| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I'll make it even easier than that: in Sean's post, he noted that it was 'too good' at 12,000 - however, his presumption was a 'continuous/at-will' price (as there's no other way of getting the other value).
IF IT WERE CONTINUOUS/AT WILL: I would agree that the 20k price is fine.
IF IT IS COMMAND WORD: it is too expensive.
"retarded" (to use an unfortunate word thrown around earlier)
I agree that this is exceedingly rude, was used here, and is the reason I did not favorite that post. I would ask us all to refrain from such usage in the future. Thank you.
|
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 was referring specifically to the Counterspell version of dispel magic which can no more affect an SLA than a 'normal' counterspell.
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.I'll make it even easier than that: in Sean's post, he noted that it was 'too good' at 12,000 - however, his presumption was a 'continuous/at-will' price (as there's no other way of getting the other value).
IF IT WERE CONTINUOUS/AT WILL: I would agree that the 20k price is fine.
IF IT IS COMMAND WORD: it is too expensive.
Published material by Paizo has a higher priority than one post by a former developer.
EDIT: It's on the bottom of page 1, not 2. My bad on that.
Published material by Paizo has a higher priority than one post by a former developer.
I didn't say otherwise. I did say I'd make it easier to find, however.
EDIT: It's on the bottom of page 1, not 2. My bad on that.
No problem - you were on a phone: it's hard to search and post on those things, and going by memory is always prone to fault. :)
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!
Nice catch!
I went and looked at 2e, and found:
The wearer of an invisibility ring is able to become invisible at will, instantly. This nonvisible state is exactly the same as the wizard invisibility spell, except that 10% of these rings have inaudibility as well, making the wearer absolutely silent. If the wearer wishes to speak, he breaks all silence features in order to do so.You'll notice that this wording was a little more verbose, and in this one, it's completely clear that they're describing the state as being the same as the spell, not describing the ring as casting the spell. The 3E wording doesn't look to me like it was intended to change this, but we've gotten gradual developments in rulings and interpretation since then, and by 3.5, the people making rulings thought it implied a 3 minute duration. It'd be interesting to know whether anyone at Paizo even considered this question; my guess is "no", because most of the time no one bothers to look at stuff that everyone already knows.
I would say that, given the existing state of the rules, it's pretty clear that the ring requires a standard action to activate, which makes it less good than it would be if it were "use-activated", but you can activate it as often as you want, so it's still pretty powerful.
My guess is that the person who originally wrote those words in the 3E book did not have spell duration in mind, but that doesn't mean they'd object to that ruling, just that they'd never thought about it.
This all seems pretty reasonable. Wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Like I said, I think a PF FAQ would be nice, just to wrap things up in a nice little bow. And who doesn't love bows on things? At this point, it seems to run like the 3.5 FAQs suggest. I don't expect them to change that if they do issue a FAQ, but who knows? Wouldn't be the first time I was surprised with one of the rulings!
Published material by Paizo has a higher priority than one post by a former developer.I didn't say otherwise. I did say I'd make it easier to find, however.
What I meant was the published material (GameMastery Guide) uses the 10,800 number derived from the command word calculation. It's the same number referenced by the WotC article about costs of magic items in 3.5.
But honestly, I don't think it really matters much at this point.
*shrug*
|
I was referring specifically to the Counterspell version of dispel magic which can no more affect an SLA than a 'normal' counterspell.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
We were speaking (or at least I was speaking) about LazarX argument, not yours. I thought that citing the "Dispel counter", a term that don't exist in the rules, made that clear
|
|
To repeat it again, as no one take that inconsideration:
In the 1st and 2nd edition the invisibility spell had a 24 hours duration or until broken.
That was purposefully changed in the 3.x edition of the game.
It stand to reason to suppose that if they have purposefully changed the spell the developer have purposefully changed the ring duration to match the change.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the GM wants to break my movement throughout an entire scenario or dungeon down into round-by-round actions so he can track the duration of a ring of invisibility, he can.
He'll find that quiet a few PC buffs that most GM's rule expire every couple of encounters suddenly start lasting the entire dungeon.
It'd fall under "impossible" and the kitsune'd take a -20 to bluff. :)
EDIT: added a space between words, and a smiley
Anyway, on a related subject, dragon shape shifting, if it does fall into that same paradigm, is not only effectively worthless until relatively great ages (because unlike regular races, where are you going to 'hide' when your disguise runs out?), but also fails most of the literature I've seen about them using it... just like a kitsune's ability.
|
|
The writers of the 3rd ed ring and the writers of the PF ring didn't first look at the 3rd ed/PF version of the spell and think, 'Hmmm, I wonder if I can make a ring based on that spell?'
