On the duration of hats of disguise and rings of invisibility

[thejeff]

HangarFlying wrote:

thejeff wrote:

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.

"It's a stupid rule" is vitriolic?

And "you collectively get butt-hurt" isn't?

Can you suggest a better, but still pithy, way to phrase my opinion of the rule?
Gaberlunzie's "objectively bad rule", perhaps?

I believe I also used "silly". Is that also vitriolic?

Do I have to got to effusive praise? How about: This is a brilliant rule. I particularly like the way you can get a large discount (less than half price) from the continuous effect, while being only slightly less useful. The fact that it adds complexity and requires round to round tracking of out of combat actions, if the limit isn't to be simply handwaved away adds to the elegance of the design.

Nah, I suspect that's childish.

[thejeff]

Uwotm8 wrote:

Gaberlunzie wrote:

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.

But since you explicitly have to activate it every three minutes or it turns off, at any time when it might be important when you become visible (or stop levitating, or lose your disguise or anything else), you need to know when it was last activated, which means you need to be tracking rounds.

Or just handwave/roleplay it and assume it's just working.

In which case, it's not a limitation and shouldn't be priced as one. It's either adding more book keeping or having less influence on the game.

[Purple Dragon Knight]

thejeff wrote:

It's never been in any of my 3.5/PF games. As I said, it's too crappy for the $.

This

[Purple Dragon Knight]

thejeff wrote:

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Wait. Are you saying that the rings that say "on command" aren't "Command word" activated?

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" :)

I think you're saying that only those that say "on command" are known to be "command word activated".

That's how I play it yes. Unless you say the word command in there, let creativity and imagination rule the battlefield! :)

[thejeff]

Uwotm8 wrote:

Gaberlunzie wrote:

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.

Also, is there a source for that being how command words work?

Without such, I'd have to assume that, like spell casting and some other verbal magical effects, they have to be spoken in a fairly loud, clear manner.

[Purple Dragon Knight]

The combat section of the core rules has this little tidbit:

"Activate Magic Item
Many magic items don't need to be activated. Certain magic items, however, do need to be activated, especially potions, scrolls, wands, rods, and staves. Unless otherwise noted, activating a magic item is a standard action.

Spell Completion Items: Activating a spell completion item is the equivalent of casting a spell. It requires concentration and provokes attacks of opportunity. You lose the spell if your concentration is broken, and you can attempt to activate the item while on the defensive, as with casting a spell.

Spell Trigger, Command Word, or Use-Activated Items: Activating any of these kinds of items does not require concentration and does not provoke attacks of opportunity."

[HangarFlying]

thejeff wrote:

Uwotm8 wrote:

Gaberlunzie wrote:

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.

Also, is there a source for that being how command words work?

Without such, I'd have to assume that, like spell casting and some other verbal magical effects, they have to be spoken in a fairly loud, clear manner.

Fair point, and without further evidence, I would say is a reasonable assumption.

[Uwotm8]

thejeff wrote:

But since you explicitly have to activate it every three minutes or it turns off, at any time when it might be important when you become visible (or stop levitating, or lose your disguise or anything else), you need to know when it was last activated, which means you need to be tracking rounds.

Or just handwave/roleplay it and assume it's just working.

In which case, it's not a limitation and shouldn't be priced as one. It's either adding more book keeping or having less influence on the game.

True for in the middle of combat. But, I don't know why your combats are lasting 3 minutes. Outside of combat it simply shouldn't matter. If it does matter then you inherently play with a different emphasis than I do. If your GM is really making you play out minute for minute your character's daily existence then I kinda feel sorry for you. Then again, it's your choice to play that way.

thejeff wrote:

Also, is there a source for that being how command words work?

Without such, I'd have to assume that, like spell casting and some other verbal magical effects, they have to be spoken in a fairly loud, clear manner.

Well, you could look it up yourself. Most of these things are fairly spelled out and it's not like the relevant sections haven't been copied and pasted in this thread before.

Quote:

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.

I'll leave you to figure out where I got that from.

[Purple Dragon Knight]

Also, interestingly, we have, in the magic item section:

"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."

Ponder the bolded part for 5 seconds. Good. Now read this paragraph and keep "the nature of the item" in mind:

"Use Activated: This type of item simply has to be used in order to activate it. A character has to drink a potion, swing a sword, interpose a shield to deflect a blow in combat, look through a lens, sprinkle dust, wear a ring, or don a hat. Use activation is generally straightforward and self-explanatory.

Many use-activated items are objects that a character wears. Continually functioning items are practically always items that one wears. A few must simply be in the character's possession (meaning on his person). However, some items made for wearing must still be activated. Although this activation sometimes requires a command word (see above), usually it means mentally willing the activation to happen. The description of an item states whether a command word is needed in such a case."

[HangarFlying]

thejeff wrote:

Uwotm8 wrote:

Gaberlunzie wrote:

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.

