|
Putting it on doesn't activate the ring or the hat. The item must be worn as a prerequisite to being able to activate it, using either command word or silent act of will."However, some items made for wearing must still be activated." You wear it and silent command it to activate. Where is the removing part coming from?I don't want to have to take off my ring just so I can use it again =(.
Command word is just fine.
Because under "use activated", rings are specified as being worn in order to activate them.
Which first requires that it be removed.
I much prefer "command activated".
Indeed.
Gauss
#1a I too have played much longer than 3.0, but that really isn't important to this item.
#1b No GM had rings of inv go out unless you attacked and hats just worked. I don't think it's handwaving, as some of the games where track your ammo, food, water ect type games. Not the games to handwave much of anything. When I can't just say 'I'm searching for traps' but have to say each and every time (and where), i don't see handwaving a command on a inv ring every few rounds.
#2 You didn't read my example very well. I can touch people all day as long as my glove touches them. The illusion is on ME as i didn't extend it to clothes. So touch my clothes or have me touch someone with a glove. Niether on triggers a save.
As for the rule, it's in the spell. You have to interect with it. If you're touching my normal clothes, how are you interacting with my elf disguise? i didn't put an illusion on the clothes.
Better yet, I have a use for the sleeves. They can't be saved against so they make the perfect cover for the real illusion.
#3 I can't recall anyone usng it as such. All the uses have been longer term than a few min.
|
|
Actually, I just saw the text Nefreet mentioned obliquely there that states that rings are activated by command word by default. So ring of invisibility may indeed be command word after all due to that default being indicated. Huh, in that case I've been doing it wrong all this time."However, some items made for wearing must still be activated." You wear it and silent command it to activate. Where is the removing part coming from?I don't want to have to take off my ring just so I can use it again =(.
Command word is just fine.
Because under "use activated", rings are specified as being worn in order to activate them.
Which first requires that it be removed.
I much prefer "command activated".
If you need the help (and have space in your office!) I'll happily move to Seattle and be your assistant =D.
|
But what you're describing is continuous and isn't priced as such.
If the ring was command word, the price would be CL (3) x SL (2) x 1800 = 10,800.
If it were use activated (meaning that, while worn, you can activate or deactivate it as a silent act of will) then the price would be CL (3) x SL (2) x 2000 = 12,000
If it were continuous (meaning that it makes you invisible as soon as you put it on and stay that way until you take it off) then it would be the price of a use activated ring (12,000) x the modifier for a spell with a duration of 1 minute/level (x2) = 24,000gp.
The ring's actual cost is 20,000. Since designer notes say that it's more expensive than the formula would indicate, it can't be continuous. Out of the other two possibilities, it's far more expensive than both, and since talking out loud to make yourself stay invisible makes no sense, and since it easily pays for use activated, then use activated it is!
Gauss
#1a I too have played much longer than 3.0, but that really isn't important to this item.
#1b No GM had rings of inv go out unless you attacked and hats just worked. I don't think it's handwaving, as some of the games where track your ammo, food, water ect type games. Not the games to handwave much of anything. When I can't just say 'I'm searching for traps' but have to say each and every time (and where), i don't see handwaving a command on a inv ring every few rounds.
#2 You didn't read my example very well. I can touch people all day as long as my glove touches them. The illusion is on ME as i didn't extend it to clothes. So touch my clothes or have me touch someone with a glove. Niether on triggers a save.
As for the rule, it's in the spell. You have to interect with it. If you're touching my normal clothes, how are you interacting with my elf disguise? i didn't put an illusion on the clothes.
Better yet, I have a use for the sleeves. They can't be saved against so they make the perfect cover for the real illusion.
#3 I can't recall anyone usng it as such. All the uses have been longer term than a few min.
#2 I read it fine. I am saying you are wrong. The illusion is on you but there is no distinction between you and your clothes in the rules to support your position. You use Disguise Self and I touch you...ANY part of you then I am interacting with the illusion. You are covered in an illusion.
Do you make a distinction between clothing and skin when casting a touch spell on someone? I am quite certain the rules do not.
Edit: one more thing, you change how you look but you are not changing how your clothes look? I assume you are buying race or size specific clothing? Those clothes must be a really tight/loose/whatever fit. Even if it worked the way you said (which it doesn't) if you tried to look anything other than the exact same height and weight (and general build) as your regular character the clothes would not fit well. That would result in a disguise penalty at best and a chance to save against the illusion at worst.