No, they knew that the ring existed in earlier editions, knew that earlier editions used the phrase 'as the spell', knew that it referred to the game mechanics for the state of invisibility which were detailed in the spell, knew that the ring conferred that state rather than 'casting a spell' on the wearer, and used similar but briefer wording to create a ring that did the same thing it always did: let the wearer switch invisibility on and off like a lightswitch but didn't 'run out' after 3 minutes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please provide a link to this as I've never heard of it.Anyway, on a related subject, dragon shape shifting, if it does fall into that same paradigm, is not only effectively worthless until relatively great ages (because unlike regular races, where are you going to 'hide' when your disguise runs out?), but also fails most of the literature I've seen about them using it... just like a kitsune's ability.It doesn't because what dragons and certain outsiders use is the Change Shape mechanic which is specifically written up as lasting as long as the user chooses to maintain the form.
So not relevant to the discussion at hand.
Change Shape (Su) A creature with this special quality has the ability to assume the appearance of a specific creature or type of creature (usually a humanoid), but retains most of its own physical qualities. A creature cannot change shape to a form more than one size category smaller or larger than its original form. This ability functions as a polymorph spell, the type of which is listed in the creature's description, but the creature does not adjust its ability scores (although it gains any other abilities of the creature it mimics). Unless otherwise stated, it can remain in an alternate form indefinitely. Some creatures, such as lycanthropes, can transform into unique forms with special modifiers and abilities. These creatures do adjust their ability scores, as noted in their description.
Format: change shape (wolf, beast form I); Location: SQ, and in special abilities for creatures with a unique listing.
Link is here.
EDIT:
A creature with this special quality has the ability to assume the appearance of a specific creature or type of creature (usually a humanoid), but retains most of its own physical qualities. A creature cannot change shape to a form more than one size category smaller or larger than its original form. This ability functions as a polymorph spell, the type of which is listed in the creature’s description, but the creature does not adjust its ability scores (although it gains any other abilities of the creature it mimics). Unless otherwise stated, it can remain in an alternate form indefinitely. Some creatures, such as lycanthropes, can transform into unique forms with special modifiers and abilities. These creatures do adjust their ability scores, as noted in their descriptions.
... so Laz is correct, however, the first bolded portion is important, however, as...
A silver dragon can assume any animal or humanoid form 3/day as if using polymorph.
... becomes exceedingly limited and, in fact, worthless in another way, if you actually go by that rule instead (and, once again, strictly limited in utility to the point of not matching any flavor text I've ever read about dragons ever).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah thanks, interestingly that refers to it functioning as polymorph whereas the Kitsune one I initially referenced says it functions as alter self....Please provide a link to this as I've never heard of it.Anyway, on a related subject, dragon shape shifting, if it does fall into that same paradigm, is not only effectively worthless until relatively great ages (because unlike regular races, where are you going to 'hide' when your disguise runs out?), but also fails most of the literature I've seen about them using it... just like a kitsune's ability.It doesn't because what dragons and certain outsiders use is the Change Shape mechanic which is specifically written up as lasting as long as the user chooses to maintain the form.
So not relevant to the discussion at hand.
Link is here.Change Shape (Su) A creature with this special quality has the ability to assume the appearance of a specific creature or type of creature (usually a humanoid), but retains most of its own physical qualities. A creature cannot change shape to a form more than one size category smaller or larger than its original form. This ability functions as a polymorph spell, the type of which is listed in the creature's description, but the creature does not adjust its ability scores (although it gains any other abilities of the creature it mimics). Unless otherwise stated, it can remain in an alternate form indefinitely. Some creatures, such as lycanthropes, can transform into unique forms with special modifiers and abilities. These creatures do adjust their ability scores, as noted in their description.
Format: change shape (wolf, beast form I); Location: SQ, and in special abilities for creatures with a unique listing.
Ah, careful there.
This ability functions as a polymorph spell, the type of which is listed in the creature's description, but the creature does not adjust its ability scores (although it gains any other abilities of the creature it mimics).
Change Shape works as a polymorph spell, any of them. Beast Shape, Alter Self, etc. Depends on the forms available to the creature. Imps have Beast Shape Change Shape and Succubi have Alter Self Change Shape for example.
