Dispel can certainly target both either it's activation or it's ongoing effect. This is another area where the caster level of the item comes into play. Magic doesn't have to be "cast" to be subject to Dispel Magic. Again there is no reason for going against the RAW mechanics here. Magic item caster level applies for all other types of magic items, potions, wands, scrolls, how long the overland flight granted by the celestial set lasts, why should these two items be any different?Making Magic Items (Part Seven) by Skip Williams
I don't see any real difference here. if it says AS the spell, it means it operates AS the spell. The items have spell effects and caster levels built in. Ipso Quacko Dotto.It clearly is not casting, as Dispel could then target its activation.
I agree it can target the ongoing effect. I don't think it can target the activation.
School abjuration; Level antipaladin 3, bard 3, cleric/oracle 3, druid 4, inquisitor 3, magus 3, paladin 3, sorcerer/wizard 3, summoner 3, witch 3; Domain magic 3; Bloodline arcane 3
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Target or Area one spellcaster, creature, or object
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
You can use dispel magic to end one ongoing spell that has been cast on a creature or object, to temporarily suppress the magical abilities of a magic item, or to counter another spellcaster's spell. A dispelled spell ends as if its duration had expired. Some spells, as detailed in their descriptions, can't be defeated by dispel magic. Dispel magic can dispel (but not counter) spell-like effects just as it does spells. The effect of a spell with an instantaneous duration can't be dispelled, because the magical effect is already over before the dispel magic can take effect.
You choose to use dispel magic in one of two ways: a targeted dispel or a counterspell.
Targeted Dispel: One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell. You make one dispel check (1d20 + your caster level) and compare that to the spell with highest caster level (DC = 11 + the spell's caster level). If successful, that spell ends. If not, compare the same result to the spell with the next highest caster level. Repeat this process until you have dispelled one spell affecting the target, or you have failed to dispel every spell.
For example, a 7th-level caster casts dispel magic, targeting a creature affected by stoneskin (caster level 12th) and fly (caster level 6th). The caster level check results in a 19. This check is not high enough to end the stoneskin (which would have required a 23 or higher), but it is high enough to end the fly (which only required a 17). Had the dispel check resulted in a 23 or higher, the stoneskin would have been dispelled, leaving the fly intact. Had the dispel check been a 16 or less, no spells would have been affected.
You can also use a targeted dispel to specifically end one spell affecting the target or one spell affecting an area (such as a wall of fire). You must name the specific spell effect to be targeted in this way. If your caster level check is equal to or higher than the DC of that spell, it ends. No other spells or effects on the target are dispelled if your check is not high enough to end the targeted effect.
If you target an object or creature that is the effect of an ongoing spell (such as a monster summoned by summon monster), you make a dispel check to end the spell that conjured the object or creature.
If the object that you target is a magic item, you make a dispel check against the item's caster level (DC = 11 + the item's caster level). If you succeed, all the item's magical properties are suppressed for 1d4 rounds, after which the item recovers its magical properties. A suppressed item becomes nonmagical for the duration of the effect. An interdimensional opening (such as a bag of holding) is temporarily closed. A magic item's physical properties are unchanged: A suppressed magic sword is still a sword (a masterwork sword, in fact). Artifacts and deities are unaffected by mortal magic such as this.
You automatically succeed on your dispel check against any spell that you cast yourself.
Counterspell: When dispel magic is used in this way, the spell targets a spellcaster and is cast as a counterspell. Unlike a true counterspell, however, dispel magic may not work; you must make a dispel check to counter the other spellcaster's spell.
Dispel is cast either as a targeted dispel or as a counterspell.
A targeted dispel targets an object, creature or spell.
A counterspell targets a caster.
Four choices:
1) Target: object
2) Target: creature
3) Target: spell
4) Counter: caster
Option 1: target the ring. Success results is a temporarily nonfunctional ring. 1d4 rounds later, it starts functioning again. There is no relation to the action "activation", so it is not dispelling a spell.
Option 2: target the ring wearer. Success results in the person loosing a spell effect. Again, the action "activation" is not involved.