Example: You are 6'2 and weigh 200lbs. You want to look 5'8" and weigh 140lbs. You buy clothes that are appropriate to 5'8" and 140lbs. Sorry, they are too small for you. Even if you can fit into them you are still going to look pretty odd as your clothes will not fit your apparent form.
#2 I read it fine. I am saying you are wrong. The illusion is on you but there is no distinction between you and your clothes in the rules to support your position. You use Disguise Self and I touch you...ANY part of you then I am interacting with the illusion. You are covered in an illusion.Do you make a distinction between clothing and skin when casting a touch spell on someone? I am quite certain the rules do not.
You and I have a different view of interact then. If, for example, Sleeves of Many Garments did give a save, I wouldn't count touching my hair as interacting with the illusion of my clothes. Or how touching my boot counts as interecting with the illusionary color change of my hair.
On touch spells, they don't require interaction just a hit.
To give an example, You have a mimic that looks like a chest. I toss a blanket over the 'chest' and hop on top of the blanket to reach a shelf. An I stuck with the Adhesive? I'd say no.
I cast Disguise Weapon on my club making it look like a shortsword. i then shake several hands. Since none of them interacted with actual illusion, no save. You have to actually be in contact with the affected parts and that didn't happen.
I cast an illusion on a statue and turn it blue, then entirely cover it in a tarp. You touch the tarp and want to save vs the illusion?
Now I'm not going to go back and forth with you on this so unless you have some kind of rule about the extent of interecting, it's at best a judgement call. I've only encountered saves on an extensive search like a pat down and have never had one on a casual encounter. If a simple handshake with a real glove provokes a save, i'm glad I don't game with you.
|
The Archive, really? I do not see it as laughable. It is still quite useful.
How often do you have to maintain stealth for 3minutes without break? Not very.
How hard is it to get to a point where you can quietly say a command word? Not very.
Most non combat scout missions take more than 3 mins, this ruling make this rings almost worthless. A level 3 wizard is at least as effective. Heck even a rogue using a wand is much more effective and it costs about 1/10 of the ring
Most non combat scout missions take more than 3 mins, this ruling make this rings almost worthless. A level 3 wizard is at least as effective. Heck even a rogue using a wand is much more effective and it costs about 1/10 of the ringThe Archive, really? I do not see it as laughable. It is still quite useful.
How often do you have to maintain stealth for 3minutes without break? Not very.
How hard is it to get to a point where you can quietly say a command word? Not very.
I can think of multiple times where a character of mine would have died if they needed to use a command word to reactivate the ring. As well, I can think of other times that it would have been useful to have it, in the non-command word state, when they didn't.
All lasting more than 3 minutes.
If you are 3 minutes out from your party then you are probably 900feet away from them (at half speed). That indicates that this is not an underground scenario. So, use distance penalties to your benefit. Quietly get some distance from the enemy, say the word to re-activate the ring, and then they still wont be likely to hear you.
Frankly, I think what you are describing is a rarity. You can come up with other options to deal with that specific problem.
The most common uses for the ring are short scouting missions and entering combat while invisible. Neither of which have been affected.
Remember, you can choose to renew the duration anytime you wish. You don't have to wait for the 3 minute mark.
Choose a situation where you wont be likely to be heard and re-activate it.
It is hyperbole to say that this ruling has made the ring worthless. It has been used as intended for years by other people and it was not worthless.
It may not be usable in the way you were incorrectly using it but, does that really matter in a home game? Just houserule it. It isn't like your home game is not using houserules as it is (almost every home game does).
In a PFS game this FAQ probably won't have any significant effect since the ring is too expensive and PFS sessions do not have the time for PCs to wander off for personal exploration of an entire adventure.
|
|
If you are 3 minutes out from your party then you are probably 900feet away from them (at half speed). That indicates that this is not an underground scenario. So, use distance penalties to your benefit. Quietly get some distance from the enemy, say the word to re-activate the ring, and then they still wont be likely to hear you.
I dont know what kind of game you play, 3 mins away from your party is not always 3 mins "moving away" from your party. Sometimes you just wanna peak at conversation.
It is hyperbole to say that this ruling has made the ring worthless. It has been used as intended for years by other people and it was not worthless.
