above.
Again, here is the referenced text from the PRD: Use Activated
** spoiler omitted **...
Except the ring isn't use activated because you don't touch the ring to make someone invis. You also don't swing the ring about.
So you are left with "command word".
HangarFlying |
fretgod99 wrote:graystone wrote:No, I just have no need to go off topic. Duration IS the topic and the others aren't.Yes, duration is the topic. But if the complaint is it doesn't work like other items in literature in regard to duration, my response is that it doesn't work like other items in literature for other reasons, too. So why would you expect the duration issue to be the same as other sources when other issues aren't, either?How invisibility works in the game and the duration of the item are indeed to different issues. My like or dislike for the other factors being the same or different than the classic examples of invisibility items have nothing to do with my opinion of it's current duration.
Please keep on topic.
I'm sure you're aware of what the point he is trying to make is, you seem to be willfully ignorant and avoiding his comments—which are relevant to the discussion.
graystone |
graystone wrote:I'm sure you're aware of what the point he is trying to make is, you seem to be willfully ignorant and avoiding his comments—which are relevant to the discussion.fretgod99 wrote:graystone wrote:No, I just have no need to go off topic. Duration IS the topic and the others aren't.Yes, duration is the topic. But if the complaint is it doesn't work like other items in literature in regard to duration, my response is that it doesn't work like other items in literature for other reasons, too. So why would you expect the duration issue to be the same as other sources when other issues aren't, either?How invisibility works in the game and the duration of the item are indeed to different issues. My like or dislike for the other factors being the same or different than the classic examples of invisibility items have nothing to do with my opinion of it's current duration.
Please keep on topic.
I'm aware of it and I don't agree. I feel it off topic and he's just trying to cloud the waters. SO I ignore them as not being relevant in this debate. I may like my invisibility ring gold and not brass or cloaks vs ring but that has nothing to do with the FAQ or the debates over it.
fretgod99 |
fretgod99 wrote:graystone wrote:No, I just have no need to go off topic. Duration IS the topic and the others aren't.Yes, duration is the topic. But if the complaint is it doesn't work like other items in literature in regard to duration, my response is that it doesn't work like other items in literature for other reasons, too. So why would you expect the duration issue to be the same as other sources when other issues aren't, either?How invisibility works in the game and the duration of the item are indeed to different issues. My like or dislike for the other factors being the same or different than the classic examples of invisibility items have nothing to do with my opinion of it's current duration.
Please keep on topic.
Right. And duration of invisibility is in the game. So again, why is the duration of items in other sources relevant?
Please keep on topic.
Gauss |
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:Multiple different abilities Multiply lower item cost by 1.5Nope. Later enchantments are +50%
Found in the FAQs for UM (after looking in CRB and APG):
FAQ 1 "The text on page 143 is correct."
FAQ 2 "The text on page 153 is correct."
FAQ 3 "The text on page 157 is correct."
It seems text is preferred to table in the FAQs.Gauss wrote: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:
CRB p478 Rings wrote: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 provided the link and text in this post above.
Again, here is the referenced text from the PRD: Use Activated
** spoiler omitted **...
So, you are again quoting the wrong rule and using that as your proof? Interesting. :)
That quote has been bandied about for quite some time now and has been definitively proven as not relevant to the Ring of Invisibility because the ring is not "Use Activated". Thus, the rule you provided does not apply.
1) The section on rings states they are Command Word, Continuous, or by description.
2) The Ring in question does not state any specific activation method so by description does not apply.
3) The Ring in question is not continuous so that does not apply.
4) Thus, it is Command Word. This is supported by the pricing in the GameMastery Guide.
5) "Command Word" cannot use the Rules for "Use Activated" although "Use Activated" can use the rules for "Command Word".
Its the same concept as "a Human is a Mammal but a Mammal is not a Human".
Do you have any other rules to quote or is this the only one?
thejeff |
So I guess the basic counter to my argument is that Continuous really is worth more than twice as much as short but as often as you're willing to say the command, because of reasons. Which is a huge stretch for the Ring, but entirely out of reach for the boots of levitation and probably other items as well.
