On the duration of hats of disguise and rings of invisibility


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 964 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

107 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 15 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

For FAQing:

Are magical items with no listed duration and no uses per day assumed to have an unlimited duration?

Take the hat of disguise and ring of invisibility, for example. Once activated, do they have indefinite duration? Or is the duration limited by the duration of their related spell effects and the caster level of the item? (Three minutes for a ring of invisibility and ten minutes for a hat of disguise in this case.)

This has come up time and time again with strong arguments on both sides. I encourage you to FAQ it and help us find an answer.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite.

Same question, but for boots of levitation.

Can I levitate a few feet off the ground, then sleep for 8 hours while comfortably floating?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Could you sleep for 8 hours whilst comfortably standing?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darrell Impey UK wrote:
Could you sleep for 8 hours whilst comfortably standing?

The boots specify you are affected as if by levitate. Therefore I'd lay horizontally whole sleeping.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why would they have infinite durations?

Items have caster levels that determine things like "range or other level-dependent aspects of the powers of the item." That is very clearly stated in the magic items chapter.

So Ring of Invisibility last for 3 minutes. Hat of Disguise for 10 minutes. Boots of Levitation for 3 minutes too.

Nothing in their descriptions says anything about them lasting forever. Nothing even suggest that.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Darrell Impey UK wrote:
Could you sleep for 8 hours whilst comfortably standing?
The boots specify you are affected as if by levitate. Therefore I'd lay horizontally whole sleeping.

You could activate them while already horizontal, as there's no requirement that you stand to use them. I don't know how comfortable it would be though; you're liable to end up changing orientation quite frequently.


Morgen wrote:

Why would they have infinite durations?

Items have caster levels that determine things like "range or other level-dependent aspects of the powers of the item." That is very clearly stated in the magic items chapter.

So Ring of Invisibility last for 3 minutes. Hat of Disguise for 10 minutes. Boots of Levitation for 3 minutes too.

Nothing in their descriptions says anything about them lasting forever. Nothing even suggest that.

That would be one of the strong arguments Ravingdork mentioned. There are similarly strong arguments on the other side of the table.


blahpers wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Darrell Impey UK wrote:
Could you sleep for 8 hours whilst comfortably standing?
The boots specify you are affected as if by levitate. Therefore I'd lay horizontally whole sleeping.
You could activate them while already horizontal, as there's no requirement that you stand to use them. I don't know how comfortable it would be though; you're liable to end up changing orientation quite frequently.

Perhaps, but not really the point of this thread.


blahpers wrote:
Morgen wrote:

Why would they have infinite durations?

Items have caster levels that determine things like "range or other level-dependent aspects of the powers of the item." That is very clearly stated in the magic items chapter.

So Ring of Invisibility last for 3 minutes. Hat of Disguise for 10 minutes. Boots of Levitation for 3 minutes too.

Nothing in their descriptions says anything about them lasting forever. Nothing even suggest that.

That would be one of the strong arguments Ravingdork mentioned. There are similarly strong arguments on the other side of the table.

This. FAQ it and move on.


I'm not sure what the equally strong arguments are, but FAQed.

Sovereign Court

There is no argument or justification listed at all. You just claim there is some discussion on it on both sides and demand something of people.

So no case is made at all and the thread sounds like you're just making things up.

I don't hit the FAQ button when I know the answer is No. If you don't want a public answer then try emailing them about it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Morgen wrote:

There is no argument or justification listed at all. You just claim there is some discussion on it on both sides and demand something of people.

So no case is made at all and the thread sounds like you're just making things up.

I don't hit the FAQ button when I know the answer is No. If you have some private question you don't want people just giving you the answer to then email them.

Ok. Well off you go then.

You think it's clear. Others don't. Hence the FAQ.

I don't believe there's anything else you have to do here.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Morgen wrote:

There is no argument or justification listed at all. You just claim there is some discussion on it on both sides and demand something of people.

So no case is made at all and the thread sounds like you're just making things up.

I don't hit the FAQ button when I know the answer is No. If you don't want a public answer then try emailing them about it.

The alternative is rehashing all of the arguments from the other threads that have spawned this one, which would be exhausting and redundant.