Other things that don't quite work like they're supposed to:
Green Hag imitating spouses.
Succubus' ability to disguise themselves as the same person again and again (after all 'specific individuals' and all that...)
... and similar.
Ah so polymorph as a type of spell not as in the "polymorph" spells wish they wouldn't duplicate names.
The dragons Change Shape ability does function as a polymorph spell (which itself is a polymorph effect). Spell names are always italicized.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always found it amusing that colossal dragons can't take the form of humans. Rune giant? No problem. But it makes blending in a bit tricky.
Not sure what's wrong with the Green Hag. It gets Alter Self at will. Lasts nine minutes each time.
Succubi get Change Shape, the monster ability, which is (as noted above) indefinite in duration.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alter self explicitly doesn't allow you to imitate specific individuals. So much for their ability to trick spouses.
Edit: forgot where I was going.
Also, the fact that the seductive woman just stops whatever she's doing every nine minutes and stares off into space for a few seconds would be... distracting, I'd imagine, to most people.
It would to me.
I said nothing about a succubi's duration. I said that she can't maintain a solid disguise while doing other things, because, if she breaks the disguise once, by RAW, she can't go back, as that's a "specific individual" (unlike a dopplganger, who, in fact, can imitate a specific individual).
Of course - and again - that is not what is likely intended.
But if they just mean that the alter self (or Change Shape) ability can't purposefully choose to imitate someone else, what the heck controls what the person looks like?
"I'll take:
- blonde hair
- blue eyes
- white skin
- peak nose
- thin lips
... oh, wait, those are all taken."
There are only so many permutations of individual traits, and only so much variation within a given individual trait before you start to look wrong.
It's to the point where drawn images in Pathfinder, despite having inhuman characteristics, are often thought of as celebrities because they're inspired by them.
EDIT: to clarify "inhuman" characteristics meaning "because they're a flat two-dimensional partially cartoonated drawing" instead of "as non-humans"
(Keifer Southerland in Kingmaker, Locke from Lost in Serpent's Skull - sadly, I can't recall the actor's name - and the avatar floating around from something that looks an awful lot like Nicholas Cage all spring to mind.)
Further evidence for this (from real life) is the idea of the "distant twin" - i.e. that other person that happens to look like you somewhere out there. EDIT: As an example, I've seen this happen. Saw a model (definitely female) advertising things who had a face of a guy I knew in elementary school (who did not grow up into said female model). I compared their pictures to make sure - it was... uncanny. I declined to inform him of this. I've run into a few people who look like celebrities who are not. Celebrity impersonators are a thing for a reason.
The fact is that these are the things that are hand-waived, a bit, to get at the gist of a story across.
A succubus is allowed to take a "unique" form (one that she crafts whole-cloth) as many times as she likes over and over. RAW it doesn't really work, but okay, it makes a better story, and it's close enough. Just so long as she's not mimicking someone the player's know, it's all good.
Hags being unable to mimic spouses... well, okay, we'll just hand-waive that, and let it go, after all there most recent entry doesn't mention it, unlike older material.
Of course, in the original bestiaries (I know, because I'm looking at it), unlike now, they had disguise self instead of alter self which doesn't work at all, because they can only imitate monstrous humanoids...
But then there is the really hard-line fact that silver dragons of great age can become animals of... huge... size...
Not really blending in there.
These things don't quite work like intended or like fantasy literature (based on said systems) actually holds them to work.
EDITed: a few times for clarity.
I'm not seeing the problem with the Succubus. Why can't they keep going back to one specific disguise, if that's what the creature wants to do?
Silver Dragon entry says the form of any humanoid. Plus, it says it functions "as polymorph". Certainly could mean that the normal one size category restriction might not apply. Certainly ambiguous, but I'm comfortable with that being the more specific rule, particularly since it falls in line with how everybody knows the ability is supposed to work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Silver Dragon entry says the form of any humanoid. Plus, it says it functions "as polymorph". Certainly could mean that the normal one size category restriction might not apply. Certainly ambiguous, but I'm comfortable with that being the more specific rule, particularly since it falls in line with how everybody knows the ability is supposed to work.
I guess it does become a problem of "what's most specific?"
Change Shape has the "one size category larger or smaller" rule, polymorph says "as alter self, and alter self says "small or medium humanoid".
I'm inclined to not invalidate decades of D&D lore that says dragons often take human/elven/whatever form, and have alter self be the most specific rule. Particularly since in my campaign there's a dragon that goes around in human form...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not seeing the problem with the Succubus. Why can't they keep going back to one specific disguise, if that's what the creature wants to do?