But since you explicitly have to activate it every three minutes or it turns off, at any time when it might be important when you become visible (or stop levitating, or lose your disguise or anything else), you need to know when it was last activated, which means you need to be tracking rounds.

Or just handwave/roleplay it and assume it's just working.

In which case, it's not a limitation and shouldn't be priced as one. It's either adding more book keeping or having less influence on the game.

Well, realistically, how many battles last 30 rounds? Or, at the very least how often are you going to actually remain invisible for the duration of the spell when it's important for you to be actually invisible? In a very large majority of cases , the time of need is much shorter than the actual duration. Sure, we can come up with examples in which one would need to be continuously invisible for more than 3 minutes, but I would argue that those situations are not the norm.

[Undone]

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

Also, interestingly, we have, in the magic item section:

"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."

Ponder the bolded part for 5 seconds. Good. Now read this paragraph and keep "the nature of the item" in mind:

"Use Activated: This type of item simply has to be used in order to activate it. A character has to drink a potion, swing a sword, interpose a shield to deflect a blow in combat, look through a lens, sprinkle dust, wear a ring, or don a hat. Use activation is generally straightforward and self-explanatory.

Many use-activated items are objects that a character wears. Continually functioning items are practically always items that one wears. A few must simply be in the character's possession (meaning on his person). However, some items made for wearing must still be activated. Although this activation sometimes requires a command word (see above), usually it means mentally willing the activation to happen. The description of an item states whether a command word is needed in such a case."

This is the other reason I find this discussion silly. It even explicitly states mentally willing the action is the usual activation for such items.

[thejeff]

Uwotm8 wrote:

thejeff wrote:

But since you explicitly have to activate it every three minutes or it turns off, at any time when it might be important when you become visible (or stop levitating, or lose your disguise or anything else), you need to know when it was last activated, which means you need to be tracking rounds.

Or just handwave/roleplay it and assume it's just working.

In which case, it's not a limitation and shouldn't be priced as one. It's either adding more book keeping or having less influence on the game.

True for in the middle of combat. But, I don't know why your combats are lasting 3 minutes. Outside of combat it simply shouldn't matter. If it does matter then you inherently play with a different emphasis than I do. If your GM is really making you play out minute for minute your character's daily existence then I kinda feel sorry for you. Then again, it's your choice to play that way.

My combats aren't lasting 3 minutes, but they don't have to. How many rounds before the combat started did I last activate the item? Trivial if I have time to activate right before the fight starts, but there are ambushes and surprise fights or we may not want to waste a round reactivating things before the fight starts.

Sometimes fights flow into chase scenes and from there into other fights.
Or even out of combat you might need to know, if you're spying on someone and the situation changes: How long do you have before you have to get to a safe place to reset it?

But you're right of course. What really happens is that you handwave it and don't worry about the duration. Which is why it's stupid to have one. It's not a real limitation because it gets handwaved away.

Uwotm8 wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Also, is there a source for that being how command words work?

Without such, I'd have to assume that, like spell casting and some other verbal magical effects, they have to be spoken in a fairly loud, clear manner.

Well, you could look it up yourself. Most of these things are fairly spelled out and it's not like the relevant sections haven't been copied and pasted in this thread before.

Quote:

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.

I'll leave you to figure out where I got that from.

Now that's being seriously obnoxious. There's actually been some serious debate about how that works, since normal conversation doesn't take a standard action, so exactly what happens when you say the command word in normal conversation isn't very clear. Normal conversation also doesn't imply "in a faint whisper".

I was hoping for a little more information, but I assume there isn't any.

[thejeff]

HangarFlying wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Uwotm8 wrote:

Gaberlunzie wrote:

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.

But since you explicitly have to activate it every three minutes or it turns off, at any time when it might be important when you become visible (or stop levitating, or lose your disguise or anything else), you need to know when it was last activated, which means you need to be tracking rounds.

Or just handwave/roleplay it and assume it's just working.

In which case, it's not a limitation and shouldn't be priced as one. It's either adding more book keeping or having less influence on the game.

Well, realistically, how many battles last 30 rounds? Or, at the very least how often are you going to actually remain invisible for the duration of the spell when it's important for you to be actually invisible? In a very large majority of cases , the time of need is much shorter than the actual duration. Sure, we can come up with examples in which one would need to be continuously invisible for more than 3 minutes, but I would argue that those situations are not the norm.

Or levitating, which you might need to do for the whole battle - and longer. Or as I said above, it's not from the start of the battle, but from when you last activated it. Which is why you need to track, even before the fight starts.

But mostly you're right. It's not going to be common for the duration to matter. Which is why it's such a great limit that it's worth cutting the price in half.

[Uwotm8]

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

Also, interestingly, we have, in the magic item section:

"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."