And that the metagame hassle of tracking rounds anytime the items are in use is irrelevant for some other reason that no one has mentioned. Most likely that everyone handwaves it.
graystone |
graystone wrote:fretgod99 wrote:graystone wrote:No, I just have no need to go off topic. Duration IS the topic and the others aren't.Yes, duration is the topic. But if the complaint is it doesn't work like other items in literature in regard to duration, my response is that it doesn't work like other items in literature for other reasons, too. So why would you expect the duration issue to be the same as other sources when other issues aren't, either?How invisibility works in the game and the duration of the item are indeed to different issues. My like or dislike for the other factors being the same or different than the classic examples of invisibility items have nothing to do with my opinion of it's current duration.
Please keep on topic.
Right. And duration of invisibility is in the game. So again, why is the duration of items in other sources relevant?
Please keep on topic.
Continuous items are, so it's not. Just because I'm not taking your bait doesn't mean you have to be a jerk.
Charender |
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.
It is worse than that. People keep refenrecing the pricing discussion, but the price was set during 3.0.
In 3.0 the duration of invisibility was 10 rounds / level.
In 3.0 the cost of a Use-activated item was Spell Level x Caster Level x 2000, which means the price for a use activated ring of invisibility would have beem 2 x 3 x 2000 -> 12000. So 20,000 is still more than a use activated ring of invisibility would have been.
The price has been 20,000 since 3.0, if you want to even try to reverse engineer it, you have to use all of the 3.0 rules.
Gauss |
Charender, that might be true IF the Paizo Devs did not specifically call out the pricing in the GameMastery Guide.
We are not reverse engineering it using 3.0 rules. We are quoting the Pathfinder book that the Paizo Devs have published.
Lets put that another way, do we have to use all 3.0 rules for Armor Class? No, we use the Pathfinder books and Pathfinder rules.
The Pathfinder GameMastery Guide states that the Ring of Invisibility was priced at 10,800gp and then raised to 20,000gp because it was deemed that the ring was too powerful at 10,800gp.
fretgod99 |
fretgod99 wrote:Continuous items are, so it's not. Just because I'm not taking your bait doesn't mean you have to be a jerk.graystone wrote:fretgod99 wrote:graystone wrote:No, I just have no need to go off topic. Duration IS the topic and the others aren't.Yes, duration is the topic. But if the complaint is it doesn't work like other items in literature in regard to duration, my response is that it doesn't work like other items in literature for other reasons, too. So why would you expect the duration issue to be the same as other sources when other issues aren't, either?How invisibility works in the game and the duration of the item are indeed to different issues. My like or dislike for the other factors being the same or different than the classic examples of invisibility items have nothing to do with my opinion of it's current duration.
Please keep on topic.
Right. And duration of invisibility is in the game. So again, why is the duration of items in other sources relevant?
Please keep on topic.
I'm not being a jerk. I'm simply demonstrating why other literary references aren't necessarily helpful or relevant. Either you talk about them in their entirety or you do not talk about them at all. Doing less is disingenuous.
Malachi Silverclaw |
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.
Okay. : )
By activating this simple silver ring, the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell.
Doesn't say whether it's activated by command word or by silent act of will.
Okay, go to the general rules for activating rings:-
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.
Breaking this down, most rings (and therefore not ALL rings) are either command word or continuous. There are some that have 'unusual' activation methods, stated in their description.
Like it or not, this leaves room for 'silent act of will', even if that isn't one of the 'usual' two ways.
So, go to the general rules for activating magic items.
In these general rules, we learn that we have four options that could, in theory, fit this ring:-
• command word
• use activated/continuous
• use activated/activated by silent act of will
• use activated/activated by command word
We know, for a fact, that this ring is use activated but must be both worn AND activated, but although we know that (because this ring is actually used as THE example of the kind of item that is use activated but must be worn and then activated), it doesn't directly say whether it is activated by a silent act of will or by a command word.
That is, until later in the 'use activated' section:-
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.
The upshot of this is that, for an item which must be worn and then activated, if it says it's activated by a command word then it is, but if it doesn't say, then it's activated by silent act of will. The ring doesn't say, so it must be activated by a silent act of will.
