As others have mentioned, I've never seen it run or interpreted any differently than how this and the 3.5 FAQ lay out in the games of 3.5 and PF I've ever played in. It has never been a put-it-on-and-turn-invisible thing for us.
It has a caster level, just like other items. So it always made sense to follow that.
And magic items don't tend to function after removal without explicit statements saying so. This has been discussed in this thread already. Nobody ever tries to pass around Boots of Speed to let everybody have 10 rounds a day. Do you think passing the ring really is the intent of use or are you pushing for it because you now think it's underpowered compared to how you thought it worked before?
Mark, one of my favorite characters of all time is a paralyzed sorcerer who used magic jar to possess a mastodon and a greater hat of disguise (which uses alter self instead of disguise self) to turn said possessed mastodon into a humanoid--thus allowing her to get her mobility back.
Your team's ruling pretty much broke my character concept as she now needs to reactivate the hat every half hour. Among other more obvious complications (like hosting dinner parties), turning into a mammoth during the night makes it kind of hard to sleep.
How do you propose I fix this?
The ruling didn't change anything, though. It clarified a misapprehension a lot of people had, but it worked the same in 3.5. Perhaps your character concept didn't work from the get go. That's not up to the developers to fix. If it's a home game, just run it by your GM and see if they'll let it slide.
I wouldn't even go as far as Ozy. I may be wrong now but i don't think my past stance was. MANY of the latest FAQ's have left me puzzled. For example, nothing anyone can say will convince me the stat stacking FAQ is 'right'.
On this if the RAI was this all along, they just should have priced it to work the way I thouhgt it worked instead of making it work in short bursts.
Guass: You say it worked that way in 3.5. Great. I never saw any evidence of it and I still haven't. if I go into a court of law, I'd ask to see the evidence. So far, I've seen none. What I HAVE seen it it working differently than you say in an offical WoTC event. That's more evidence that I've seen from you.
fretgod99: I've seen the other side. I've never seen it run like this. Dozens of dm. Official events. never once did either item ever have a duration of anything other than end on attack/take off ring.
Boots of speed are used on a round by round basis. it doesn't have on ongoing duration. However Apprentice's Cheating Gloves could cast prestidigitation then get handed off while the first spell continues for an hour.
Oh, don't kid yourself, fretgod99. It changed a lot of things for a WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE.
Also, it's never been run that way. Not in all the 20 years I've roleplayed. Not in any home game, and not in any official event, for any edition of the game.
Though it's long gone now, I distinctly remember D&D game developers specifically stating that there was no duration. Must have been v3.0 I guess. I never saw the v3.5 FAQ on item duration, not until it was posted here on the Pathfinder forums, which is odd, since I followed it religiously back in the day.
Oh, don't kid yourself. It changed a lot of things for a WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE.
Yep, a LOT of people didn't get the memo you seem to have gotten back in 3.5 fretgod99 :P
Check out the first page. I think I referenced the 3.5 stuff on that page. Also, literally this exact question was answered in the 3.5 FAQ. I'd find the link but I'm on my phone.
Oh, don't kid yourself. It changed a lot of things for a WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE.
I'm not saying it didn't. But I also don't think it's appropriate to request the developers fix your character because you had a misunderstanding of the rules (as reasonable and/or widespread as that misunderstanding may be).
Check out the first page. I think I referenced the 3.5 stuff on that page. Also, literally this exact question was answered in the 3.5 FAQ. I'd find the link but I'm on my phone.
I edited my previous post. Check it out.
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the Ring wasn't intended to be a stealth mission I Win button.
Oh, don't kid yourself. It changed a lot of things for a WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE.I'm not saying it didn't. But I also don't think it's appropriate to request the developers fix your character because you had a misunderstanding of the rules (as reasonable and/or widespread as that misunderstanding may be).