Ponder the bolded part for 5 seconds. Good. Now read this paragraph and keep "the nature of the item" in mind:

"Use Activated: This type of item simply has to be used in order to activate it. A character has to drink a potion, swing a sword, interpose a shield to deflect a blow in combat, look through a lens, sprinkle dust, wear a ring, or don a hat. Use activation is generally straightforward and self-explanatory.

Many use-activated items are objects that a character wears. Continually functioning items are practically always items that one wears. A few must simply be in the character's possession (meaning on his person). However, some items made for wearing must still be activated. Although this activation sometimes requires a command word (see above), usually it means mentally willing the activation to happen. The description of an item states whether a command word is needed in such a case."

You continually ignore the following.

Quote:

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.

In lieu of a stated activation method, it's command word.

[fretgod99]

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

Also, interestingly, we have, in the magic item section:

"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."

Ponder the bolded part for 5 seconds. Good. Now read this paragraph and keep "the nature of the item" in mind:

"Use Activated: This type of item simply has to be used in order to activate it. A character has to drink a potion, swing a sword, interpose a shield to deflect a blow in combat, look through a lens, sprinkle dust, wear a ring, or don a hat. Use activation is generally straightforward and self-explanatory.

Many use-activated items are objects that a character wears. Continually functioning items are practically always items that one wears. A few must simply be in the character's possession (meaning on his person). However, some items made for wearing must still be activated. Although this activation sometimes requires a command word (see above), usually it means mentally willing the activation to happen. The description of an item states whether a command word is needed in such a case."

A few things: 1. This, again, is the general rule. The Ring section is the more specific rule with regard to how rings function.

2. As to the meaning of the nature of the item, whether that means broadly "type" (as in, Ring, Wondrous Item, Rod, etc.) or "purpose of this specific item" is unclear.

3. That a ring can be use activated by wearing it does not mean that rings are necessarily use activated by wearing them. That simply describes how use activation might work with an item, assuming use activation is the relevant form of activation.

4. You're bolding sections that appear to imply your position is both that the Ring of Invisibility is use-activated as well as continually functioning, which is contradictory. Besides, that continually functioning items are almost always worn does not in any way imply that because an item is worn, it is therefore continually functioning.

5. Finally, the last bit has been brought up and discussed a number of times in this thread already. The bottom line is it still goes back to the specific vs. general argument. And it's difficult to argue that the Ring section isn't the more specific rule with regard to the presumption of use, continual, and command word activation for rings.

[wraithstrike]

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Wait. Are you saying that the rings that say "on command" aren't "Command word" activated?

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" :)

I do have a topic on the subject of ring activation. IF the PDT says I am correct will say "They are wrong again" or admit that you were wrong?

[HangarFlying]

thejeff wrote:

Or levitating, which you might need to do for the whole battle - and longer. Or as I said above, it's not from the start of the battle, but from when you last activated it. Which is why you need to track, even before the fight starts.

But mostly you're right. It's not going to be common for the duration to matter. Which is why it's such a great limit that it's worth cutting the price in half.

Nothing prevents you from reactivating it before the duration expires, so if premature cancellation is a concern, just reactivate it as things get hot and heavy—wait, that doesn't sound right...

As far as the price? Invisibility is kind of a big deal. I'm not concerned by the price.

[wraithstrike]

thejeff wrote:

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Wait. Are you saying that the rings that say "on command" aren't "Command word" activated?

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" :)

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.

Correct :)

[Uwotm8]

thejeff wrote:

Now that's being seriously obnoxious. There's actually been some serious debate about how that works, since normal conversation doesn't take a standard action, so exactly what happens when you say the command word in normal conversation isn't very clear. Normal conversation also doesn't imply "in a faint whisper".

I was hoping for a little more information, but I assume there isn't any.

Normal conversation is normal conversion. Trying to say that isn't very clear is expecting something out of the rules that isn't there or is being intentionally obtuse. If your command word is 'bless,' someone sneezes, and you say 'bless you,' then, in the case of the ring of invisibility, you're disappearing. In combat round parlance, you just had your surprise round action. The standard action for rings is a balancing factor so you can't free action do multiple things a round. It's not that hard to parse. There is no inherent span of time outside of the abstraction the system designates as the 'standard' action. All that's relevant is that you only get one a round. If your other ring has a command word of 'you' from our previous example, then, the system gives all actors involved a round of actions between you actually saying 'you.' That's how that's adjudicated per RAW. It might not make sense to you, but that's how the system is designed.

[Undone]

HangarFlying wrote:

As far as the price? Invisibility is kind of a big deal. I'm not concerned by the price.

Just as a point so is Protection from Evil and Falcon's Aim and they don't violate the cost rules this badly, just saying.

[thejeff]

HangarFlying wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Or levitating, which you might need to do for the whole battle - and longer. Or as I said above, it's not from the start of the battle, but from when you last activated it. Which is why you need to track, even before the fight starts.