Although the section on activating rings allows for silent act of will (because they are not ALWAYS command word/continuous, only USUALLY command word/continuous), the rules for 'use activated/must be worn and then activated' items don't leave any wiggle room; to be 'command word' it MUST say 'command word'. If it says nothing, then it's 'silent act of will'. No wiggle room.
I hope you don't think that this is 'ducking the question'. : )
Purple Dragon Knight |
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:Gauss wrote:couldn't be more plain than this. You should really read the rulesPurple Dragon Knight wrote:wraithstrike wrote: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:
CRB p478 Rings wrote: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.You are absolutely correct, it is quite plain. Rings are either Command Word or Continuous unless spelled out in the ring's description. That is exactly what it states in the above quote.
How you then take it to mean 'Mental Activation' is, baffling.
Once again, I will ask: Do you have proof that it is Mental Activation? Please quote the book, page number, and text.I have provided proof to the contrary.
"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."
HangarFlying |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, the phrasing implies that the usually is likely limited to command word. If it's not command word, it's continuous. In the rare event that another activation method is relevant, that method will be specified.
Um, yeah, pretty much this. Do we need to bring in the English teacher to do a sentence diagram?
wraithstrike |
replies
Well, I can't say you ducked the question but you are still wrong because you claimed that the ring must also call out for a command word in its description.
To quote you"
The upshot of this is that, for an item which must be worn and then activated, if it says it's activated by a command word then it is, but if it doesn't say, then it's activated by silent act of will. The ring doesn't say, so it must be activated by a silent act of will.
You said most rings use command words. So who do we tell if they don't say it in the description which they should according to you.
However not one ring calls out command word as a method of activation in the CRB. So if that is the usual method of activation, and yet no ring calls for it then it must stand that it is not needed to be listed in the description because the rules have already stated that it is the usual method.
So are you saying that none of the rings are command word activated, they are but the devs just forgot to write it for every ring that would have required it, or will you admit that the silent method is not the answer?
I will wait for your reply.
edit: The only ring which calls out a command word is the ring of transposition(not in the CRB) because it has two magical affects. One is to bind it to another ring by touching, and the other affect which is the command word, activates a dimension door type affect. No, it does not use the spell. It allows for the two people with the bound rings to trade places.
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
I hope you don't think that this is 'ducking the question'. : )
I'm afraid I do still think this is ducking.
Rings are either command word or continuous based on the rings section. If the ring is unusual, it will indicate how to activate it. Ring of Invisibility doesn't indicate it is unusual and isn't continuous. Therefore it is command word activated.
You are quoting use activated rules, but no rings are use activated.
Uwotm8 |
No, it's simply subject to reading the rest of the magic item rules. To say rings aren't command word by default is ignoring those rules. To insist they're not after having that pointed out to you several times is to no longer be interested in the rules making your presence in this thread disruptive for no other reason than you wanting to shout everyone else down.
wraithstrike |
I see lots of rings that say "on command". Those are command word activated. Everything else is subject to interpretation.
"On command" is not the same as a command word. "On command" is when the controller desires", just like "at will" works for SLA's.
They could have just simply had "command word" in the description like they did for the one ring in Ultimate Combat.
Of course when the PDT team says that command word, is the default you will probably just say they are wrong about that also.
thejeff |
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:I see lots of rings that say "on command". Those are command word activated. Everything else is subject to interpretation."On command" is not the same as a command word. "On command" is when the controller desires", just like "at will" works for SLA's.
They could have just simply had "command word" in the description like they did for the one ring in Ultimate Combat.
Of course when the PDT team says that command word, is the default you will probably just say they are wrong about that also.
Wait. Are you saying that the rings that say "on command" aren't "Command word" activated?
Or just that "on command" rings aren't the only ones that are "Command word"?
thejeff |
thejeff wrote:LOL! wow! I think wraithstrike is arguing for the sake of arguing at this point. For the record: yes, I think that "on command" does indeed mean "command word activated" :)Wait. Are you saying that the rings that say "on command" aren't "Command word" activated?
I think you're saying that only those that say "on command" are known to be "command word activated".