Option 3: target the spell being activated. This is not a counterspell, so it can only happen after the spell is "cast". Activation can occur any amount of time before without affecting this. Therefore you are not targeting the activation.
Option 4: target the "ring" as a caster. If the activation is a "cast", then it can be countered. If the activation is not a "cast", then it cannot be countered.
It is my opinion that activation is not casting, and thus cannot be countered. Yes, you can target the effect after it comes into existence, but that is not what we are concerned with.
To the topic of the wording change of 2E to 3E, I think most of us who played the earlier editions assumed things worked the same unless explicitly called out. Calling out CL for dispel was clearly in the dispel section. Calling out CL as the CL for magic items that "cast" spells (like scrolls, potions, wands), as also simple. However, many of us did not catch the change in durations due to CL, hence the 3.5 FAQ quoted earlier. The existence of a FAQ meant many people thought it worked differently. I know I am not up on all the FAQs, so I am not surprised I did not know about that one. This legacy of belief of how things work despite wording changes happens all the time. When rules outside the detailed wording of something changes how that something works, people don't catch it right away.
/cevah
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The existance of these discussions prove something in the rules is not clear
That's actually not true. I've seen plenty of discussions where the rules were quite explicit yet debate continued.
|
The existance of these discussions prove something in the rules is not clearThat's actually not true. I've seen plenty of discussions where the rules were quite explicit yet debate continued.
RAW is always clear, because its raw. RAI is never clear until a faq is adressed or the author speaks of it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You CAN target the activation assuming this is a situation where you're using the item in combat and your opponent decides to ready an action. It essentially resolves as a dispel counter.Dispel can certainly target both either it's activation or it's ongoing effect. This is another area where the caster level of the item comes into play. Magic doesn't have to be "cast" to be subject to Dispel Magic. Again there is no reason for going against the RAW mechanics here. Magic item caster level applies for all other types of magic items, potions, wands, scrolls, how long the overland flight granted by the celestial set lasts, why should these two items be any different?Making Magic Items (Part Seven) by Skip Williams
I don't see any real difference here. if it says AS the spell, it means it operates AS the spell. The items have spell effects and caster levels built in. Ipso Quacko Dotto.It clearly is not casting, as Dispel could then target its activation.I agree it can target the ongoing effect. I don't think it can target the activation.
** spoiler omitted **...
Option 4: target the "ring" as a caster. If the activation is a "cast", then it can be countered. If the activation is not a "cast", then it cannot be countered.
Then you believe activating = casting. I don't.
To use a magic item, it must be activated, although sometimes activation simply means putting a ring on your finger. Some items, once donned, function constantly. In most cases, though, using an item requires a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. By contrast, spell completion items are treated like spells in combat and do provoke attacks of opportunity.
Spell completion items can be countered. Spell trigger, command word, and use activated "by contrast" are not treated like spells, and thus cannot be targeted by counterspell.
The ring of invisibility is not spell completion, so you cannot counter it. You can dispel the effect after it occurs, and you can suppress the ring 1d4 rounds, but you cannot affect the activation.
/cevah
|
The whole legacy argument for the ring of invisibility forget something: with the AD&D 1st edition version if you broke your invisibility attacking you were unable to reactivate the ring for 10 minutes. 1st and 2nd editions gave you what is now the invisible condition, there was nothing in the description about casting the spell.
The 3.x version say "benefit from invisibility, as the spell.", a big change from the earlier versions. As 3.x has the invisible condition it would have been very simple to say "make you invisible", without the need to add "as the spell".
I just checked my copies of the 1st and 2nd edition DMGs. Both have the same description:
The wearer of an invisibility ring is able to become invisible at will, instantly. This nonvisable 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.Absolutely nothing about having to wait to reactivate. And it very clearly stats it works as the spell.
I can see way some people may have believed the ring was active constantly, because Invisibility had a duration of 24 hours in 2nd edition. It wasn't active constantly, it just seemed like it with such a long duration.
I will check my 1st ed DMG. I am perplexed as both a friend and I clearly recall that 10 minutes cool down and it was a houserule.