It has made that much cheaper options are much better than the ring, that for me qualifies as making it worthless. You dont have to agree tought.
|
|
If you are activating 'as a spell' then I don't see how worn or not matters once it's activated. You have the spell duration, as laid out by the FAQ. If you read the magic item description under the 'command word' example, it further reinforces that you can gain access to the magic of the 'spell'.
Again, once the spell is activated (cast) you no longer need access to the spell, so you should not need to wear it again until you need to reactivate the spell.
Forcing someone to wear it continuously and keep recasting the spell is contradictory. The spell effect should be good for the duration.
Good points.
Conceptually, while the ring (or hat) is worn, you can activate (or deactivate) it. While activated (and still worn) you are affected as if the spell had been cast upon you. But no spell has actually been cast, therefore you are not subject to duration any more than you are subject to the other rules for actually casting spells, like VSM components or counterspells. You just benefit from the state of invisibility defined in the spell's descriptive text (or from the ability to change your appearance just like you can when under the influence of disguise self).
Badly thought out item descriptions have left us with items that cast spells on us. When casting spells, you can only target viable targets, but viability is checked at the time of casting. The spell doesn't end if that changes, unless the spell specifically says it does. Since wearing the item is required, it is only required when activated (except for continuous items), so you can use it and pass it along to the next party member and we can all be invisible using one ring.
The first way is RAI, the second way is RAW, for good and ill, even if you don't realise it. Items either cast a spell on you, or they don't.
|
|
Apparently, but you said "continuously until deactivated".But what you're describing is continuous and isn't priced as such.If the ring was command word, the price would be CL (3) x SL (2) x 1800 = 10,800.
If it were use activated (meaning that, while worn, you can activate or deactivate it as a silent act of will) then the price would be CL (3) x SL (2) x 2000 = 12,000
If it were continuous (meaning that it makes you invisible as soon as you put it on and stay that way until you take it off) then it would be the price of a use activated ring (12,000) x the modifier for a spell with a duration of 1 minute/level (x2) = 24,000gp.
The ring's actual cost is 20,000. Since designer notes say that it's more expensive than the formula would indicate, it can't be continuous. Out of the other two possibilities, it's far more expensive than both, and since talking out loud to make yourself stay invisible makes no sense, and since it easily pays for use activated, then use activated it is!
Ah, I see the confusion.
To clarify, RAW is that it's activated by a silent act of will and lasts for three minutes, even if you remove the ring and someone else activates it!
RAI, once activated it should last until you deactivate it, remove the ring, or attack.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Well, lovely, both items just took a significant drop in usefulness. The ring is now laughable ... nearly another 10,000 over the formula cost. Having to blow my stealth once every 3 minutes is not utility
Command Word invisibility is pretty good even when you have to refresh every few minutes. Granted I've never seen the ring of invisibility used any other way.
I find it surreal reading some of these threads. I've been so thrilled reading all the new FAQ entries. I've agreed with all the recent (I just scanned back to March while writing this) and the only two that I wasn't thrilled were "Free" Actions During an Attack of Opportunity and Amulet of Mighty Fists and Grappling. All the others perfectly match how I thought the rules worked.
Well, lovely, both items just took a significant drop in usefulness. The ring is now laughable ... nearly another 10,000 over the formula cost. Having to blow my stealth once every 3 minutes is not utilityCommand Word invisibility is pretty good even when you have to refresh every few minutes. Granted I've never seen the ring of invisibility used any other way.
I find it surreal reading some of these threads. I've been so thrilled reading all the new FAQ entries. I've agreed with all the recent (I just scanned back to March while writing this) and the only two that I wasn't thrilled were "Free" Actions During an Attack of Opportunity and Amulet of Mighty Fists and Grappling. All the others perfectly match how I thought the rules worked.
"Command word" is the key thing rendering it much less useful. That arguably breaks your stealth (from the skill) and makes you, while still invisible, much more likely to be detected as you take a penalty because of speaking, negating half or more of the bonus from invisibility.
Well, lovely, both items just took a significant drop in usefulness. The ring is now laughable ... nearly another 10,000 over the formula cost. Having to blow my stealth once every 3 minutes is not utilityCommand Word invisibility is pretty good even when you have to refresh every few minutes. Granted I've never seen the ring of invisibility used any other way.