I think he's saying that all the on command means is that the wearer can activate it whenever he wants, but that the way to do so is using a command word, since that is the default way to activate a ring.
I commented because my first read of '"On command" is not the same as a command word. "On command" is when the controller desires"' was that it happens when the controller wants it to, with no need for a specific command word. I'm pretty sure that's not what he intended to say.
_Ozy_ |
_Ozy_ wrote:Ravingdork actually admitted he thought it was stupid and he was not used to playing it that way.HangarFlying wrote:Ravingdork wrote: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.
Dude, how about you stop with the insults and inventing other people's motivations for the discussion. It's a real dick move. You don't know me, and you don't know the other people in the discussion, so how about you just focus on the arguments instead of making it personal.
I don't play with the ring the way it is, and I don't play with it the way I thought it was. It's just not a good enough item to spend the gold on, command word or not.
If Ravingdork was 'you all' as referred to by HF, then the comment might be justified. Again, why make it personal? 'butt-hurt'? Really? What are we all, twelve? 'Crappy attitude'? Simply no need for this.
_Ozy_ |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
_Ozy_ wrote:I'm not make it personal. I was making a statement of observable fact. Though it does sound like someone else is making it personal.Dude, how about you stop with the insults and inventing other people's motivations for the discussion. It's a real dick move. You don't know me, and you don't know the other people in the discussion, so how about you just focus on the arguments instead of making it personal.
Nope, sorry dude, when you make up motivations for the people in the discussion, call their attitude crappy, and say that they are 'butt-hurt' because they don't like the rules, you are not stating 'observable fact'.
You're stating personal insults.
That also happen to be incorrect.
It's also unnecessary. Why not just stick to the discussion at hand instead of inventing the extraneous crap?
I'm confused, so how did you play with the ring, or was it just never in any of your games.I don't play with the ring the way it is, and I don't play with it the way I thought it was. It's just not a good enough item to spend the gold on, command word or not.
It's never been in any of my 3.5/PF games. As I said, it's too crappy for the $. There's way too much better stuff for 20k. I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks so, go look at the various build optimizations for Pathfinder, I'll bet you you won't find a ring of invisibility recommended among them. For example, Rogue Eidolon's Rogue guild rates the Ring of Invisibility as orange (kinda crappy).
Can you think of any build that is better off with a ring of invisibility instead of that 20k spent on another item(s)?
thejeff |
Ravingdork wrote: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.
Actually, I'm very mildly upset for a number of reasons: First that the rule on duration is very unclear, being hidden behind the "the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell" language. Which is why the FAQ in the first place.
Yes, I'm aware all you brilliant rules lawyers figured it out at a glance. Many people didn't.This also leads to unobvious and possibly changes in function. It's possible that the 3.5 designers discussed the effects of the change in duration of the Invisibility spell both on the balance of the actual spell and the item and came to the conclusion that the Ring really did need a shorter duration to be properly balanced, but I think it's far more likely they changed the spell for its own reasons and the item simply followed along without any real consideration. In fact, I strongly doubt the effects of the duration of the item were ever considered at all, though I obviously can't prove either. I'm not fond in general of ripple effect game design.
Second, I still find the mere concept of short duration, unlimited use buffs irritating. Regardless of whether it was actually intended from the beginning or just some developer's later interpretation of what "as the spell" applied to, it's a very marginal limitation to justify a huge cost reduction (hand waved back up in the case of the Ring) and in play it'll either be a large bump in complexity or just get hand-waved away.
Again, bad game design.
But, I suppose I'm really just butt-hurt because somebody pointed out I was wrong.
thejeff |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
HangarFlying wrote:_Ozy_ wrote:I'm not make it personal. I was making a statement of observable fact. Though it does sound like someone else is making it personal.Dude, how about you stop with the insults and inventing other people's motivations for the discussion. It's a real dick move. You don't know me, and you don't know the other people in the discussion, so how about you just focus on the arguments instead of making it personal.
Nope, sorry dude, when you make up motivations for the people in the discussion, call their attitude crappy, and say that they are 'butt-hurt' because they don't like the rules, you are not stating 'observable fact'.
You're stating personal insults.
That also happen to be incorrect.