I checked the 2nd ed books to see if it was under the spell and noticed something that i had forgot:the 1st and 2nd ed. version of the spell had a 24 hours duration or until broken. The 3.x version of the game has changed that.
It stand to reason that if the Dev have decided to change the spell, greatly shortening the duration, their meant to do the same with the ring.
Compare to the Ring of Freedom of Movement. That Ring allows the wearer to act "as if continually under the effect of a freedom of movement spell." Here's an effect they clearly wanted to be continuous, so they specifically state that.You keep collapsing distinctions.
There are options other than "with exactly the duration of the spell" or "always on and lasts forever".
I'm aware of that. All that was being pointed out is that they are clearly capable of making the intent to distinguish duration when sticking to the spell's limitations is not desired. That's why I noted that it's an effect that they wanted to be continuous.
So, the argument for limitless duration is as follows:
1. Distinction between items which simply duplicate a spell (wands) and other items.
2. Existence of items which state that they have a specific limited duration.
3. Pricing guidelines for items without such usage limitations.The argument from things like the ring of freedom of movement isn't a persuasive counter, because the distinction there is not between "unlimited use" and "limited use", but "unlimited use which requires activation" and "continuous use whenever the ring is worn".
I don't see the distinction between items which simply duplicate a spell and other items. The Ring of Invisibility just duplicates a spell.
There are items which explicitly state that they have specific, limited durations. Interestingly enough, almost never do these specific, limited durations which are explicitly mentioned actually match up with the precise limitations of the spells being duplicated. If the general position is that magic items which duplicate spell effects follow the same restrictions as the relevant spells, there's no need to mention the duration of the effect in the entry. So, coincidentally perhaps, none of these items in question mention a duration. You argue that this lack of mentioning of a specific duration means that the intent was for the duration to be completely unlimited. That doesn't follow.
What pricing guidelines are you referring to? People tried to point to the Ring of Invisibility's price to justify it not being a command word item, as well it not being limited in duration. It's clear from 3.5 FAQs and blog posts and PF publications that the Ring of Invisibility was designed as a command word item with a limited duration. Both 3.5 and PF specifically discussed the pricing of this Ring - they used the command word formula, then boosted the price intentionally because it's too powerful of an item for the calculated price. The 3.5 FAQ on this Ring states that it has a duration of 3 minutes. The general position is unless otherwise specified, these types of items have the same duration as the spell. So ultimately, if there's not any evidence to support the idea that PF has a new intent for how the Ring of Invisibility functions, there's not much to discuss here.
If people want a FAQ to make it absolutely clear, fine. But the FAQ is going to say the exact same thing that the 3.5 FAQ did because there's no evidence that PF intended for these items to function differently than they did in 3.5 - unless otherwise specified, these types of items are subject to the same limitations as the relevant spell, including the durations thereof.
Rings of Invisibility are command word items. There's no indication that they work differently than 3.5 where they had a duration of 3 minutes, limited by the relevant spell and the item's CL (as do all noncontinuous magic items that don't otherwise specify a duration). That the rules never specifically spoke to the ring swapping idea is of no moment to me.This feels like begging the question. I haven't seen anything official in 3.5 state "the ring of invisibility has a 3-minute duration". You've advanced an argument for why you feel the effect has a three minute duration. When people find it unpersuasive, you then point out that it should be the same as it was in 3.5... But you haven't shown that it had a 3 minute duration there, either. You have the same argument that it would be, but someone unpersuaded by that argument with respect to PF is unlikely to be persuaded by that argument with respect to 3.5.
And the Skip Williams article doesn't really change my mind, because that's not a formal technical paper, and "duplicates the spell" is not necessarily intended to mean "exactly duplicates in every respect including casting time, duration, the option of counterspelling, and so on".
The 3.5 FAQ was posted above.
2004-era, in which there's two contradictory quotes from Wizards, one suggesting that rings are continuous once activated unless stated otherwise, one suggesting that in general they follow spell durations.