I find it surreal reading some of these threads. I've been so thrilled reading all the new FAQ entries. I've agreed with all the recent (I just scanned back to March while writing this) and the only two that I wasn't thrilled were "Free" Actions During an Attack of Opportunity and Amulet of Mighty Fists and Grappling. All the others perfectly match how I thought the rules worked.
Pretty much I'm on the other side of this. Anymore I dread the new FAQ as the latest ones have been such a disapointment. In fact the only one i can think of that works for me is the free action during AoO. None of them matched how I thought it should work and are nothing like I've seen the game run.
The Archive, a flat DC20 check to notice an invisible creature vs a flat DC15 check to hear someone whispering. If we were talking low levels this would matter. But at the level (14-15 via WBL) you can afford this ring both are more or less auto-successes by the enemy.
I am really not seeing a difference there. Both will do the exact same thing, reveal that an invisible creature is in the area.
Do we really need a FAQ to clarify that you can't use a Ring of Invisibility, then pass it around to everyone in your party? This constant need to stretch is what makes rules developers tend to be very conservative in their adjudications in the first place. Give an inch and everybody is clearly trying to take a mile.
Does anybody honestly disagree that the clear purpose of the Ring of Invisibility is to allow you to turn yourself invisible for three up to three minutes an unlimited number of times per day while wearing the Ring?
_Ozy_, and that I think is part of the problem. People want this ring to work like the ring in The Hobbit. That is an artifact, this is a (relatively) low cost magic item.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, you know what would have made the scene so much better when Bilbo is waiting and trying to sneak by Gollum at the cave exit in the Hobbit? If every 3 minutes he had to speak aloud a command word to reactivate the one ring.
This would make a lot of sense if the purpose of Pathfinder's Ring was to mimic the One Ring. But it isn't. Last time I checked, Rings of Invisibility aren't inexorably tied to the pure embodiment of evil, they don't transport you to a different realm of existence, and they don't draw the attention of the undead.
Oh yeah, and there's not just one of them. So perhaps expecting Pathfinder's Ring to be something it's not is a problem on your end, not Pathfinder's.
Yeah, you know what would have made the scene so much better when Bilbo is waiting and trying to sneak by Gollum at the cave exit in the Hobbit? If every 3 minutes he had to speak aloud a command word to reactivate the one ring.This would make a lot of sense if the purpose of Pathfinder's Ring was to mimic the One Ring. But it isn't. Last time I checked, Rings of Invisibility aren't inexorably tied to the pure embodiment of evil, they don't transport you to a different realm of existence, and they don't draw the attention of the undead.
Oh yeah, and there's not just one of them. So perhaps expecting Pathfinder's Ring to be something it's not is a problem on your end, not Pathfinder's.
I'm pretty sure you're lying through your teeth if you don't think a ring of invisibility is popularly used in Pathfinder/DnD because of LotR.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does anybody honestly disagree that the clear purpose of the Ring of Invisibility is to allow you to turn yourself invisible for three up to three minutes an unlimited number of times per day while wearing the Ring?
Yes.
One other thing, if you really think this should be a continuous magic item why isn't it more expensive? 20,000gp is well under the cost for such an item.
Command Activated = 10,800gp (increased by ~85% to 20,000gp)
Continuous/Use Activated = 24,000gp (and if we apply the same 85% increase that becomes ~44,444gp rounded up to 44,500gp).
Nobody is saying such an item cannot exist in Pathfinder. What people are saying is that it has never worked like you thought and certainly not for the price you want to pay. If you want continuous invisibility it would cost far more than 20,000gp.
_Ozy_, since when is D&D 3.X/PF in any way "The Hobbit"? Short answer, it isn't.
If you want it to be perhaps you should be playing a different game.
If you want to make elements of D&D 3.X/PF closer to "The Hobbit" I am sure there are house rules you can come up with.
But, continuing to point out how something works in a book which has nothing to do with the current (or recent) incarnation of D&D 3.X/PF is really just...pointless.
That is a novel, he could do anything he wanted in the novel. This is a game with game mechanics and rules to balance things. If you want an item that replicates the item in the book then I suggest you propose it to your GM. The Ring of Invisibility is not that item.
In short, your failure to understand the rules because you wanted something to work like an item in a fantasy novel is the real problem here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The greek cap of invisibility. Cloaks of invisibility from Welsh mythology. The Mantle of Invisibility from king authur. Jack the Giant Killer has a coat of invisibility. Kakuremino from japanese myth has a magical straw cape of invisibilty and Momotarō has a cape of invisibility.