Edit: FWIW, I agree that as written these items would go by the spell duration, but I also see how the other side is parsing the grammar. It, like many such disputes, boils down to contradictory interpretations of how far "this thing acts like that other thing" goes. It's probably the most common metaproblem in the written rules--the author says that one spell, object, ability, or thingy acts "like" or "as" some other spell, object, ability, or thingy and assumes that the reader understands exactly how far that comparison goes. Since the ruling on such subjects vary from instance to instance, reasonable people can disagree on how new instances work without being disingenuous.

Sovereign Court

blahpers wrote:
The alternative is rehashing all of the arguments from the other threads that have spawned this one, which would be exhausting and redundant.

Yes, there needs to provide some justification for the stance otherwise it comes off as frivolous. Adding even at least one rules quotation about it even suggesting that it was unlimited in duration would actually give some credibility to the question.

I've never seen or heard of any discussion on that matter before. You don't even link a thread where it is supposedly talked about.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

No, this question is a good one. The literature for ring of invisibility is the One Ring for many people. Which was... use activated? He puts it on and disappears. There's no speaking in a loud voice every 3 minutes, the ring just lets him disappear. The ring itself just says "by activating this ring", doesn't say how.

For the rest it's more balance than anything else. How useful is a hat of disguise that will only ever let you disguise yourself for 10 minutes before (obviously) recasting a spell? Well, not useful for those 11 minute meetings. "Yes sir, I'm definitely human like you. I only shout fishwaffles every 10 minutes because of a nervous tick". Using a ring of invisibility to scout would be a minute moving in, a minute scouting, and a minute running back before having to speak in a loud, clear voice that would ruin any scouting. Again. Seems easier just to make it an on/off thing.

The best argument that they're not unlimited is by determing whether they were priced as command word activation or continuous, but if you can fit ring of invisibility to the formula I'd be very surprised.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:

For FAQing:

Are magical items with no listed duration and no uses per day assumed to have an unlimited duration?

Take the hat of disguise and ring of invisibility, for example. Once activated, do they have indefinite duration? Or is the duration limited by the duration of their related spell effects and the caster level of the item? (Three minutes for a ring of invisibility and ten minutes for a hat of disguise in this case.)

This has come up time and time again with strong arguments on both sides. I encourage you to FAQ it and help us find an answer.

Going by RAW as you are fond of doing, magic item effects are based on the caster level of the item. On these items the uses per day are unlimited since they are not specified, but they won't renew while you're sleeping.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Morgen wrote:
Yes, there needs to provide some justification for the stance

Okay, here you go:

There are many magic items which straight-up let you cast a spell. For example, the cloak of arachnida says, "Once per day, the wearer of this cloak can cast web." Several other items use the same language: the user/wearer/item can cast [spellname]. Scabbard of keen edges, strand of prayer beads, ring of friend shield, ring of telekinesis, etc.

Meanwhile, the ring of invisibility instead says, "the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell." The hat of disguise similarly says, "...allows its wearer to alter her appearance as with a disguise self spell." There are plenty of other items which use wording like this as well.

So I ask you, what is the functional difference between those items that refer to actually casting the spell and those which reference a spell to describe the effects of using the item? I believe that in attempting to answer that question, you will see why the issue is not as clear as you think.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Morgen wrote:
Yes, there needs to provide some justification for the stance

Okay, here you go:

There are many magic items which straight-up let you cast a spell. For example, the cloak of arachnida says, "Once per day, the wearer of this cloak can cast web." Several other items use the same language: the user/wearer/item can cast [spellname]. Scabbard of keen edges, strand of prayer beads, ring of friend shield, ring of telekinesis, etc.

Meanwhile, the ring of invisibility instead says, "the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell." The hat of disguise similarly says, "...allows its wearer to alter her appearance as with a disguise self spell." There are plenty of other items which use wording like this as well.

So I ask you, what is the functional difference between those items that refer to actually casting the spell and those which reference a spell to describe the effects of using the item? I believe that in attempting to answer that question, you will see why the issue is not as clear as you think.

I don't see any real difference here. if it says AS the spell, it means it operates AS the spell. The items have spell effects and caster levels built in. Ipso Quacko Dotto.