First quote was from the 3.0 FAQ. The 3.5 FAQ explicitly states that it's a command word item with a duration limited by the spell. The second quote falls in line with the 3.5 FAQ.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will check my 1st ed DMG. I am perplexed as both a friend and I clearly recall that 10 minutes cool down and it was a houserule.
Damn slip of the finger, it was meant to be "it wasn't a houserule".
@seeb: you are confusing command word with use activated.
To put it another way: "This ring casts invisibility on the wearer on command." Short, clear, and unambiguous. Why does it instead say "By activating this simple silver ring, the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell."? I always assumed it was because the ring is activated, and then provides an effect. The effect's behavior is like the spell, but that's not the same as "the spell has been cast at caster level 3".
By activating this simple silver ring, the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell.
So, what we get from that?
1) The ring effect isn't constant as it is a activated magic item.
2) It is a command word item as the item description don't give a specific method of activation and the rules for activating magic items say: "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."
Reinforced by: "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."
A copyrighted item from a book isn't the right source to get a suggested method of activation.
If we use literature as a source I recall at least a couple of fables where the main character had a ring that made him invisible when put in his mouth, under the tongue.
3) Now the duration. What do the ring? "the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell." As the spell! so it is activated and you benefit from invisibility as the spell, with a CL of 3, so for 3 minutes.
Exactly where it say that that spell get an unlimited duration? Nowhere.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So if a ring of invisibility functions "as the spell" (what SKR calls a "spell in a can" if I'm not mistaken) does that include range? Can you activate it and turn a door invisible? Your pet cat?
If not, then how come we get to ignore the range aspect, but not the duration aspect? Where does one draw the line at where it does and does not function "as the spell?"
Say what you all will, but the matter definitely needs clarification.
2004-era, in which there's two contradictory quotes from Wizards, one suggesting that rings are continuous once activated unless stated otherwise, one suggesting that in general they follow spell durations.
Thank you! I knew I wasn't crazy!
So if a ring of invisibility functions "as the spell" (what SKR calls a "spell in a can" if I'm not mistaken) does that include range? Can you activate it and turn a door invisible? Your pet cat?
If not, then how come we get to ignore the range aspect, but not the duration aspect?
The item description says 'the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell'. That suggests that it acts like the spell, but the target must always be the wearer.
I agree it can target the ongoing effect. I don't think it can target the activation.You CAN target the activation assuming this is a situation where you're using the item in combat and your opponent decides to ready an action. It essentially resolves as a dispel counter.Option 4: target the "ring" as a caster. If the activation is a "cast", then it can be countered. If the activation is not a "cast", then it cannot be countered.Then you believe activating = casting. I don't.
Neither do I, but it DOESN'T HAVE TO BE. Activating a magic item is bringing a spell effect into play. Spell effects irregardless how they come into being, can be subject to Dispel Magic.
The only way I can be wrong on this is for you to show me how the ring and hat's effects are invulnerable to Dispel Magic.
You are confusing dispelling an effect with countering a casting. These are two different uses of dispel magic.
If activation is not casting, then it cannot be countered. There is no target for the dispel function until after the activation is over.
/cevah
The item description says 'the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell'. That suggests that it acts like the spell, but the target must always be the wearer.
How is using it in the traditional fashion not benefiting from it? Does a wizard not benefit from making his bodyguards invisible? Does a mastermind not benefit from making his traps invisible? All that passage denotes is that the spell can only be used by the wearer of the ring. Making a valued bauble invisible to protect it from thieves benefits the wearer, make no mistake!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's reminiscent of those debates about the meaning of 'Once a creature has benefited from the fortune hex, it cannot benefit from it again for 24 hours' clause which depends entirely on the meaning of the word 'benefit'.
The item description says 'the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell'. That suggests that it acts like the spell, but the target must always be the wearer.How is using it in the traditional fashion not benefiting from it? Does a wizard not benefit from making his bodyguards invisible? Does a mastermind not benefit from making his traps invisible? All that passage denotes is that the spell can only be used by the wearer of the ring. Making a valued bauble invisible to protect it from thieves benefits the wearer, make no mistake!