But mostly you're right. It's not going to be common for the duration to matter. Which is why it's such a great limit that it's worth cutting the price in half.

Nothing prevents you from reactivating it before the duration expires, so if premature cancellation is a concern, just reactivate it as things get hot and heavy—wait, that doesn't sound right...

As far as the price? Invisibility is kind of a big deal. I'm not concerned by the price.

I'm speaking to the general concern and why a continuous item should be more than twice the price of this one. The theory applies to other items as well, such as the boots of levitation, I keep mentioning.

When the fight starts, you have action economy issues to consider, which is why it's important to know when the duration will expire. But I suspect you're right and the general case will be to assume it's just been reactivated and you have nearly the full 3 minutes at all times.

Of course, you're now arguing there's almost no practical difference between the limited duration item and the continuous version and at the same time that the difference is crucial and it would need to be far more expensive if continuous.

[HangarFlying]

Undone wrote:

HangarFlying wrote:

As far as the price? Invisibility is kind of a big deal. I'm not concerned by the price.

Just as a point so is Protection from Evil and Falcon's Aim and they don't violate the cost rules this badly, just saying.

Fixed your links.

[James Risner]

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

I see lots of rings that say "on command". Those are command word activated. Everything else is subject to interpretation.

All rings are command word unless they say otherwise.

Gaberlunzie wrote:

Rules that add more book keeping than influence on the game are bad rules.

The Ring of Invisibility can be hand waved for most uses, until the player attempts to scout a whole castle, inform him he will have to deal with the refresh. If the refresh doesn't matter (because the duration is always less than 3 mins) then it can be hand waved off.

[Mythic Evil Lincoln]

I'm starting to wonder if this thread was crafted with unlimited duration.

[thejeff]

Uwotm8 wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Now that's being seriously obnoxious. There's actually been some serious debate about how that works, since normal conversation doesn't take a standard action, so exactly what happens when you say the command word in normal conversation isn't very clear. Normal conversation also doesn't imply "in a faint whisper".

I was hoping for a little more information, but I assume there isn't any.

Normal conversation is normal conversion. Trying to say that isn't very clear is expecting something out of the rules that isn't there or is being intentionally obtuse. If your command word is 'bless,' someone sneezes, and you say 'bless you,' then, in the case of the ring of invisibility, you're disappearing. In combat round parlance, you just had your surprise round action. The standard action for rings is a balancing factor so you can't free action do multiple things a round. It's not that hard to parse. There is no inherent span of time outside of the abstraction the system designates as the 'standard' action. All that's relevant is that you only get one a round. If your other ring has a command word of 'you' from our previous example, then, the system gives all actors involved a round of actions between you actually saying 'you.' That's how that's adjudicated per RAW. It might not make sense to you, but that's how the system is designed.

And this brings me back around to a concept I tried to formulate earlier, but couldn't quite put into words without sounding insulting.

As far as I'm concerned, if the rules produce nonsensical results, the rules are bad.

It seems like some here have the attitude the rules are the rules and whatever they produce is fine. You just build your character and plan his actions within that framework. There may be questions about what the rules actually say, that require looking at the developer's intent to understand, but once that's settled, you just implement them.

This may be close to the fundamental root of the debate here.

Spoiler:

There has to be a way to weaponize the command word thing. Plant command word cantrip items on an enemy that trigger on a common word in his language - something he'd be likely to say in a fight. Deny him attacks with no saves.
That's with my "Work within the framework of the rules, however silly they are" hat on.

[The Archive]

James Risner wrote:

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

I see lots of rings that say "on command". Those are command word activated. Everything else is subject to interpretation.

All rings are command word unless they say otherwise.

Gaberlunzie wrote:

Rules that add more book keeping than influence on the game are bad rules.

The Ring of Invisibility can be hand waved for most uses, until the player attempts to scout a whole castle, inform him he will have to deal with the refresh. If the refresh doesn't matter (because the duration is always less than 3 mins) then it can be hand waved off.

Duration is not the only concern. Invisibility in no way prevents others from hearing you say the command word aloud.

[thejeff]

James Risner wrote:

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

I see lots of rings that say "on command". Those are command word activated. Everything else is subject to interpretation.

All rings are command word unless they say otherwise.

Gaberlunzie wrote:

Rules that add more book keeping than influence on the game are bad rules.

The Ring of Invisibility can be hand waved for most uses, until the player attempts to scout a whole castle, inform him he will have to deal with the refresh. If the refresh doesn't matter (because the duration is always less than 3 mins) then it can be hand waved off.

So why does it need to have the limited duration, if it's just going to be hand waved?

Why would a continuous version need to be so much more expensive?

You can't have it both ways.

[Purple Dragon Knight]

James Risner wrote:

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

I see lots of rings that say "on command". Those are command word activated. Everything else is subject to interpretation.

All rings are command word unless they say otherwise.