It's also unnecessary. Why not just stick to the discussion at hand instead of inventing the extraneous crap?
_Ozy_ wrote:I'm confused, so how did you play with the ring, or was it just never in any of your games.I don't play with the ring the way it is, and I don't play with it the way I thought it was. It's just not a good enough item to spend the gold on, command word or not.
It's never been in any of my 3.5/PF games. As I said, it's too crappy for the $. There's way too much better stuff for 20k. I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks so, go look at the various build optimizations for Pathfinder, I'll bet you you won't find a ring of invisibility recommended among them. For example, Rogue Eidolon's Rogue guild rates the Ring of Invisibility as orange (kinda crappy).
Can you think of any build that is better off with a ring of invisibility instead of that 20k spent on another item(s)?
It's actually kind of hard to justify taking the ring instead of spending the cash on wands of invisibility. You can get 200 uses for the same investment and a lot of stealth builds will want UMD anyway (or have access without it). You can also start using it much earlier.
The only thing you can't do is stay invisible all the time.
_Ozy_ |
_Ozy_ wrote:Btw, you know that you were indeed wrong about the ring before the year 2000...it's ok to admit it.Wasn't wrong. 1983 to now the ring worked the same way as it does now. At will command word provides the spell. Prior to 2000 the spell had 24 hr duration or no duration.
That doesn't change my statement, that the ring is at will command word.
2nd addition was 'at-will' activation. If you break invisibility by attacking, you turn invisible on the next round.
Additionally, your original statement was that you played with command word AND duration since 1983.
So, both your use of a command word, and your use of a duration were wrong.
You are wrong on both counts.
Here is the text:
Ring of Invisibility
(Source: Dungeon Masters Guide, 2nd Edition):
The wearer of an invisibility ring is able to become invisible at will, instantly. This nonvisible state is exactly the same as the wizard invisibility spell, except that 10% of these rings have inaudibility as well, making the wearer absolutely silent. If the wearer wishes to speak, he breaks all silence features in order to do so.
In fact, in 2nd edition the default was 'use-activated' or 'at-will'. If a command word was needed, it was explicitly mentioned in the ring description such as the Ring of Blinking.
In fact, even for Staves, Rods, and Wands Command Words were an 'optional rule' as follows:
Command Words (Optional Rule)
Like rods and staves, wands can require the utterance of a command word (or phrase) to operate, and like these other items, the key is seldom found in the lock. The DM can rule that the command word is etched in magical writing on the wand (requiring a read magic to translate) or he can make the characters resort to such methods as commune spells and expensive sages. If you choose not to use this option, ignore references to command words in the item descriptions below— all items simply work.
So, are you positively sure that you used a Ring of Invisibility with a command word since 1983, like you claimed?
HangarFlying |
If Ravingdork was 'you all' as referred to by HF, then the comment might be justified. Again, why make it personal? 'butt-hurt'? Really? What are we all, twelve? 'Crappy attitude'? Simply no need for this.
If I wasn't on my phone, I would direct your attention to the Monk FoB thread, the countless number of Bastard Sword threads, the THW and TWF with spiked gauntlets thread, and numerous others to show you that it's a systemic issue for the camp that disagrees with the PDT to give a crappy attitude and show much butt-hurt.
So here in this thread we have people calling it a stupid rule and other such childish comments and I call you all out on it and I'm the one with the childish behavior?
It's clockwork. It's a safe bet that there will be people who disagree with a ruling in a manner that shows they are butt-hurt by the ruling and then . And you can always tell who those people are by the way they argue their position in the thread leading up to the decision.
So, my comments are justifiable, and they are based upon observable fact.
_Ozy_ |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
_Ozy_ wrote:
If Ravingdork was 'you all' as referred to by HF, then the comment might be justified. Again, why make it personal? 'butt-hurt'? Really? What are we all, twelve? 'Crappy attitude'? Simply no need for this.If I wasn't on my phone, I would direct your attention to the Monk FoB thread, the countless number of Bastard Sword threads, the THW and TWF with spiked gauntlets thread, and numerous others to show you that it's a systemic issue for the camp that disagrees with the PDT to give a crappy attitude and show much butt-hurt.