This is the point where you're undoubtedly going beyond the scope of the rules. The same thing happens when people argue that if the Ring works like the spell and lasts for three minutes, you should be able to take it off and pass it around to the whole party.
The point of the Ring is to allow the wearer to turn invisible pretty much whenever s/he wants. I think everybody agrees on that and did prior to this thread happening. The question is what the limits to that are. Old legacy says one thing. More directly relevant, newer legacy says another.
I'm an attorney. I'm perfectly comfortable parsing the hell out of language to find new or alternate meanings to things. But this is one of those, "It depends on what you mean by the word 'is'" moments. I'm not saying that pejoratively. I'm just saying, the Ring works exactly as you've always thought it did, except you have to activate it rather than simply put it on, and each activation lasts three minutes, rather than forever. The purpose of turning its wearer invisible never changed.
And if in your games it works when you put it on and lasts forever, great! There truly is nothing wrong with that house rule. But let's not miss the forrest for the trees.
Meant to add that perhaps this is why they said the wearer "benefits" from Invisibility (as in, gains the condition), rather than saying that the wearer can "cast" invisibility.
*shrug*
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would they have infinite durations?
Items have caster levels that determine things like "range or other level-dependent aspects of the powers of the item." That is very clearly stated in the magic items chapter.
So Ring of Invisibility last for 3 minutes. Hat of Disguise for 10 minutes. Boots of Levitation for 3 minutes too.
Nothing in their descriptions says anything about them lasting forever. Nothing even suggest that.
I'm with Morgen on this ... partially. I agree that they last as long as the duration of the spell, but also read that the wondrous item is a at will or on command item. So, you could conceivably keep them acting unlimited so long as you continue to reactivate the spell for it expires.
The existance of these discussions prove something in the rules is not clear
I said basically this within the first ten posts. Hence the need to FAQ.
Since it's going to be impractical to track round by round exactly when the last time you activated the item was in any extended use, you're essentially going to have to make something up any time it becomes important.
Just say you're renewing the duration every 3 rounds - you don't normally need to use standard actions when you're out of combat. And when you're in combat, you'll have 27+1d3 rounds where the invisibility is active. How often do you have a combat that lasts 28 rounds where you're not attacking? Which means that even with the '3 minutes' interpretation, any normal GM will say you don't have to bother manually tracking it. The only times it matters are, for example, when you fall unconscious.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the point where you're undoubtedly going beyond the scope of the rules. The same thing happens when people argue that if the Ring works like the spell and lasts for three minutes, you should be able to take it off and pass it around to the whole party.The item description says 'the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell'. That suggests that it acts like the spell, but the target must always be the wearer.How is using it in the traditional fashion not benefiting from it? Does a wizard not benefit from making his bodyguards invisible? Does a mastermind not benefit from making his traps invisible? All that passage denotes is that the spell can only be used by the wearer of the ring. Making a valued bauble invisible to protect it from thieves benefits the wearer, make no mistake!
No.
These are very different arguments.
One: "what is the definition of benefit" in the idea of "anything I do with it is beneficial"
- while I find it amusing, and understandable, I agree that the linguistic construct is clear
Two: "once the spell-effect is activated, do you need to continue to wear the ring to maintain the benefits" (I.e. Is the duration tied to the spell-effect after it's activated, or is it tied to keeping the ring on?)
- I would say, of it's an enforced duration (because it's tied to the spell-effect), it's an enforced duration: that is, it's tied to the spell effect
The reason I view it this way is that if the ring is command word activated (the understanding) and it has a limited duration (which I can see) then the wearer (current) on activation befits from an effect like the spell. They become invisible, like the spell. Hence, ring is no longer needed once it's activated.
Otherwise it becomes a vastly over-priced item that should buck the item pricing guidelines, as it doesn't actually accomplish what it's supposed to. It becomes not very useful.