Based on your statement, not one single ring in the Core rulebook would have a mental activation, yet, the same book has a blanket statement indicating that wearable items, such as hats and rings, are mentally activated unless "command" is the listed method of activation. Care to explain?

Also, I am now at this point more than curious to have one of you detractors of all things mental show me the math on how this ring got to 20K. I mean a lot of you are good at saying "because they said so", but some kind of reasoning behind this would be nice.

[HangarFlying]

thejeff wrote:

I'm speaking to the general concern and why a continuous item should be more than twice the price of this one. The theory applies to other items as well, such as the boots of levitation, I keep mentioning.

When the fight starts, you have action economy issues to consider, which is why it's important to know when the duration will expire. But I suspect you're right and the general case will be to assume it's just been reactivated and you have nearly the full 3 minutes at all times.

Of course, you're now arguing there's almost no practical difference between the limited duration item and the continuous version and at the same time that the difference is crucial and it would need to be far more expensive if continuous.

I'm not advocating that one hand-waves reactivating the item—as you said, you have to consider action economy. Obviously, in combat, it is easy to track. Out of combat, the GM needs to fairly adjudicate it. If out of combat leads to combat, the GM needs to fairly assess how much time has elapsed.

The pricing of magic items is more art than science. Numerous times have the devs commented on this as to why items don't match up with the guidelines for pricing.

[HangarFlying]

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

James Risner wrote:

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

I see lots of rings that say "on command". Those are command word activated. Everything else is subject to interpretation.

All rings are command word unless they say otherwise.

Based on your statement, not one single ring in the Core rulebook would have a mental activation, yet, the same book has a blanket statement indicating that wearable items, such as hats and rings, are mentally activated unless "command" is the listed method of activation. Care to explain?

Also, I am now at this point more than curious to have one of you detractors of all things mental show me the math on how this ring got to 20K. I mean a lot of you are good at saying "because they said so", but some kind of reasoning behind this would be nice.

Because there are no rings in the CRB that have a mental activation component. You keep pointing out a general rule which is overridden by the specific rules for rings.

EDIT: Furthermore, the devs have commented on numerous occasions that more than the simple math in the pricing guidelines goes into setting the price of the items.

[thejeff]

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

James Risner wrote:

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

I see lots of rings that say "on command". Those are command word activated. Everything else is subject to interpretation.

All rings are command word unless they say otherwise.

Based on your statement, not one single ring in the Core rulebook would have a mental activation, yet, the same book has a blanket statement indicating that wearable items, such as hats and rings, are mentally activated unless "command" is the listed method of activation. Care to explain?

Also, I am now at this point more than curious to have one of you detractors of all things mental show me the math on how this ring got to 20K. I mean a lot of you are good at saying "because they said so", but some kind of reasoning behind this would be nice.

It officially is "because they said so". There's an essay, often referenced, giving the calculated price as the command word item (10800gp, IIRC) then bumped up to 20000gp because invisibility is so useful.

Since that dates from 3.5 and the price is from 3.0 I have my suspicions that it's post hoc reasoning, but I have no way to be sure.

The Hat of disguise follows the guideline for command word items. The Boots of Levitation are cheaper, for reasons I don't know.

[The Archive]

This was pointed out in a thread two years back about activating the ring of invisibility.

The Meridian Belt.

Meridian Belt wrote:

This narrow cloth belt has a silver buckle in the shape of four rings. The belt allows a creature to wear a magic ring on each foot in addition to the ring on each hand, though only two rings function at any given time. As a swift action, the wearer can change which of his rings are active (both hands, both feet, left hand and right foot, and so on). For example, a creature could wear a ring of protection, ring of energy resistance, ring of swimming, and ring of counterspells, switching between any two of them as a swift action each round as it desires.

The belt does not change the type of action required to activate a ring (for example, activating a ring of invisibility is still a standard action), but allows the wearer to easily switch between the constant powers of several worn rings. While the belt is worn, wearing a ring on a foot counts toward the attunement process of certain rings (such as a ring of sustenance) even if the belt isn't used to make that ring active during that attunement period.

Now my question to you is: why would the belt use the ring of invisibility as an example of the activation action not changing when it is, as you claim, a command word item? As well, if the ring of invisibility is, in fact, a command word item, why wouldn't they use the ring of chameleon power, also in the CRB, as an example instead? If the ring is activated by a command word, why doesn't it say it's activated by a command word?

[Saldiven]

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

James Risner wrote:

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

I see lots of rings that say "on command". Those are command word activated. Everything else is subject to interpretation.

All rings are command word unless they say otherwise.

Based on your statement, not one single ring in the Core rulebook would have a mental activation, yet, the same book has a blanket statement indicating that wearable items, such as hats and rings, are mentally activated unless "command" is the listed method of activation. Care to explain?

The rule book already explains it. The section for rings specifies that rings require a command word unless otherwise specified.