Then you're not reading it or defining what "specific individuals" in a very odd (and limited) manner. As I said, it's hand-waived by pretty much everybody, because the ability wouldn't work anymore.
I mean, depending on how you take it:
1) I could use the disguise so long as I didn't know of anyone else that existed that looked that way
I could (with that ability) make myself look exactly like, say, Brad Pitt, but so long as I claimed I was "Bad Pritt", I'd be fine, because, you know, I'm not imitating Brad Pitt at all, and, so far as I know, "Bad Pritt" doesn't actually exist anywhere. Heaven help me, though, if I ever discover that "Bad Pritt" does exist, because suddenly I wouldn't be able to use that disguise anymore. Also, heaven help me if I ever introduce myself to anyone, leave that disguise, and try to return to it - they are now a "specific individual" in the minds of somebody. But that's just hand-waived for convenience, and I have no problem with doing so.
2) I could use the the disguise so long as I don't look like any specific individual
So, in a non-infinite, but extremely massive multiverse with multiple inhabited planets of humans, I only have to come up with a disguise that does not, in any way, accurately represent any of them from any planet at any time.
Silver Dragon entry says the form of any humanoid. Plus, it says it functions "as polymorph". Certainly could mean that the normal one size category restriction might not apply. Certainly ambiguous, but I'm comfortable with that being the more specific rule, particularly since it falls in line with how everybody knows the ability is supposed to work.
Man, it must be nice to follow only the parts of RAW you feel like!
(Hint: it is! I do so!)In this case, you're ignoring the Change Shape ability's specific wording:
A creature cannot change shape to a form more than one size category smaller or larger than its original form. This ability functions as a polymorph spell, the type of which is listed in the creature’s description, but the creature does not adjust its ability scores (although it gains any other abilities of the creature it mimics).
Note, it says nothing about "unless otherwise noted" - just that it can't change shape to a form more than one size category different from its base form.
So, even though it notes that it cannot change shape to a form more than one size category smaller or larger than it's original form but that it also functions as a polymorph spell - those are not mutually exclusive, but rather one informs the other.
That is to say, "it functions like the polymorph spell except: it cannot be more than one size category smaller or larger than the base form" (also "it doesn't change the ability scores unless it says it does", so there's that, too).
Again, you can ignore this, but the Change Shape rules do not otherwise allow permutations of that aspect (even though they do allow for differences to the base ability's lack of ability score alteration).
Further, it's less likely that it's the polymorph spell, specifically, and more likely the polymorph category of spells. This is borne out in the format text as clear intent (and only valid way of taking the description):
Format: change shape (wolf, beast shape I); Location: SQ, and in Special Abilities for creatures with a unique listing.
Taking this, we need to look at the silver dragon special ability under the paradigm of Change Shape as a whole: it works like the polymorph line of spells, but it doesn't change ability scores and can only alter within one size category.
Thus,
Change Shape (Su)
A silver dragon can assume any animal or humanoid form 3/day as if using polymorph.
... does not allow the dragon to violate the rules of the Change Shape ability.
... but that also means that if we're going with the polymorph spell in specific, we run into another problem: it no longer functions on the dragon at all, past a certain age category.
Juvenile is the last category it functions for - after that they are huge size, at which point they lose the ability to become medium or smaller.
That means that Beast Shape II (well, okay, it can become a large animal), Elemental Body I, and Alter Self are all too small.
THIS IS OBVIOUSLY NOT THE INTENT.
I am not claiming it is.
However, hard-line application of the RAW, going exclusively by the way they changed how the various abilities worked into Pathfinder means (according to the argumentation used above on magic items) that the design team clearly thought all of this through before hand and intended all of these consequences.
This is the same argument used with "as the spell" (which is, by the way, a really convincing argument).
So which is it? Does it follow Change Shape's traits (i.e. unlimited duration, specific limitations in size alteration, and lack of ability score adjustments) or does it follow polymorph's traits (i.e. limited duration, size alterations limited to the spell, and ability score adjustments) - because, in this case, the two are mutually exclusive, and the latter is not permitted by RAW at all.
Neither actually clearly follows the apparent intent: that a dragon skulk around for long periods as a typical human or animal.
That's pretty clear.
That violates both the spell and the ability's express limitations and traits.
The rules can kind of sort of approximate that, but really they don't function cohesively to create that effect.