EDIT: By the way, to be clear, I'm running off of things like this, i.e. first asking "how much is it worth" before going over the formula. The price is substantially too high for a Command Word, three-minute-timer, ring usable only by one person at a time. In that post SKR asserts that it's "worth" is about 20k, despite what the formula says. I... disagree under the parameters that are being established here. Of course, he also notes that, by-the-formula, it would be 12k which means he, at least, presumes a continuous or use-activated item instead of a command word item (due, I think, to a minor off-the-cuff math error based off of forgetting the duration factor*), so... make of that what you will.
* EXAMPLES
2k (use-activated or continuous) x 2 (spell level) x 3 (caster level) x 2 (minute/level duration) = 24,000
1.8k (command word) x 2 (spell level) x 3 (caster level) = 10,800
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to save all the old fogies from going nuts:
BECMI: Rings, Invisibility: the wearer is invisible as long as the ring is worn. If the wearer attacks or casts spells, he or she will become visible. The wearer can only become invisible once per turn.
A turn was 10 minutes.
Solved!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure what the present state of the argument is: I hate to read threads like this.
But there is one thing I want to make sure is being accounted for. The rules text for the hat of disguise and the ring of invisibility likely predates the rules for making magic items in 3.5. Some of the magic item descriptions have literally gone unchanged since original D&D.
With that in mind, it's not enough to say that the rules imply this or that outcome. Whatever they imply, it is NOT deliberate, but rather the result of a complicated legacy of rules.
Therefore, I would like to see a fresh ruling on the issue. We should know how they are intended to work now, and not be reliant on processing ancient flavor text through an item creation ruleset that is known to be more art than science.
|
|
Just to save all the old fogies from going nuts:
BECMI: Rings, Invisibility: the wearer is invisible as long as the ring is worn. If the wearer attacks or casts spells, he or she will become visible. The wearer can only become invisible once per turn.
A turn was 10 minutes.
Solved!
Thanks!
I'm not sure what the present state of the argument is: I hate to read threads like this.
But there is one thing I want to make sure is being accounted for. The rules text for the hat of disguise and the ring of invisibility likely predates the rules for making magic items in 3.5. Some of the magic item descriptions have literally gone unchanged since original D&D.
With that in mind, it's not enough to say that the rules imply this or that outcome. Whatever they imply, it is NOT deliberate, but rather the result of a complicated legacy of rules.
Therefore, I would like to see a fresh ruling on the issue. We should know how they are intended to work now, and not be reliant on processing ancient flavor text through an item creation ruleset that is known to be more art than science.
I agree, in theory. Except that I suspect any such ruling is likely to be made by a process of processing ancient flavor text through the item creation ruleset.
I hope the decision would be made taking into account the changes made to the invisibility spell:
from 24 hours (1st and 2nd AD&D edition) to 1 minute level (Pathfinder).If the developers have felt the need to change the spell it is reasonable to ask them if they want to keep the ring as it was, with a unlimited duration, or it is reasonable to limit it to a duration based on the item caster level, even if the item has a unlimited number of daily uses.
- * -
There have been a few angry posts about "I would be terrible to have to reactivate the ring every few minutes, it will wreak immersion and fun". I find that argument baseless. You simply need a statement on the tune of "I will reactivate the invisibility every couple of minutes" and you are kosher when out of combat. You track your actions round for round only in combat or when doing something that require tracking.
You really role play every round when healing 30-40 hp with a wand of CLW? Or you roll a few dices, sum them up and say "In 3 rounds I have cured Fred of 21 hp of damage, I use the wand again. 7, Ok now Fred has been healed for 29 Hp, we can go." while the other players have their characters do what they want in those 4 rounds?
Save that we're not talking about a standard counterspell, but a Dispel Counter. That's a major difference.Activating a magic item =/= casting a spell. It is much more akin to activating a spell-like ability.
And as we all know, counterspell does not function against SLAs.
Except....
Counterspell: When dispel magic is used in this way, the spell targets a spellcaster and is cast as a counterspell. Unlike a true counterspell, however, dispel magic may not work; you must make a dispel check to counter the other spellcaster's spell.
/cevah
|
|
Save that we're not talking about a standard counterspell, but a Dispel Counter. That's a major difference.Activating a magic item =/= casting a spell. It is much more akin to activating a spell-like ability.