I think it it wholly appropriate, seeing as items of invisibility have, in practice, never worked this way in any home game, organized game, of any edition in the entire 20 years I've been in the hobby--to say nothing of the entire history of literature. It's no wonder so many people are up in arms about the ruling (and make no mistake, there will be more)!
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the Ring wasn't intended to be a stealth mission I Win button.
Hardly. You still become visible upon attacking. And a closed door stops you dead in your tracks, unless you want to alert the guard on the other side. Or a guard dog with scent, or any other simple/cheap obstacle.
Check out the first page. I think I referenced the 3.5 stuff on that page. Also, literally this exact question was answered in the 3.5 FAQ. I'd find the link but I'm on my phone.I edited my previous post. Check it out.
I respect that. But in all of my 3.5/PF games it's never not been run this way. So I don't know what to do with that, honestly. I recognize it's a change for people, but it really isn't the train wreck people seem to be making it out to be.
It's clearly a train wreck for ME. I can see how that may not be the case for others, and I can respect that. However, it's really not about that. It's about how it should have worked. In the face of EVERY piece of fantasy literature, which this game is based off of, it is nonsensical for the game designers to think that players would expect these kind of items to work any differently.
Oh, don't kid yourself. It changed a lot of things for a WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE.I'm not saying it didn't. But I also don't think it's appropriate to request the developers fix your character because you had a misunderstanding of the rules (as reasonable and/or widespread as that misunderstanding may be).I think it it wholly appropriate, seeing as items of invisibility have, in practice, never worked this way in any home game, organized game, of any edition in the entire 20 years I've been in the hobby--to say nothing of the entire history of literature. It's no wonder so many people are up in arms about the ruling (and make no mistake, there will be more)!
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the Ring wasn't intended to be a stealth mission I Win button.Hardly. You still become visible upon attacking.
Well, 20 years ago, the ring worked differently. It wasn't until 3.5 that the language changed. This has all been gone over in thread.
But again, PF isn't other literature. Are you complaining that PF elves aren't Tolkien elves? Do elven cloaks work the same way in PF as they do in LotR? Does spell casting follow those same rules? Why aren't wizards required to hold wands to cast spells like in Harry Potter? Hell, why can humans be wizards andwhy can nonhumans be paladins in PF? Why is it that this issue matters but none of the rest do? They don't match up to predecessor materials, either.
_Ozy_, perhaps you missed the part where I said that the ring being activated doesn't change things really?
At the level which NPCs or PCs might have it it is basically automatic that the enemy is going to know you are there. After all, knowing an invisible person is present is a flat DC20 check. So, your whole idea that you can use the ring to scout has never worked reliably.
DC20 check to become aware of Mr. Invisible within 30': They succeed.
DC20 check to become aware of Mr. Invisible 50' away when he reactivates his ring: They succeed.
Tell me how this is different?
Other than a slightly easier DC they really aren't. You can easily get enough distance to offset that DC difference if you are worried about it.
Ravingdork, the solution is so easy, build a Continuous version of the item. This only affects the Command Activated version.
Check out the first page. I think I referenced the 3.5 stuff on that page. Also, literally this exact question was answered in the 3.5 FAQ. I'd find the link but I'm on my phone.
Ok, I found it. Thanks for pointing in the right direction. I have to agree with Ravingdork. I usually kept track of the FAQ's but I'd never seen those either. I think we're more upset about what it should be than what it is.
On train-wreck, I wouldn't say that. usability has dropped like a rock though and I expect a lot of people are going to be busy making custom hats and rings of 'no stupid durations' for the extra cost. the only issue is the ring doesn't follow the pattern, so if someone feels it needs fixed, it's going to be up in the air, I suspect we'll see a lot of 'how much should this ring cost' threads in the near future.
For me, the hat went from cool to useless. I'll spend the cash to upgrade it back to useful.
It's clearly a train wreck for ME. I can see how that may not be the case for others, and I can respect that. However, it's really not about that. It's about how it should have worked. In the face of EVERY piece of fantasy literature, which this game is based off of, it is nonsensical for the game designers to think that players would expect these kind of items to work any differently.