Or, should we just ignore that section of the rules?

[The Archive]

HangarFlying wrote:

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

James Risner wrote:

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

I see lots of rings that say "on command". Those are command word activated. Everything else is subject to interpretation.

All rings are command word unless they say otherwise.

Based on your statement, not one single ring in the Core rulebook would have a mental activation, yet, the same book has a blanket statement indicating that wearable items, such as hats and rings, are mentally activated unless "command" is the listed method of activation. Care to explain?

Also, I am now at this point more than curious to have one of you detractors of all things mental show me the math on how this ring got to 20K. I mean a lot of you are good at saying "because they said so", but some kind of reasoning behind this would be nice.

Because there are no rings in the CRB that have a mental activation component. You keep pointing out a general rule which is overridden by the specific rules for rings.

Ring of Chameleon Power. FYI. Pretty sure that qualifies for "unusual activation, as mentioned in the ring's description."

[thejeff]

HangarFlying wrote:

thejeff wrote:

I'm speaking to the general concern and why a continuous item should be more than twice the price of this one. The theory applies to other items as well, such as the boots of levitation, I keep mentioning.

Of course, you're now arguing there's almost no practical difference between the limited duration item and the continuous version and at the same time that the difference is crucial and it would need to be far more expensive if continuous.

The pricing of magic items is more art than science. Numerous times have the devs commented on this as to why items don't match up with the guidelines for pricing.

This is certainly true. But many people have said in this thread that the continuous version would need to be much more expensive. Many, including some of the same people, have also said that it's going to be very rare for the duration to have any effect.

Even rarer, btw, for items other than the ring itself.

It makes no sense to hold both positions, regardless of the pricing being more of an art.

[Saldiven]

The Archive wrote:

This was pointed out in a thread two years back about activating the ring of invisibility.

The Meridian Belt.

Meridian Belt wrote:

This narrow cloth belt has a silver buckle in the shape of four rings. The belt allows a creature to wear a magic ring on each foot in addition to the ring on each hand, though only two rings function at any given time. As a swift action, the wearer can change which of his rings are active (both hands, both feet, left hand and right foot, and so on). For example, a creature could wear a ring of protection, ring of energy resistance, ring of swimming, and ring of counterspells, switching between any two of them as a swift action each round as it desires.

The belt does not change the type of action required to activate a ring (for example, activating a ring of invisibility is still a standard action), but allows the wearer to easily switch between the constant powers of several worn rings. While the belt is worn, wearing a ring on a foot counts toward the attunement process of certain rings (such as a ring of sustenance) even if the belt isn't used to make that ring active during that attunement period.

Now my question to you is: why would the belt use the ring of invisibility as an example of the activation action not changing when it is, as you claim, a command word item? As well, if the ring of invisibility is, in fact, a command word item, why wouldn't they use the ring of chameleon power, also in the CRB, as an example instead? If the ring is activated by a command word, why doesn't it say it's activated by a command word?

Um, your quote doesn't address one way or another whether the ring requires a command word. It merely says it takes a standard action. It doesn't say what form that standard action takes.

[HangarFlying]

The Archive wrote:

HangarFlying wrote:

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

James Risner wrote:

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

I see lots of rings that say "on command". Those are command word activated. Everything else is subject to interpretation.

All rings are command word unless they say otherwise.

Based on your statement, not one single ring in the Core rulebook would have a mental activation, yet, the same book has a blanket statement indicating that wearable items, such as hats and rings, are mentally activated unless "command" is the listed method of activation. Care to explain?

Also, I am now at this point more than curious to have one of you detractors of all things mental show me the math on how this ring got to 20K. I mean a lot of you are good at saying "because they said so", but some kind of reasoning behind this would be nice.

Because there are no rings in the CRB that have a mental activation component. You keep pointing out a general rule which is overridden by the specific rules for rings.

Ring of Chameleon Power. FYI. Pretty sure that qualifies for "unusual activation, as mentioned in the ring's description."

Hooray, good for you! You found an exception to the rule that is specified in the item's description! That exception being that it is a free action instead of a standard action to activate. This doesn't change the fact that it's still command word activated.

[thejeff]

HangarFlying wrote:

The Archive wrote:

HangarFlying wrote:

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

James Risner wrote:

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

I see lots of rings that say "on command". Those are command word activated. Everything else is subject to interpretation.

All rings are command word unless they say otherwise.

Based on your statement, not one single ring in the Core rulebook would have a mental activation, yet, the same book has a blanket statement indicating that wearable items, such as hats and rings, are mentally activated unless "command" is the listed method of activation. Care to explain?

Also, I am now at this point more than curious to have one of you detractors of all things mental show me the math on how this ring got to 20K. I mean a lot of you are good at saying "because they said so", but some kind of reasoning behind this would be nice.

Because there are no rings in the CRB that have a mental activation component. You keep pointing out a general rule which is overridden by the specific rules for rings.