This is just as true of the hat of disguise and the ring of invisibility.
The rules indicate that you're stuck with three-minute command-word activation systems.
That doesn't make for good items. That makes for really sucky items that don't do what they're intended to do.
Going by intent isn't always the best way - sometimes the intent is nonsense or just fails.
Sometimes the intent shuts down story options that RAW opens up.
But here on the Rules forum, we're here to discuss RAW.
And, per RAW: a young adult silver dragon has completely outgrown their special Change Shape ability.
Full quote of Change Shape (which I linked above) for the curious:
Change Shape (Su)
A creature with this special quality has the ability to assume the appearance of a specific creature or type of creature (usually a humanoid), but retains most of its own physical qualities. A creature cannot change shape to a form more than one size category smaller or larger than its original form. This ability functions as a polymorph spell, the type of which is listed in the creature’s description, but the creature does not adjust its ability scores (although it gains any other abilities of the creature it mimics). Unless otherwise stated, it can remain in an alternate form indefinitely. Some creatures, such as lycanthropes, can transform into unique forms with special modifiers and abilities. These creatures do adjust their ability scores, as noted in their descriptions.
Format: change shape (wolf, beast shape I); Location: SQ, and in Special Abilities for creatures with a unique listing.
Silver Dragon entry says the form of any humanoid. Plus, it says it functions "as polymorph". Certainly could mean that the normal one size category restriction might not apply. Certainly ambiguous, but I'm comfortable with that being the more specific rule, particularly since it falls in line with how everybody knows the ability is supposed to work.I guess it does become a problem of "what's most specific?"
Change Shape has the "one size category larger or smaller" rule, polymorph says "as alter self, and alter self says "small or medium humanoid".
I'm inclined to not invalidate decades of D&D lore that says dragons often take human/elven/whatever form, and have alter self be the most specific rule. Particularly since in my campaign there's a dragon that goes around in human form...
Point in fact, this is exactly how I handle it in our games, even though it's wrong, per RAW.
It's clearly what was intended and (most importantly) makes for better stories and games both.
Still not seeing the problem with the Succubus. The permutations possible for facial structure alone are, for all relevant purposes here, practically infinite. You're parsing that pretty ridiculously. The point is you don't get to be somebody's doppleganger and try to stand in for a specific person, not that you haveto discover some odd combination of features that has not yet been randomly generated.
The Silver Dragon entry might need an additional line that they can violate the size restrictions of Change Shape. Seems like a good thing to bring up in an errata thread.
That Rings of Invisibility are limited to three minutes at a pop does not in any way make them "sucky". And I'm not sure how they don't do what they're intended to do when the evidence at this point demonstrates that they're intended to turn a person invisible for up to three minutes at a time, an unlimited number of times a day, which is precisely what they do.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still not seeing the problem with the Succubus....
... Guess she's got you under her spell. :-)
/cevah
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Furthermore, the 1e/2e ring didn't last 24 hours. It lasted forever until cancelled. So it was clearly not based on the spell duration, then.
No, it lasted 24 hours.
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.
It worked exactly the same as the wizard spell. The wizard spell had a duration of 24 hours, not forever. So the ring lasted 24 hours. Of course, you could always reactivate it. Doesn't change that a single activation only lasted at most 24 hours.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still not seeing the problem with the Succubus. The permutations possible for facial structure alone are, for all relevant purposes here, practically infinite. You're parsing that pretty ridiculously. The point is you don't get to be somebody's doppleganger and try to stand in for a specific person, not that you haveto discover some odd combination of features that has not yet been randomly generated.
As I've said, it's because you're not looking to see a problem, so you don't.
I know what the point of the ability is. I stated it up there.
It's that very point which runs into problems when you try to place it into any setting with an exceedingly large number of worlds.
The human face is a finite space with finite numbers of features with finite numbers of permutations before it's no longer human.
In a setting, like Pathfinder's Golarion-centered omniverse (with a technically finite but indescribably large universe filled with multiple worlds of humans and multiple planes where humans reside), it isn't feasible that, if you shift into any form at all, you aren't a doppleganger of someone.
If you follow the RAW logic "you can't assume the form of a specific individual" then either:
1) you can only assume a given form so long as you don't know someone who has that form (or you make such a subtle variation to make the limit practically meaningless)
2) you can only assume a form that no one else has, anywhere (and good luck blending in to human society, because you'll look really weird)
There's the ancillary concept that goes along with that (which you base your entire rejection on, but is, in the end, only a single point of many) that, as soon as you create an identity with a form, that is a "specific" individual - the identity so-created.