So here in this thread we have people calling it a stupid rule and other such childish comments and I call you all out on it and I'm the one with the childish behavior?
It's clockwork. It's a safe bet that there will be people who disagree with a ruling in a manner that shows they are butt-hurt by the ruling and then . And you can always tell who those people are by the way they argue their position in the thread leading up to the decision.
So, my comments are justifiable, and they are based upon observable fact.
Calling something a stupid rule is a matter of opinion, it's not a personal attack on anyone.
Calling someone butt-hurt because you disagree with their opinion is juvenile, insulting, and unnecessary. Doubling-down and defending such behavior instead of apologizing and moving on just highlights your character all the more. If you can't see that by now, well I doubt anyone will be able to convince you otherwise. Good day.
thejeff |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
_Ozy_ wrote:
If Ravingdork was 'you all' as referred to by HF, then the comment might be justified. Again, why make it personal? 'butt-hurt'? Really? What are we all, twelve? 'Crappy attitude'? Simply no need for this.If I wasn't on my phone, I would direct your attention to the Monk FoB thread, the countless number of Bastard Sword threads, the THW and TWF with spiked gauntlets thread, and numerous others to show you that it's a systemic issue for the camp that disagrees with the PDT to give a crappy attitude and show much butt-hurt.
So here in this thread we have people calling it a stupid rule and other such childish comments and I call you all out on it and I'm the one with the childish behavior?
It's clockwork. It's a safe bet that there will be people who disagree with a ruling in a manner that shows they are butt-hurt by the ruling and then . And you can always tell who those people are by the way they argue their position in the thread leading up to the decision.
So, my comments are justifiable, and they are based upon observable fact.
Is "stupid rule" inherently a "childish comment"? Are all rules equally non-stupid by their inherent rules nature? Are stupid rules even possible?
I've also explained at some why I thought it was a stupid rule, but have gotten mostly silence in response.
Also, if you're going to draw in other threads and use them to categorize everyone taking a position on a particular issue as a "camp", it might be a good idea to see if it's actually the same people or if you're assuming that there is a camp of people who disagree with the PDT in all the threads, or if different people disagree on different issues and there is no such childish camp.
HangarFlying |
HangarFlying wrote:_Ozy_ wrote:
If Ravingdork was 'you all' as referred to by HF, then the comment might be justified. Again, why make it personal? 'butt-hurt'? Really? What are we all, twelve? 'Crappy attitude'? Simply no need for this.If I wasn't on my phone, I would direct your attention to the Monk FoB thread, the countless number of Bastard Sword threads, the THW and TWF with spiked gauntlets thread, and numerous others to show you that it's a systemic issue for the camp that disagrees with the PDT to give a crappy attitude and show much butt-hurt.
So here in this thread we have people calling it a stupid rule and other such childish comments and I call you all out on it and I'm the one with the childish behavior?
It's clockwork. It's a safe bet that there will be people who disagree with a ruling in a manner that shows they are butt-hurt by the ruling and then . And you can always tell who those people are by the way they argue their position in the thread leading up to the decision.
So, my comments are justifiable, and they are based upon observable fact.
Calling something a stupid rule is a matter of opinion, it's not a personal attack on anyone.
Calling someone butt-hurt because you disagree with their opinion is juvenile, insulting, and unnecessary. Doubling-down and defending such behavior instead of apologizing and moving on just highlights your character all the more. If you can't see that by now, well I doubt anyone will be able to convince you otherwise. Good day.
I'm not saying that someone is butt-hurt because I disagree with their position, I'm saying that their tone and the manner in which they voice their displeasure indicates their level of butt-hurtitude. There is a difference, and it's something that you apparently didn't pick up on.
HangarFlying |
Is "stupid rule" inherently a "childish comment"? Are all rules equally non-stupid by their inherent rules nature? Are stupid rules even possible?
I've also explained at some why I thought it was a stupid rule, but have gotten mostly silence in response.
Also, if you're going to draw in other threads and use them to categorize everyone taking a position on a particular issue as a "camp", it might be a good idea to see if it's actually the same people or if you're assuming that there is a camp of people who disagree with the PDT in all the threads, or if different people disagree on different issues and there is no such childish camp.