Ring of Chameleon Power. FYI. Pretty sure that qualifies for "unusual activation, as mentioned in the ring's description."

Hooray, good for you! You found an exception to the rule that is specified in the item's description! That exception being that it is a free action instead of a standard action to activate. This doesn't change the fact that it's still command word activated.

Wait. Are you saying that the free action, get a +10 to Stealth requires you to say a command word? Even though you're doing it along with a Stealth Check? Which one would normally assume meant being quiet.

The Disguise Self part certainly uses a command word.

[HangarFlying]

thejeff wrote:

This is certainly true. But many people have said in this thread that the continuous version would need to be much more expensive. Many, including some of the same people, have also said that it's going to be very rare for the duration to have any effect.

Even rarer, btw, for items other than the ring itself.

It makes no sense to hold both positions, regardless of the pricing being more of an art.

Having an item that let's you cast (for lack of a better term) invisibility at will is pretty darned powerful. You also have to consider at what level should a character have access to such an ability—that certainly goes into setting the price.

[Uwotm8]

thejeff wrote:

And this brings me back around to a concept I tried to formulate earlier, but couldn't quite put into words without sounding insulting.

As far as I'm concerned, if the rules produce nonsensical results, the rules are bad.

It seems like some here have the attitude the rules are the rules and whatever they produce is fine. You just build your character and plan his actions within that framework. There may be questions about what the rules actually say, that require looking at the developer's intent to understand, but once that's settled, you just implement them.

This may be close to the fundamental root of the debate here.

I didn't say whatever they produce is fine. But, they are the rules, and, yes, you plan your characters around them. You can't force Paizo's hand to change things as they're not beholden to you. You can ask, maybe get some community backing, but, ultimately, they make the rules. I don't know what to tell you. If you find it silly that you can't activate multiple magic items in the same round, then I would say you have unreasonable desires. If you find it silly that a magic item can be activated by purely passive conversation when it's pretty black and white in the rules that you can, then I would point out it's your choice to play. You can house rule whatever you want. Just remember this is a rules discussion. Take your thoughts and put them in a new thread in the House Rules forum. That's the appropriate place to discuss such things or maybe General Discussion and perhaps even Advice if you're wanting help formulate something.

[thejeff]

HangarFlying wrote:

thejeff wrote:

This is certainly true. But many people have said in this thread that the continuous version would need to be much more expensive. Many, including some of the same people, have also said that it's going to be very rare for the duration to have any effect.

Even rarer, btw, for items other than the ring itself.

It makes no sense to hold both positions, regardless of the pricing being more of an art.

Having an item that let's you cast (for lack of a better term) invisibility at will is pretty darned powerful. You also have to consider at what level should a character have access to such an ability—that certainly goes into setting the price.

Yes. Fine. Granted. Absolutely no argument. I am not disputing that.

You're claiming that the duration is only going to be an occasional minor limitation. Others (and possibly you) are claiming that a continual version of the Invisibility ring should be much more expensive.
That doesn't make sense. Whatever the baseline price for having invisibility at will is, if the other version is only slightly better, it shouldn't be vastly more expensive.

Please do not tell me again that invisibility is useful and should be expensive. I know that. It's the difference between the two that I'm talking about.

[HangarFlying]

thejeff wrote:

Wait. Are you saying that the free action, get a +10 to Stealth requires you to say a command word? Even though you're doing it along with a Stealth Check? Which one would normally assume meant being quiet.

The Disguise Self part certainly uses a command word.

I don't see anything that provides an exception to requiring a command word, only an exception to the amount of effort to activate it. Essentially, you activate it before you make the roll, hence no disruption to continuity.

[Uwotm8]

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

Based on your statement, not one single ring in the Core rulebook would have a mental activation, yet, the same book has a blanket statement indicating that wearable items, such as hats and rings, are mentally activated unless "command" is the listed method of activation. Care to explain?

Also, I am now at this point more than curious to have one of you detractors of all things mental show me the math on how this ring got to 20K. I mean a lot of you are good at saying "because they said so", but some kind of reasoning behind this would be nice.

Specific trump general. A specific entry for rings overrides the general entry for use activated items.

Also, it's RAW that not all magic items follow the magic item creation table formulas. That an item doesn't adhere to its math even when others do shouldn't surprise you in the slightest.

If you want a use activate ring, then create a character with the forge ring feat and make it so.

[The Archive]

thejeff wrote:

HangarFlying wrote:

The Archive wrote:

HangarFlying wrote:

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

James Risner wrote:

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

I see lots of rings that say "on command". Those are command word activated. Everything else is subject to interpretation.

All rings are command word unless they say otherwise.

Based on your statement, not one single ring in the Core rulebook would have a mental activation, yet, the same book has a blanket statement indicating that wearable items, such as hats and rings, are mentally activated unless "command" is the listed method of activation. Care to explain?