Why? Spellcasting is different. Classes are different. Races are different. Other magic items are different. Nobody is complaining about any of that. But this ring being different, that apparently is a deal breaker for people.
It's clearly a train wreck for ME. I can see how that may not be the case for others, and I can respect that. However, it's really not about that. It's about how it should have worked. In the face of EVERY piece of fantasy literature, which this game is based off of, it is nonsensical for the game designers to think that players would expect these kind of items to work any differently.Why? Spellcasting is different. Classes are different. Races are different. Other magic items are different. Nobody is complaining about any of that. But this ring being different, that apparently is a deal breaker for people.
The thing you are missing is that it's a universal trait for invisibility. Elves vary wildly, as do classes and spellcasting. It's a true rarity to find a limited duration invisibility item. It's throwing off what a lot of us have as a baseline assumption of the game.
The thing you are missing is that it's a universal trait for invisibility. Elves vary wildly, as do classes and spellcasting. It's a true rarity to find a limited duration invisibility item. It's throwing off what a lot of us have as a baseline assumption of the game.It's clearly a train wreck for ME. I can see how that may not be the case for others, and I can respect that. However, it's really not about that. It's about how it should have worked. In the face of EVERY piece of fantasy literature, which this game is based off of, it is nonsensical for the game designers to think that players would expect these kind of items to work any differently.Why? Spellcasting is different. Classes are different. Races are different. Other magic items are different. Nobody is complaining about any of that. But this ring being different, that apparently is a deal breaker for people.
No, I get it. I really do. But that it operates differently isn't necessarily bad. It's not necessarily wrong.
Where the heck are you getting a -20? It is a starting DC of 15 for whispering. A total of 5 difference between 20 and 15.
If you don't like it, don't buy it.
*shrug*
Be creative and find another way to stealth. Or pony up for a ring that does what you want it to. Should probably be ~40-45k. Up to you.
But your reason really pretty much boils down to "it's different than how I thought it worked". You're not complaining about wizards being different because you already knew they were different.
This method isn't wrong. I don't have a problem with it. I recognize that you do. You enjoy your game. Feel free to house rule it to your preferred method. No skin off my back.
Oh, don't kid yourself, fretgod99. It changed a lot of things for a WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE.
Also, it's never been run that way. Not in all the 20 years I've roleplayed. Not in any home game, and not in any official event, for any edition of the game.
Though it's long gone now, I distinctly remember D&D game developers specifically stating that there was no duration. Must have been v3.0 I guess. I never saw the v3.5 FAQ on item duration, not until it was posted here on the Pathfinder forums, which is odd, since I followed it religiously back in the day.
It was supposed to be run that way. Now I just helped my players out by assuming they spoke at the most opportune times, but caster levels on items are not just flavor. Unless it is an "always on" item or has some wording to indicate that it has to be turned off manually I have understood the caster level to control the duration when something copies a spell.
I understand that the rules don't come out and say "these items have a limited duration", and people have a right to be upset about that, but I see no need to change how the item works. Depending on how the items are used it can cause some problems, but I think most of these are more theoretical in nature.
The good thing about this is not people know how other items that are similar work and they can decide if they are worth the price or not.
IIRC the pricing of the ring of invisibility and the duration was why some did not think it was worth the price, so I don't think that many people were not aware of it. Yes, there were some who thought the price was justified.
PS: I did not tell my players I was helping them out, so maybe some of these GM's made the same mistake, and the players took it as "it works this way". Just to be clear I was not keeping quiet as a secret. I just never thought to mention the ring or hat of disguise unless it matter, and no situation came up when I had to say "you might want to renew the duration of ___".
No, I get it. I really do. But that it operates differently isn't necessarily bad. It's not necessarily wrong.
LOL it's worse that being wrong. It FEELS wrong, deep down in your gut. No matter how correct it is, it just feels so wrong.