In this way (regardless of how you take it), the ability fails to do what it's intended to do, save for a few very exceedingly specific weirdly self-limiting campaign settings.
You don't see the problem as a problem because you voluntarily hand-waive it away, ignoring the practical limitations that are caused by following a hardline of RAW.
This is exactly what I'm saying: you don't follow the hardline to it's logical extremes - nobody does - because that would make the ability worthless.
Instead, you follow the general intent.
In this case, that's the correct response.
The fact that you do this casually while telling others they're doing it wrong for doing the same for other items is an issue, and it's one you need to address with yourself. You are a very intelligent person, and I want you to maintain a level of personal honesty that goes along with that.
The Silver Dragon entry might need an additional line that they can violate the size restrictions of Change Shape. Seems like a good thing to bring up in an errata thread.
So do so! Good idea!
Doesn't mean it's not a major flaw in the RAW currently. Because it is. It's a house-ruled, hand-waived flaw, because everyone (well, most people) know what it's supposed to do, but a flaw nonetheless.
Because it's definitely a major flaw.
It's also solid evidence that, when the initial redesign of the creatures, powers, structures, and abilities were first created, some things were missed. This makes arguing that the original design of such unlimited without repetitious voice command items "as intended" an exceedingly weak one, at best.
Let me put this another way.
This thread, in general, seems to be looking at the company as a whole as a mono-minded singular entity when, in fact, it's made up of individuals who speak on behalf of the whole in different ways in different times... doing what they see as the 'correct' response at the time.
Hence, we have two conflicting views (presented in a single thread, linked earlier) as to the intent and design of the same item from WotC's standpoint.
This is evidenced by "they said this here!" and "they said the other, there!" type evidences.
This is why Intent is a tricky beast in general.
That Rings of Invisibility are limited to three minutes at a pop does not in any way make them "sucky". And I'm not sure how they don't do what they're intended to do when the evidence at this point demonstrates that they're intended to turn a person invisible for up to three minutes at a time, an unlimited number of times a day, which is precisely what they do.
They're "sucky" because having to speak out-loud ruins the point of invisibility - that is, staying undetected. (Unless you think the point of invisibility is to get a few bonuses in combat, in which case, I'd like to introduce you to a whole slew of other spells that could be just as, if not more, useful.)
Even if whispered, the command word, per RAW, drops your stealth bonus to a straight DC 15 Perception check (though arguably less, as that's "details of a whispered conversation" as opposed to just hearing the whisper at all). Nice +20 stealth bonus that does diddly right there!
So yes, having it be command word directly undermines the intent of the item.
Here's the thing: it may work well for you. That's great. It doesn't for many groups. A large number of other effects would be superior and preferable to a command word three-minute-limit ring of invisibility.
As I've said, I agree with your arguments that, RAW, it looks like a command word item with a three minute limit.
This makes it vastly overpriced for its effect, much like the rings of wizardry - too much cost for too little benefit.
Similarly, the hat of disguise or sleeves of many garments (though the latter seems to imply by description that no word is needed, given that no activation method is specified*, I can see the argument made that it's a command-word item).
If a game were run such that a ring is limited to three minutes, but must be renewed by command word than, barring unusual circumstances, I'd sell the ring and get something else better as soon as possible.
By that metric, it's very over-priced. That is the exact metric that a designer, noted as being one of the best in the industry, explained that an item should be priced.
As I've stated, though, if it's simply a use-activated item, that's a very different story, and the price is exactly what I'd expect it to be for such an item (and may be under-priced - I'd be willing to pay that extra 4k for a use-activated item).
It wouldn't be the first time Paizo, WotC, or other publishers have vastly over-priced an item.
As awesome as Paizo is - and, I will tell you right now, that I love this company, and that they are, in fact, awesome - they make mistakes. Lots of them, actually. And that's fine. It happens.
Similarly, WotC before them, even in their "best" period (to my way of thinking) made lots of mistakes. Again, that's fine, and it happens.
This, as written, is one of them.
* To me, the activation method seems clearly to be "slipping it on", however that causes even more problems - a lot more problems - with the item if it's limited to a 1 minute duration.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Magic items:
Full potion has no duration limit
The ring gives you a state, but no mention of duration. Even if you force the state to end at 24H, it still is way more than 3 minutes.