The Twelve Dancing Princesses, The King of the Golden Mountain, Nibelungenlied, Der Ring des Nibelungen, The Thief of Bagdad, A Fighting Man of Mars and even Erik the Viking all feature invisibility items. Heck, Harry Potter has a one.
You know what they have in common. None require you to say a command word every 3 min.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gauss: As far as cost, I know it doesn't follow any normal book pricing. it's too much for one and too little for the other. That really doesn't lead to a solid conclusion.
I'm pretty sure you're lying through your teeth if you don't think a ring of invisibility is popularly used in Pathfinder/DnD because of LotR.Yeah, you know what would have made the scene so much better when Bilbo is waiting and trying to sneak by Gollum at the cave exit in the Hobbit? If every 3 minutes he had to speak aloud a command word to reactivate the one ring.This would make a lot of sense if the purpose of Pathfinder's Ring was to mimic the One Ring. But it isn't. Last time I checked, Rings of Invisibility aren't inexorably tied to the pure embodiment of evil, they don't transport you to a different realm of existence, and they don't draw the attention of the undead.
Oh yeah, and there's not just one of them. So perhaps expecting Pathfinder's Ring to be something it's not is a problem on your end, not Pathfinder's.
When did I say one didn't inspire the other? That doesn't mean the functions are identical, though.
Does anybody honestly disagree that the clear purpose of the Ring of Invisibility is to allow you to turn yourself invisible for three up to three minutes an unlimited number of times per day while wearing the Ring?Yes.
Based on what, then? And what is the purpose?
Does anybody honestly disagree that the clear purpose of the Ring of Invisibility is to allow you to turn yourself invisible for three up to three minutes an unlimited number of times per day while wearing the Ring?Or more simply, It is now clear, since the FAQ. It was not clear before, thus the need for the FAQ.
It remains a silly mechanic for such an item.
Right. The intent wasn't entirely clear before, mostly due to questions of legacy. But my question was about now. Is there any question at this point? Because people are bringing up the silly pass-it-around thing again.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
graystone,
So, instead of providing an in-game discussion and rationale you once again provide a fiction or mythological reason? Fiction and mythology have absolutely nothing to do with the mechanics of this game. Would you like to bring the discussion back into some semblance of relevancy by providing in-game logic?
Once again, here is some in-game logic for you: If you want an item that does what your favorite bit of fiction or mythology does then I suggest you get with your GM and create it. I have already priced it out for you in an earlier post.
Regarding the pricing, it was designed not to follow the normal book pricing. This has been explained several times. Both WotC and Paizo have published statements as to how they arrived at the cost of the Ring of Invisibility.
Yeah, you know what would have made the scene so much better when Bilbo is waiting and trying to sneak by Gollum at the cave exit in the Hobbit? If every 3 minutes he had to speak aloud a command word to reactivate the one ring.This would make a lot of sense if the purpose of Pathfinder's Ring was to mimic the One Ring. But it isn't. Last time I checked, Rings of Invisibility aren't inexorably tied to the pure embodiment of evil, they don't transport you to a different realm of existence, and they don't draw the attention of the undead.
Oh yeah, and there's not just one of them. So perhaps expecting Pathfinder's Ring to be something it's not is a problem on your end, not Pathfinder's.
Dude, I've been reading fantasy books for over 3 decades, I expect the Pathfinder ring to work not only like it did in D&D, but like it does in just about every fantasy novel where it makes an appearance.
The operation of the ring in the Hobbit, which as I've already stated was originally just an ordinary ring of invisibility, works just like every other invisibility magic item.
But if you would rather a more modern reference, try the invisibility cloak in Harry Potter. I suppose Harry should have had to reactivate the cloak while spying on the minister at Hagrid's place.
Or if you want to go cartoon old school, the female thief's invisibility cloak in the D&D cartoon.
Any way you look at it, having to speak a command word every 3 minutes to maintain your invisibility is just dumb, both mechanically and thematically.
But this is how the Ring worked in D&D, specifically 3.5, the direct predecessor for Pathfinder. So it does work the same as it did before.
And Pathfinder isn't Harry Potter, either. So I fail to see the relevance. Do you expect magic casting and wand use in Pathfinder to also mirror how it works in Harry Potter? Why then just this one item?