It's clearly a train wreck for ME. I can see how that may not be the case for others, and I can respect that. However, it's really not about that. It's about how it should have worked. In the face of EVERY piece of fantasy literature, which this game is based off of, it is nonsensical for the game designers to think that players would expect these kind of items to work any differently.
Fantasy books and movies are not rule books. Maybe such items can be suggested for a future book, but the price will be increased. I don't see why a player would make these assumptions when other things such as the gorgon don't even come close to resembling what they did in literature.
Basically "this is how it is in literature" is not a defense.
First, does you have citation stating that commands words must be stated forcefully?
Second, assuming you do have citation lets look at the total modifier:
Lets assume the creature is stealthing. So he has his stealth bonus.
Next, Invisibility adds +20. Now we are at Stealth+20.
Next, we will assume he is stationary while re-activating the spell: +20 for that.
Finally, -20 for speaking.
Total: Stealth+20
Why were you complaining about this being unusuable? Seems to be the exact same modifier as moving. Heck, it is better than the DC for hearing a whispered word!
Where the heck are you getting a -20? It is a starting DC of 15 for whispering. A total of 5 difference between 20 and 15.
If you are invisible and you speak with your normal voice it is a -20 to the perception DC.
edit:Basically speaking negates the invis bonus if you are moving, however if you are invisible and not moving then you get a +40 so creating distance is still an option.
edit2: I see you figured that out already. :)
Yeah, I see now he was using the rules for pinpointing which is not actually the same as the rules for hearing someone talking which is what I as using.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, I get it. I really do. But that it operates differently isn't necessarily bad. It's not necessarily wrong.LOL it's worse that being wrong. It FEELS wrong, deep down in your gut. No matter how correct it is, it just feels so wrong.
Subjective feelings aren't universal.
-j
But your reason really pretty much boils down to "it's different than how I thought it worked". You're not complaining about wizards being different because you already knew they were different.
This method isn't wrong. I don't have a problem with it. I recognize that you do. You enjoy your game. Feel free to house rule it to your preferred method. No skin off my back.
Dude, no that's not at all what my reason is. If I thought the ring of invisibility was use-activated continuous, and they said no, you have to use a command word but then it's constant, I would have no problem with the difference from my previous expectations.
It's not because it's different than I had thought, it's because it becomes a completely stupid item totally unsuited for the primary thematic use of such an item: being sneaky.
If you don't understand how having to speak a command word every 3 minutes undermines the whole purpose of being sneaky, well I don't really know what to tell you.
But it doesn't undermine the ability to be sneaky. It simply doesn't allow you to be endlessly sneaky all day. Those are two different things.
The thing you are missing is that it's a universal trait for invisibility. Elves vary wildly, as do classes and spellcasting. It's a true rarity to find a limited duration invisibility item. It's throwing off what a lot of us have as a baseline assumption of the game.It's clearly a train wreck for ME. I can see how that may not be the case for others, and I can respect that. However, it's really not about that. It's about how it should have worked. In the face of EVERY piece of fantasy literature, which this game is based off of, it is nonsensical for the game designers to think that players would expect these kind of items to work any differently.Why? Spellcasting is different. Classes are different. Races are different. Other magic items are different. Nobody is complaining about any of that. But this ring being different, that apparently is a deal breaker for people.
This.
How long have you been in the hobby of fantasy roleplaying, Jeff Merola?
This.The thing you are missing is that it's a universal trait for invisibility. Elves vary wildly, as do classes and spellcasting. It's a true rarity to find a limited duration invisibility item. It's throwing off what a lot of us have as a baseline assumption of the game.It's clearly a train wreck for ME. I can see how that may not be the case for others, and I can respect that. However, it's really not about that. It's about how it should have worked. In the face of EVERY piece of fantasy literature, which this game is based off of, it is nonsensical for the game designers to think that players would expect these kind of items to work any differently.Why? Spellcasting is different. Classes are different. Races are different. Other magic items are different. Nobody is complaining about any of that. But this ring being different, that apparently is a deal breaker for people.