Spells:
Range: Touch Components: V, S, M
Duration: Special Casting Time: 2
Area of Effect: Creature touched Saving Throw: None
This spell causes the creature touched to vanish from sight and be undetectable by normal vision or even infravision. Of course, the invisible creature is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the creature detectable. Even allies cannot see the invisible creature or his gear, unless these allies can normally see invisible things or employ magic to do so. Items dropped or put down by the invisible creature become visible; items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature. Note, however, that light never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source).
The spell remains in effect until it is magically broken or dispelled, until the wizard or recipient cancels it, until the recipient attacks any creature, or until 24 hours have passed. Thus, the invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, etc., but if he attacks, he immediately becomes visible, although the invisibility enables him to attack first. Note that the priest spells bless, chant, and prayer are not attacks for this purpose. All highly Intelligent (Intelligence 13 or more) creatures with 10 or more Hit Dice or levels of experience have a chance to detect invisible objects (they roll saving throws vs. spell; success means they noticed the invisible object).
The material components of the invisibility spell are an eyelash and a bit of gum arabic, the former encased in the latter.
OK, here we have a 24H limit.
Range: Touch Components: V, S, M
Duration: Special Casting Time: 3
Area of Effect: 10-ft. radius Saving Throw: None
This spell confers invisibility upon all creatures within 10 feet of the recipient. Gear carried and light sources are included, but any light emitted is still visible. The center of the effect is mobile with the recipient. Those affected by this spell cannot see each other. Any affected creature moving out of the area becomes visible, but creatures moving into the area after the spell is cast do not become invisible. Affected creatures (other than the recipient) that attack negate the invisibility only for themselves. If the spell recipient attacks, the invisibility, 10’ radius spell is broken for all.
The material components are the same as for the invisibility spell.
The 24H limit is missing here....
Range: 10 yds./level Components: V, S, M
Duration: Special Casting Time: 7
Area of Effect: 60 x 60 yds. Saving Throw: None
This is a more extensive adaptation of the invisibility spell for battlefield use. It can hide creatures in a 60-yard x 60-yard area: up to 400 man-sized creatures, 30 to 40 giants, or six to eight large dragons. The effect is mobile with the unit and is broken when the unit attacks. Individuals leaving the unit become visible. The wizard can end this spell upon command.
The material components of the mass invisibility spell are an eyelash and a bit of gum arabic, the former encased in the latter.
The 24H limit is missing here....
I am pretty sure 1st edition had no time limit, but my books are in another room.
/cevah
Nnnnnnnnnnnnice.
That Rings of Invisibility are limited to three minutes at a pop does not in any way make them "sucky". And I'm not sure how they don't do what they're intended to do when the evidence at this point demonstrates that they're intended to turn a person invisible for up to three minutes at a time, an unlimited number of times a day, which is precisely what they do.I don't think we've seen any evidence of intent on that issue.
We have evidence that at least one developer thought it was obvious that magic rings which grant a condition while activated have no duration limit unless stated otherwise. We also have evidence that at least one or two developers concluded that the ring probably made more sense, with how 3E's magic item rules work in general, if it is assumed to be a 3-minute duration.
But we have nothing at all that speaks to intent. The only people who could speak to intent would be the people involved in originally drafting that ring for 3.0; everyone else has been making rulings based on that text, but only the people who wrote it know what their intent was.
Given how widely opinions on how this ought to work vary, my guess is that this is a case where since the question almost never comes up, it may well be that none of the people working on the rules text ever happen to have discussed it with someone else who disagreed with them, but that doesn't mean they all agree.
No evidence of intent for PF? Maybe. Pretty good evidence of intent regarding 3.5, considering the FAQ says exactly that. Whether it was how the item functioned prior to 3.5 really doesn't matter. Wording was changed and specific official answers were provided describing just exactly how it was supposed to function.
Pretty sure PF staff would be aware of that. They were aware of the WotC article discussing the pricing issue (since they nearly copypasta'd the relevant information).
There's more evidence of an intent for a 3 minute duration than an infinite one.
I love the way this thread is progressing.
"I think the ring should work this way, here's why, and if I'm wrong, I will burn this game to the ground!"
Could you quote a few of the posts that lead you to believe that to be the case, Durngrun? I'm just not getting the vibe you describe.
Still not seeing the problem with the Succubus. The permutations possible for facial structure alone are, for all relevant purposes here, practically infinite. You're parsing that pretty ridiculously. The point is you don't get to be somebody's doppleganger and try to stand in for a specific person, not that you haveto discover some odd combination of features that has not yet been randomly generated.As I've said, it's because you're not looking to see a problem, so you don't.