And I am also familiar with the titles you mentioned. I've been reading fantasy for decades, too. But that doesn't mean Pathfinder is bound by the other material. The rules are different. Pathfinder elves aren't Tolkien elves. They're not Harry Potter elves, either. This doesn't seem to cause anybody any great stress. So why does this Ring, which clearly is not the One Ring, have to be bound by other material when nothing else is?
The greek cap of invisibility. Cloaks of invisibility from Welsh mythology. The Mantle of Invisibility from king authur. Jack the Giant Killer has a coat of invisibility. Kakuremino from japanese myth has a magical straw cape of invisibilty and Momotarō has a cape of invisibility.
The Twelve Dancing Princesses, The King of the Golden Mountain, Nibelungenlied, Der Ring des Nibelungen, The Thief of Bagdad, A Fighting Man of Mars and even Erik the Viking all feature invisibility items. Heck, Harry Potter has a one.
You know what they have in common. None require you to say a command word every 3 min.
You know whatelse they don't have in common with Pathfinder? Leveled spell casters. Invisibility spells. Classes. A complete ruleset. Pretty much everything. So why does any of that matter? Those things aren't Pathfinder. We've been explicitly told how the Ring works. And, it worked the same way in 3.5. So again, why is it an issue that this item doesn't work like similar items in other fantasy books? None of those have anything to do with Pathfinder.
fretgod99, I don't think we should bother anymore. They won't be happy until it goes back to how they think it should have worked despite it being underpriced in that form, despite it not having worked like that in 3.X or PF...EVER.
Rather than admit they are wrong and have been wrong for what is probably years they are going to keep trotting out irrelevant example after irrelevant example of how they think it should work. All the while ignoring the solutions presented.
Solution 1) Ignore the FAQ and houserule it (after all, they have been houseruling it for what is probably years anyhow).
Solution 2) Create a continuous version of the item at a significantly higher cost.
Solution 3) Accept it and move on.
This is a command activated item. It has always been a command activated item in PF. It is not a continuous item. It's pricing has been explained in both 3.5 and PF.
Their opinion that this is "stupid" or whatever is simply because they are unhappy and are overlooking the obvious solution of using a more appropriate (higher cost) item to their needs.
The developer language was that 10,800 was far too little because it was too powerful for that price. Obviously making it even more powerful by removing the limitations would likewise require a similar increase in price.
And nobody is adding the restriction on passing it around. Prior to this FAQ did you actually think passing the ring around was the intent? Obviously not. Why do you think it's the intent now? More than anything, it feels like people are mad that they missed the change in 3.5 and are now trying to push the boundaries as much as possible. Do you hinestly think that is the intent of the item? If so, based on what? They just issued a FAQ limiting how you thought the ring is supposed to work, do you really think they then intended to open it up to being that much more powerful (entire party gets unlimited invisibility)?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guass, it's important when trying to figure out the "like the spell". I never would have thought it included the duration as it seems to go against everything that came before. It's why people read it say "of course it doesn't use the duration", because it seems silly.
As to 'it worked that way in 3.5', I'll say I never saw it used that way. We put it on and it worked. I played in organized play and it too just worked with NO 3 min durations. iIf it did work that way, it seemed to be ignored.
As to passing the ring around: That's just a result of it being in every way "as the spell". If it casts it, then you have to take those consequences. One is the duration isn't linked to wearing it as you just need it to activate. If it works on a continuous basis and doesn't 'cast' the spell, then it'd turn off when the ring is removed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
graystone, providing examples of others incorrectly using is not really a good defense. The Devs in 3.5 stated how it worked. The Paizo Devs just basically stated the same thing.
Do you go into a court of law and claim you were doing something illegal for years because everyone else did it that way too?
_Ozy_, thank you for the admission.
If you do not like the magic item, don't buy it. Talk your GM into a more powerful version with either a longer duration or a continuous effect.
However, if it were me I would charge a minimum of 45,000gp for a continuous ring of invisibility. It is quite powerful and clearly a better effect than the 20k version of the ring. A 4k increase is simply not adequate.
Of course, you probably feel that 20k is overpriced. Many people have stated that but I have never felt it to be true. It is priced right at the point where Invisibility is 'nice' but not 'game breaking'. If it were half the price that would put it in the hands of level 8-9 characters. No thank you.