But the rules tell you that the item functions differently. So your baseline assumption about how the item functions is incorrect. That's the same reason people aren't upset that elves are different; the rules say how they're different. You simply missed the rules telling you to expect something different.
That's not necessarily your fault, I'm not trying to place blame or pass judgment, and the rules aren't as explicit about it as they could be. But the rules tell you that this behaves differently than similar items work in different story settings. And PF is a rules set, not a book, so it will inherently have differences.
DC 15 for whispering +20 for invis +20 for not moving = 55
But lets assume an FAQ comes out and says you must use a normal voice
Let's assume are you a stealth based character.
To afford the ring you are likely going to be at least level 10
10 ranks + 3 + 6 stealth mod=19
19+20(invis)-20(speaking)+20(not moving)=39 before dice rolls at level 10. If you are really trying to be sneaky then shadow armor is another +5. A masterwork(100 gp) item is another +2.
Now we are are 46, but lets assume you light armor is giving you a -3 penalty so we have 43. You have not even rolled the dice and you have a 43.
Even if you take away the shadow armor and the masterwork item you are sitting on a 36 before the dice are rolled.
If you are found then a non stealth based character would have also been noticed. Actually even if you are noticed they only know you are in the area, and unless there is a lot of distance between you and the party you should be able to escape back to them.
I am sure there is some scenario where someone's character may have died, but if the GM is following the rules, and you are not really far from the party I am sure they are the exception, and not the norm.
The DC is exactly the same between speaking and not moving vs not speaking and moving less than half speed. I do not understand your problem, unless you plan on remaining stationary forever.
Continuous Ring: Stealth +20 when moving <half speed.
Command Activated Ring: Stealth+20 when stationary and re-activating.
In both cases you have to be >30' away.
I am really not seeing your point. It is no worse than moving less than half speed.
Whispering? Command words have to be spoken firmly, like verbal components.
Command Word: If no activation method is suggested either in the magic item description or by the nature of the item, assume that a command word is needed to activate it. Command word activation means that a character speaks the word and the item activates. No other special knowledge is needed.
A command word can be a real word, but when this is the case, the holder of the item runs the risk of activating the item accidentally by speaking the word in normal conversation. More often, the command word is some seemingly nonsensical word, or a word or phrase from an ancient language no longer in common use. Activating a command word magic item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Sometimes the command word to activate an item is written right on the item. Occasionally, it might be hidden within a pattern or design engraved on, carved into, or built into the item, or the item might bear a clue to the command word.
The Knowledge (arcana) and Knowledge (history) skills might be useful in helping to identify command words or deciphering clues regarding them. A successful check against DC 30 is needed to come up with the word itself. If that check is failed, succeeding on a second check (DC 25) might provide some insight into a clue. The spells detect magic, identify, and analyze dweomer all reveal command words if the properties of the item are successfully identified.
I don't see this anywhere in the "command word" section. Now honestly I thought that was the case so I went to check. If I overlooked it, or if they are in another section in the book then provide a citation.
No, it feels wrong to you. To me, it feels like it's always felt, because that's the way I've always seen it played and run.No, I get it. I really do. But that it operates differently isn't necessarily bad. It's not necessarily wrong.LOL it's worse that being wrong. It FEELS wrong, deep down in your gut. No matter how correct it is, it just feels so wrong.
You might have missed it, but this is a reply to why we don't like this. I'm not asking anyone to feel what I feel, just explaining why I do to fretgod99, so I'm unsure why you replied to me.
How long have you been in the hobby of fantasy roleplaying, Jeff Merola?
Logical fallacy. Experience is not an arguement.
For the record, I have no issues with the ruling. It is what the designers of THIS game intend. They are not bound to follow tropes from previous games, fiction, or other sources.
For the record, MY gaming experience is over 30 years. But it's not an arguement, so it's irrelevant.
-j