The "camp" I am referring to doesn't mean "the same people are always disagreeing", rather the "camp" is in reference to those people that disagree in a vitriolic manner. Saying things along the line of "this is stupid" puts you squarely in that camp.
thejeff |
_Ozy_ wrote:I'm not saying that someone is butt-hurt because I disagree with their position, I'm saying that their tone and the manner in which they voice their displeasure indicates their level of butt-hurtitude. There is a difference, and it's something that you apparently didn't pick up on.HangarFlying wrote:_Ozy_ wrote:
If Ravingdork was 'you all' as referred to by HF, then the comment might be justified. Again, why make it personal? 'butt-hurt'? Really? What are we all, twelve? 'Crappy attitude'? Simply no need for this.If I wasn't on my phone, I would direct your attention to the Monk FoB thread, the countless number of Bastard Sword threads, the THW and TWF with spiked gauntlets thread, and numerous others to show you that it's a systemic issue for the camp that disagrees with the PDT to give a crappy attitude and show much butt-hurt.
So here in this thread we have people calling it a stupid rule and other such childish comments and I call you all out on it and I'm the one with the childish behavior?
It's clockwork. It's a safe bet that there will be people who disagree with a ruling in a manner that shows they are butt-hurt by the ruling and then . And you can always tell who those people are by the way they argue their position in the thread leading up to the decision.
So, my comments are justifiable, and they are based upon observable fact.
Calling something a stupid rule is a matter of opinion, it's not a personal attack on anyone.
Calling someone butt-hurt because you disagree with their opinion is juvenile, insulting, and unnecessary. Doubling-down and defending such behavior instead of apologizing and moving on just highlights your character all the more. If you can't see that by now, well I doubt anyone will be able to convince you otherwise. Good day.
Except that you were applying it to everyone in general.
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.
Uwotm8 |
From a game rules design perspective, it is an objectively bad rule.
Rules that add more book keeping than influence on the game are bad rules.
Not necessarily true. Because of how command words work, you should be able to simply state a goal and let it fly with sheer roleplay. Since they can explicitly be activate by words in a simple conversation, the faintest of whispers should work. A GM that doesn't let that fly is a GM that doesn't want the item to work in the first place which means you have other issues going on.
HangarFlying |
HangarFlying wrote:_Ozy_ wrote:I'm not saying that someone is butt-hurt because I disagree with their position, I'm saying that their tone and the manner in which they voice their displeasure indicates their level of butt-hurtitude. There is a difference, and it's something that you apparently didn't pick up on.HangarFlying wrote:_Ozy_ wrote:
If Ravingdork was 'you all' as referred to by HF, then the comment might be justified. Again, why make it personal? 'butt-hurt'? Really? What are we all, twelve? 'Crappy attitude'? Simply no need for this.If I wasn't on my phone, I would direct your attention to the Monk FoB thread, the countless number of Bastard Sword threads, the THW and TWF with spiked gauntlets thread, and numerous others to show you that it's a systemic issue for the camp that disagrees with the PDT to give a crappy attitude and show much butt-hurt.
So here in this thread we have people calling it a stupid rule and other such childish comments and I call you all out on it and I'm the one with the childish behavior?
It's clockwork. It's a safe bet that there will be people who disagree with a ruling in a manner that shows they are butt-hurt by the ruling and then . And you can always tell who those people are by the way they argue their position in the thread leading up to the decision.
So, my comments are justifiable, and they are based upon observable fact.
Calling something a stupid rule is a matter of opinion, it's not a personal attack on anyone.
Calling someone butt-hurt because you disagree with their opinion is juvenile, insulting, and unnecessary. Doubling-down and defending such behavior instead of apologizing and moving on just highlights your character all the more. If you can't see that by now, well I doubt anyone will be able to convince you otherwise. Good day.
Except that you were applying it to everyone in general.
Quote:No, you all are unhappy because you're used to playing it in a way that didn't...
Yeah, and? Generally, the detractors in this thread weren't happy with the "house rule it if you disagree" response. "You guys" continued with why "you" felt that the PDT was wrong.