I know what the point of the ability is. I stated it up there.
It's that very point which runs into problems when you try to place it into any setting with an exceedingly large number of worlds.
The human face is a finite space with finite numbers of features with finite numbers of permutations before it's no longer human.
In a setting, like Pathfinder's Golarion-centered omniverse (with a technically finite but indescribably large universe filled with multiple worlds of humans and multiple planes where humans reside), it isn't feasible that, if you shift into any form at all, you aren't a doppleganger of someone.
If you follow the RAW logic "you can't assume the form of a specific individual" then either:
1) you can only assume a given form so long as you don't know someone who has that form (or you make such a subtle variation to make the limit practically meaningless)
2) you can only assume a form that no one else has, anywhere (and good luck blending in to human society, because you'll look really weird)There's the ancillary concept that goes along with that (which you base your entire rejection on, but is, in the end, only a single point of many) that, as soon as you create an identity with a form, that is a "specific" individual - the identity so-created.
In this way (regardless of how you take it), the ability fails to do what it's intended to do, save for a few very exceedingly specific weirdly self-limiting campaign settings.
You don't see the problem as a problem because you voluntarily hand-waive it away, ignoring the practical limitations that are caused by following a hardline of RAW.
This is exactly what I'm saying: you don't follow the hardline to it's logical extremes - nobody does - because that would make the ability worthless.
So then the contrary position is that you only see a problem because you're out looking for one.
I get what you're trying to say. "There are so many people out there that all the faces have been taken! It's impossible to not look like somebody." It's a wonder that in this world of 7+ billion people, we're not awash with unrelated visual twins. There are no unique snowflakes, I guess.
That's not what the RAW means. When it says you can look like someone specific, it's saying you can't say, "I want to look like that guy. *points at guy*" Similarly, you can't say, "I want to change my appearance to that of Captain Shuffles McTrufflestein so I can bluff my way into the guardhouse barracks more easily."
That's RAW. I'm perfectly in line with that.
As for your position on the Ring of Invisibility's price, that is a perfectly fine opinion. All evidence indicates that Paizo disagrees with you. WotC certainly disagreed with you because they patently answered these questions to the opposite of your desire with regard to this item. I also think the item is quite fairly priced. The 3 minute duration will only incredibly rarely even come up. As I said before, this isn't ruinous in a game; it just means that once in a blue moon, a player might have to get a little tactical in when and how s/he reactivates the ring while going on that longterm scouting mission. Heaven forbid. Frankly, I find that possibility a lot more interesting than "I activate my Ring and stay invisible for six hours while I map out in detail every passageway in the fort, including guard paths and shift changes." *yawn*
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I'm more or less with Ravingdork on this one.
Who's burning what game to the ground?
If you're responding to me, I specifically am accepting of the RAW interpretation, but also noting the developers comments on determining the worth of any item: by the former metric fretgod99 is correct, and by the latter the item is overpriced.
Added to that, there's an interesting side-conversation about how long earlier rings lasted, using various rules quotes to back that up.
(Although only quoting relevant text, if it's me, is probably a better solution, given how long my posts are.)
Magic items:
** spoiler omitted **
Full potion has no duration limit** spoiler omitted **
The ring gives you a state, but no mention of duration. Even if you force the state to end at 24H, it still is way more than 3 minutes.Spells:
** spoiler omitted **...
I think a fair argument for 24-hour duration can be made for the ring and potion, considering the "as the spell" type of language.
For the other spells, were I to interpret them, I'd make the same inference - they're variations on the base spell and intended to function that way. Could be wrong. *shrug*
But in the end, I'm not sure what the relevance is (not specifically your post, I know why you responded, I mean the point in general), since we know precisely how long the Ring, spell, and potion effects lasted in 3.5. Not trying to be flippant at all. I get why people have the impression they do about the current Ring because of legacy. But for that legacy to override, you have to ignore the more direct and recent legacy that answers these questions very clearly and very differently. That's tough to do since PF parroted all of that language directly from 3.5.
Some people are arguing that we can't be sure that PF staff were even aware of this new fangled intent. I honestly think that's somewhat insulting to assume. Beyond that, the only support that can be provided for that idea is that those same people want the Ring to work differently now. By the same token, how do we know the PF people knew of the legacy and function of these items in 2ed and prior? It's a speculative and unhelpful argument in either case.