Dark Archive

7 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Morgen wrote:
Yes, there needs to provide some justification for the stance

Okay, here you go:

There are many magic items which straight-up let you cast a spell. For example, the cloak of arachnida says, "Once per day, the wearer of this cloak can cast web." Several other items use the same language: the user/wearer/item can cast [spellname]. Scabbard of keen edges, strand of prayer beads, ring of friend shield, ring of telekinesis, etc.

Meanwhile, the ring of invisibility instead says, "the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell." The hat of disguise similarly says, "...allows its wearer to alter her appearance as with a disguise self spell." There are plenty of other items which use wording like this as well.

So I ask you, what is the functional difference between those items that refer to actually casting the spell and those which reference a spell to describe the effects of using the item? I believe that in attempting to answer that question, you will see why the issue is not as clear as you think.

I don't see any real difference here. if it says AS the spell, it means it operates AS the spell. The items have spell effects and caster levels built in. Ipso Quacko Dotto.

If you don't see any real difference, then you need to brush up on sentence structure. (Though really, who doesn't?) The phrase "as with a disguise self spell" is defining "alter her appearance". That means that the parameters of the spell are only relevant insofar as they pertain to the manner in which the appearance is altered, not to a broader event such as the activation of the item or how long it lasts.


So to those who think such items have a limited duration, how do you think one goes about refreshing that duration? Do you have to take the item off and put it back on? Does it require a command word? Did it ever require a command word to activate when you put it on in the first place?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm a sheep, so I just treated Ring of Invisibility like The One Ring.

I'm FAQing anyway because people obviously have differing opinions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Taperat wrote:
So to those who think such items have a limited duration, how do you think one goes about refreshing that duration? Do you have to take the item off and put it back on? Does it require a command word? Did it ever require a command word to activate when you put it on in the first place?

Supposing that renewal is required, then if the item requires activation to work in the first place, then it requires activation to renew as well. The items in question all require activation of some sort. Hence the "shout fishwaffles every 10 minutes" story above.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Taperat wrote:
So to those who think such items have a limited duration, how do you think one goes about refreshing that duration? Do you have to take the item off and put it back on? Does it require a command word? Did it ever require a command word to activate when you put it on in the first place?
Supposing that renewal is required, then if the item requires activation to work in the first place, then it requires activation to renew as well. The items in question all require activation of some sort. Hence the "shout fishwaffles every 10 minutes" story above.

If your disguise is "someone with Tourette's Syndrome", you're in good shape.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Taperat wrote:
So to those who think such items have a limited duration, how do you think one goes about refreshing that duration? Do you have to take the item off and put it back on? Does it require a command word? Did it ever require a command word to activate when you put it on in the first place?

It requires a standard action. Details will vary by item.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Since no command word is mentioned, the activation action could be as simple as touching the item. You would have to be very observant to catch somebody touching their hat or their ring every ten minutes.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DominusMegadeus wrote:

I'm a sheep, so I just treated Ring of Invisibility like The One Ring.

I'm FAQing anyway because people obviously have differing opinions.

Ahh... so your long term wearers were also possessed by the evil of the Great Dark Lord then?


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

As far as I know, these are use activated items, which means you benefit from the listed effects while using them as they are meant to be used (worn, in this case). EDIT: Turns out I was wrong about that; both seem to require activation.

There are many more items which require activation, such as celestial armor's flight or a wand of haste, and obviously go by their spell duration or the duration listed in their entries.

Sadly, the difference is not always clear cut with items like those in the OP, or even how such items should be handled--as is so aptly demonstrated by many of the posters above. So I made this thread in the hopes of getting some clarification on the matter.

David knott 242 wrote:

Since no command word is mentioned, the activation action could be as simple as touching the item. You would have to be very observant to catch somebody touching their hat or their ring every ten minutes.

If this is the case, then that is something I'd certainly like to have clarified!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
DominusMegadeus wrote:

I'm a sheep, so I just treated Ring of Invisibility like The One Ring.

I'm FAQing anyway because people obviously have differing opinions.

Ahh... so your long term wearers were also possessed by the evil of the Great Dark Lord then?

Always good to have a plot hook in your back pocket.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

7 people marked this as a favorite.
DominusMegadeus wrote:
Always good to have a plot hook in your back pocket.