Also, I am now at this point more than curious to have one of you detractors of all things mental show me the math on how this ring got to 20K. I mean a lot of you are good at saying "because they said so", but some kind of reasoning behind this would be nice.

Because there are no rings in the CRB that have a mental activation component. You keep pointing out a general rule which is overridden by the specific rules for rings.

Ring of Chameleon Power. FYI. Pretty sure that qualifies for "unusual activation, as mentioned in the ring's description."

Hooray, good for you! You found an exception to the rule that is specified in the item's description! That exception being that it is a free action instead of a standard action to activate. This doesn't change the fact that it's still command word activated.

Wait. Are you saying that the free action, get a +10 to Stealth requires you to say a command word? Even though you're doing it along with a Stealth Check? Which one would normally assume meant being quiet.

The Disguise Self part certainly uses a command word.

I would think given the rules for command words, the "as a standard action" portion would be redundant. Especially, since there's a language difference between it and other rings.

[The Archive]

HangarFlying wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Wait. Are you saying that the free action, get a +10 to Stealth requires you to say a command word? Even though you're doing it along with a Stealth Check? Which one would normally assume meant being quiet.

The Disguise Self part certainly uses a command word.

I don't see anything that provides an exception to requiring a command word, only an exception to the amount of effort to activate it. Essentially, you activate it before you make the roll, hence no disruption to continuity.

You're serious, aren't you?

Quote:

Activating a command word magic item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

This is the kind of thing that lead to the cake comment earlier. You can't have this both ways.

[HangarFlying]

thejeff wrote:

HangarFlying wrote:

thejeff wrote:

This is certainly true. But many people have said in this thread that the continuous version would need to be much more expensive. Many, including some of the same people, have also said that it's going to be very rare for the duration to have any effect.

Even rarer, btw, for items other than the ring itself.

It makes no sense to hold both positions, regardless of the pricing being more of an art.

Having an item that let's you cast (for lack of a better term) invisibility at will is pretty darned powerful. You also have to consider at what level should a character have access to such an ability—that certainly goes into setting the price.

Yes. Fine. Granted. Absolutely no argument. I am not disputing that.

You're claiming that the duration is only going to be an occasional minor limitation. Others (and possibly you) are claiming that a continual version of the Invisibility ring should be much more expensive.
That doesn't make sense. Whatever the baseline price for having invisibility at will is, if the other version is only slightly better, it shouldn't be vastly more expensive.

Please do not tell me again that invisibility is useful and should be expensive. I know that. It's the difference between the two that I'm talking about.

Well, I'm not part of the "continuous" conversation. To me that is irrelevant. Though, if one were to make a ring that didn't have a duration, it would certainly make sense that it be more expensive than the normal ring. How much more, I don't know.

[thejeff]

Uwotm8 wrote:

thejeff wrote:

And this brings me back around to a concept I tried to formulate earlier, but couldn't quite put into words without sounding insulting.

As far as I'm concerned, if the rules produce nonsensical results, the rules are bad.

It seems like some here have the attitude the rules are the rules and whatever they produce is fine. You just build your character and plan his actions within that framework. There may be questions about what the rules actually say, that require looking at the developer's intent to understand, but once that's settled, you just implement them.

This may be close to the fundamental root of the debate here.

I didn't say whatever they produce is fine. But, they are the rules, and, yes, you plan your characters around them. You can't force Paizo's hand to change things as they're not beholden to you. You can ask, maybe get some community backing, but, ultimately, they make the rules. I don't know what to tell you. If you find it silly that you can't activate multiple magic items in the same round, then I would say you have unreasonable desires. If you find it silly that a magic item can be activated by purely passive conversation when it's pretty black and white in the rules that you can, then I would point out it's your choice to play. You can house rule whatever you want. Just remember this is a rules discussion. Take your thoughts and put them in a new thread in the House Rules forum. That's the appropriate place to discuss such things or maybe General Discussion and perhaps even Advice if you're wanting help formulate something.

I'm not saying any of those things. I'm saying that the idea that you can denied actions for multiple rounds for saying a simple phrase and that it will take multiple seconds to get each word out while you stand there unable to act, is silly.

It's a probably unforeseen consequence of the combination of reasonably wanting action economy limits on activating items and a reasonable nod to the humor value of accidental activation of items.

No idea how I'd actually rule if such a thing came up in game, other than preventing anyone from actually abusing it. Can't really see it happening, so I don't really care. Certainly wouldn't make somebody lock down a waste of multiple rounds of standard actions in advance by accident, when there's no other way I know of to do that.

I still think my larger point is at least somewhat valid. Rules should make sense.

Spoiler:

Those weaponized cantrips I mentioned in the last spoiler. It would be tricky for PCs to get them in the hands of an enemy, but PCs always loot and carry treasure. It would be easy to get a PC to carry them without knowing what they are...