And as we all know, counterspell does not function against SLAs.
Except....
Counterspell: When dispel magic is used in this way, the spell targets a spellcaster and is cast as a counterspell. Unlike a true counterspell, however, dispel magic may not work; you must make a dispel check to counter the other spellcaster's spell./cevah
He speak of dispelling the ring when the enemy is trying to activate it or of immediately dispelling the invisibility once cast (something that can't be done unless you have see invisibility running, Dispel magic now is a targeted spell).
Essentially a ready action on the tune of "When he tries to activate his ring I cast a targeted dispelling on the ring."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Save that we're not talking about a standard counterspell, but a Dispel Counter. That's a major difference.Activating a magic item =/= casting a spell. It is much more akin to activating a spell-like ability.
And as we all know, counterspell does not function against SLAs.
Except....
Counterspell: When dispel magic is used in this way, the spell targets a spellcaster and is cast as a counterspell. Unlike a true counterspell, however, dispel magic may not work; you must make a dispel check to counter the other spellcaster's spell./cevahHe speak of dispelling the ring when the enemy is trying to activate it or of immediately dispelling the invisibility once cast (something that can't be done unless you have see invisibility running, Dispel magic now is a targeted spell).
Essentially a ready action on the tune of "When he tries to activate his ring I cast a targeted dispelling on the ring."
Dispelling the ring is not a "dispel counter". Neither is dispelling the invisibility effect. He is talking about countering the activation, not the ring. This only works if activation = cast, which is only true for spell completion items. See post 106 under the quote of using magic items.
/cevah
|
|
Dispelling the ring is not a "dispel counter". Neither is dispelling the invisibility effect. He is talking about countering the activation, not the ring. This only works if activation = cast, which is only true for spell completion items. See post 106 under the quote of using magic items.
/cevah
A "Dispel counter" don't exist in the rules, he is not speaking of counterspelling, so the only way to achieve what he is saying is to dispel the magic item when it is activated, and that can be done with a ready action and the casting of dispel magic on the ring.
Dispelling the ring is not a "dispel counter". Neither is dispelling the invisibility effect. He is talking about countering the activation, not the ring. This only works if activation = cast, which is only true for spell completion items. See post 106 under the quote of using magic items.
/cevah
A "Dispel counter" don't exist in the rules, he is not speaking of counterspelling, so the only way to achieve what he is saying is to dispel the magic item when it is activated, and that can be done with a ready action and the casting of dispel magic on the ring.
Save that we're not talking about a standard counterspell, but a Dispel Counter. That's a major difference.Activating a magic item =/= casting a spell. It is much more akin to activating a spell-like ability.
And as we all know, counterspell does not function against SLAs.
Looks like he is referring to the counterspell option of the dispel magic, and not a targeted dispel. Contrasting it to a standard counterspell implies this. The major difference he refers to is the fact that the dispel magic version of a counterspell has a caster level check and the standard counterspell does not.
/cevah
I guess I just have a hard time seeing how having a ring that lets you turn fricking invisible nearly at will as many times as you want per day, but "only" for three minutes at a time is such an egregious thing. It is hardly "retarded" (to use an unfortunate word thrown around earlier) and it is hardly depriving PCs of anything.
Being able to turn invisible an unlimited number of times per day, nearly at will, even if for only three minutes at a pop is incredibly powerful. It is incredibly powerful for only 10,800 gp. Too powerful. And that it was limited to three minutes a pop and is a command word item was known when Skip wrote his column for 3.5 saying that the Ring was simply too good for its calculated price. And it was known when Paizo wrote the exact same message in the GameMastery Guide.
I'm not saying a FAQ for PF wouldn't be nice to put thus to rest. And I'm not saying that people shouldn't change how these magic items work for their home games. But I for the life of me cannot fathom how this reading of the rules (which pretty clearly seems to be the intent until something contradictory comes straight from the developers) is ruinous, whuch is how a couple of people seem to be reacting. That doesn't make any sense to me.