Any kind of hook in your back pocket is a bad idea.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
The best argument that they're not unlimited is by determing whether they were priced as command word activation or continuous, but if you can fit ring of invisibility to the formula I'd be very surprised.

Ring of Invisibility is closer to Continuous price: 20,000gp for the item

2(level spell)* 3(caster level)*2000gp *2 (min/level) = 24,000gp

Command word would be:
2(level spell)* 3(caster level)*1800 = 10800gp

Hat of Disguise is priced as command word
1(level spell)* 1(caster level)*1800 = 1800gp

Boots of Levitation should be the same as the Ring, since Invisibility and Levitation are both 2nd level, but are actually 7500gp. Cheaper than Command Word

Frankly, I'd make at least some of them use activated. Put them on and they do their thing. The ring certainly. The Hat as well, possibly with a command word to change the disguise. The boots I could go either way, since having to put them on to use them would be a pain (Though I'm amused by the idea of always levitating boots.)
Either way, the hassle of constantly having to reactivate an item you can use an infinite number of times seems silly to me. Either it works when it's on or there are on and off command words.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There is definitely a debate here.

Many items are clear cut, such as winged boots allow flight 3 times per day, five minutes per use.

Items such as belt of physical perfection work as long as a person wears it. (temporary bonus for the first 24 hours worn, so at least a day. And what happens on the next 24 hours?).

Items like hat of disguise and ring of invisibility raise even more questions. Hat of disguise is rather cheap for something you can use all day, even if it is a first level spell. There is no mention of uses per day, even.

Invisibility ring costs 20,000 gold. This is a lot for an item that mimics a second level spell, though it would seem reasonable if you were invisible as long as you wear it.

For both items, there is no mention of uses per day, or time limits. Yet some items label such time limits or activation limits very clearly. It is also hard to infer by cost as the two above items are one mimicked spell level apart, yet one costs less than 2k gold, and the other ten times that.

Shall we question bracers of armor? Sustenance rings? Rings of protection?


6 people marked this as a favorite.

The thing is an item with unlimited uses of a spell like disguise self, levitation, or invisibility. Why bother making the PC refresh it every so often. They don't even have to wait for it to expire to refresh the duration.

It be like having a flashlight with unlimited batteries that you have to flip the on switch every ten minutes or it shuts off on its own. I would rule that magic items such as hats of disguise or rings of invisibility are continuous effects as that is what makes since and is far less annoying.

Now if you attack someone you'd need to reactivate the ring of invisibility


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How about explaining this then:

Quote:

Cloak of Etherealness

Aura strong transmutation; CL 15th

Slot shoulders; Price 55,000 gp; Weight 1 lb.

Description

This silvery gray cloak seems to absorb light rather than be illuminated by it. On command, the cloak makes its wearer ethereal (as the ethereal jaunt spell). The effect is dismissible. The cloak works for a total of up to 10 minutes per day. This duration need not be continuous, but it must be used in 1 minute increments.

Construction

Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, ethereal jaunt; Cost 27,500 gp

Why bother with "(as the ethereal jaunt spell)" if you are going to go on and specify exactly how long and how continuous or not the activation is? Couldn't you just leave that chunk out of sentence?

with text missing:
Cloak of Etherealness

Aura strong transmutation; CL 15th

Slot shoulders; Price 55,000 gp; Weight 1 lb.

Description

This silvery gray cloak seems to absorb light rather than be illuminated by it. On command, the cloak makes its wearer ethereal. The effect is dismissible. The cloak works for a total of up to 10 minutes per day. This duration need not be continuous, but it must be used in 1 minute increments.

Construction

Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, ethereal jaunt; Cost 27,500 gp

Personally I've always viewed it as you turn invisible as long as you wear the Ring. Ditto for Hat of Disguise. No idea if I hold that belief from something specific in the decades old text or not. I probably first read the text of a Ring of Invisibility almost 4 decades ago.


thejeff wrote:

Invisibility is closer to Continuous price: 20,000gp for the item

2(level spell)* 3(caster level)*2000gp *2 (min/level) = 24,000gp

Command word would be:
2(level spell)* 3(caster level)*1800 = 10800gp

Isn't there an increased cost for using the ring slot? (Since you have two.)