And let's be frank. Almost everybody is simply going to handwave the duration issue outside of combat most of the time anyway, barring some very specific situations. And you know what? Having to come up with an RP reason for why you have to step into the powder room every 9.5 minutes or why you keep saying some weird word at odd intervals throughout the dinner party might just be the point.
This is the point where you're undoubtedly going beyond the scope of the rules. The same thing happens when people argue that if the Ring works like the spell and lasts for three minutes, you should be able to take it off and pass it around to the whole party.The item description says 'the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell'. That suggests that it acts like the spell, but the target must always be the wearer.How is using it in the traditional fashion not benefiting from it? Does a wizard not benefit from making his bodyguards invisible? Does a mastermind not benefit from making his traps invisible? All that passage denotes is that the spell can only be used by the wearer of the ring. Making a valued bauble invisible to protect it from thieves benefits the wearer, make no mistake!No.
These are very different arguments.
One: "what is the definition of benefit" in the idea of "anything I do with it is beneficial"
- while I find it amusing, and understandable, I agree that the linguistic construct is clearTwo: "once the spell-effect is activated, do you need to continue to wear the ring to maintain the benefits" (I.e. Is the duration tied to the spell-effect after it's activated, or is it tied to keeping the ring on?)
- I would say, of it's an enforced duration (because it's tied to the spell-effect), it's an enforced duration: that is, it's tied to the spell effectThe reason I view it this way is that if the ring is command word activated (the understanding) and it has a limited duration (which I can see) then the wearer (current) on activation befits from an effect like the spell. They become invisible, like the spell. Hence, ring is no longer needed once it's activated.
Otherwise it becomes a vastly over-priced item that should buck the item pricing guidelines, as it doesn't actually accomplish what it's supposed to. It becomes not very useful.
Would you let someone with Boots of Speed use all ten rounds of Haste, then give them to another PC, who will also use them to get ten rounds of Haste? Can the first PC activate them, take them off and give them to another PC, who dons and activates them so they can simultaneously benefit from the Haste effect?
Same idea here.
And I'm on my phone, so I can't go quote your edit bit right now. But the idea that the Ring is "too good" for its benefit at 10,800 goes back to 3.5. The price was increased to 20k, knowing that it functions exactly like is being laid out here. There are excerpts for the GMG (Paizo) and a WotC article (3.5) discussing precisely that issue. Bottom of page 2, maybe? The actual 3.5 article was linked to later on page 3.
|
In 3rd ed and PF, there has been dev comment on the price of this ring. They say that according to the formulas, it should have a Market price of 12,000, which BTW implies 'act of will' rather than 'command word', which makes sense since the idea of a stealth item which requires you to speak out loud is ludicrous.
But the reason they give for the 20,000 price is that it's 'too good'.
It is good. But the 'good' part is being invisible at will, not a duration lasting some minutes.
If they truly intended it to cost 20,000 and truly wanted it to have the 'correct' duration of a spell cast at the correct level, then they would have made it CL5, which would cost 20,000 and they wouldn't have to explain why in a blog.
I assert that they intended it to have the effect of the spell, but you have to switch it on and off like a lightswitch (but attacking ends it). You don't switch the light on and then have to keep switching it on again every five minutes!
No, the GMG and the article posted by Skip for 3.5 specifically use the price relevant for command word activation, 10,800 gp.
And again, it's tough to argue that the intent was something different in 3.5 when they quite literally answered this exact question in the 3.5 FAQ. It's not even reading into anything or extrapolating from a similar circumstance. It is literally this very question. What is the duration of the invisibility provided by a Ring of Invisibilty: the same as spell cast by a 3rd level caster, 3 minutes.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would you let someone with Boots of Speed use all ten rounds of Haste, then give them to another PC, who will also use them to get ten rounds of Haste? Can the first PC activate them, take them off and give them to another PC, who dons and activates them so they can simultaneously benefit from the Haste effect?
Same idea here.
No, it is not.
If a bag has four bottles of water in it, then after those four bottles are used, however they are used, those four bottles are gone.
If a bag has an infinite number of bottles of water on it, then, after a given bottle is used, the bottle may be empty, but the bag is not.
This isn't that hard.