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I always assumed so, otherwise what is the point of "Continuous"

To call something continuous and then tell players they have to refresh every few minutes seems kind of like a bait and switch to the player that just spent a fortune on the item. Continuous plus turn off and on when desired (like the flame sword thread recently) is no different than continuous. Especially when priced accordingly.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Invisibility is closer to Continuous price: 20,000gp for the item

2(level spell)* 3(caster level)*2000gp *2 (min/level) = 24,000gp

Command word would be:
2(level spell)* 3(caster level)*1800 = 10800gp

Isn't there an increased cost for using the ring slot? (Since you have two.)

I don't think so. I don't see any mention of it and the example for Ring of Protection +3 (bonus squared *2000 = 18000) matches the actual price.

Sczarni

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I've always interpreted the use of those two items as such;

Hat of Disguise: Once you put the hat on you assume the appearance you want as long as you want. However, should you want to change your appearance to another disguise, you must remove the hat (revealing your true appearance, albeit temporarily) and don it again to benefit from the next disguise. I felt you can't just say a magic word or mentally will a new disguise without removing the hat first.

Ring of Invisibility: In my opinion, the ring has unlimited duration once worn, however, as it is a Ring of Invisibilty and not a Ring of Greater Invisibility, the moment you take any hostile action that would end the duration of the spell Invisibility, the Ring ceases to function until you use a standard action to activate it again. The obvious downside to a unlimited duration ring of invis is when the wearer is paralyzed or incapacitated while it is active and no other member of the party can cast See Invisibility...


Kayerloth wrote:

How about explaining this then:

Quote:

Cloak of Etherealness

Aura strong transmutation; CL 15th

Slot shoulders; Price 55,000 gp; Weight 1 lb.

Description

This silvery gray cloak seems to absorb light rather than be illuminated by it. On command, the cloak makes its wearer ethereal (as the ethereal jaunt spell). The effect is dismissible. The cloak works for a total of up to 10 minutes per day. This duration need not be continuous, but it must be used in 1 minute increments.

Construction

Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, ethereal jaunt; Cost 27,500 gp

Why bother with "(as the ethereal jaunt spell)" if you are going to go on and specify exactly how long and how continuous or not the activation is? Couldn't you just leave that chunk out of sentence?

Probably so you know what the actual effects of the item are? I'm not sure if there are any other details given by the Ethereal Jaunt spell that aren't covered by "makes its wearer ethereal".

In that case though, it's definitely not the duration. Unless you also have to give the command every 15rds, in addition to the 10 minutes/day in 1 minute intervals.


MrRetsej wrote:
The obvious downside to a unlimited duration ring of invis is when the wearer is paralyzed or incapacitated while it is active and no other member of the party can cast See Invisibility...

Had that happen once, The PC has two rings, invisibility and sustenance paralyzed by a Lich and hurled out a window.... of an airship. He survived the fall but finding him took a couple days.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

A few games back, we had multiple characters subject to the invisibility spell get fireballed and go down. Two of them didn't make it precisely because nobody could find them to heal them in time.

Dangerous work adventuring.


I need to find the developer comments talking about the pricing of the Ring of Invisibility (probably in one of the True Strike Ring threads). They priced it out as far less than 20k (the 10,800 number sounds familiar), but decided to up the cost because it is far too good of an item for just 10k.

Is it just the pricing that makes people think it's a continuous use item, rather than command word?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Haven't found the one I'm looking for, but did stumble across this:

James Jacobs wrote:
As for a ring of greater invisibility, something like that SHOULD be a lot more expensive, since not having to take an action in combat to activate invisibility is incredibly powerful. Frankly, I would suggest not creating this item, in any event, because it's so much better than a regular ring of invisibility that it kind of makes that item feel kind of worthless.

Having to take an action to activate implies command use, not you automatically go invisible when you put it on.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

As the ring of invisibility is a legacy item from the early days of D&D, it's not unreasonable to assume it's meant to be a persistent effect. That's how the ring was played in 1st and 2nd edition. You put the ring on, and you disappeared. If you attacked, you were visible again, until your next turn, when the invisibility would reassert itself. Everyone I know carried the persistent effect into 3rd ed. You activate it, it stays on until you take an offensive action. Then you're visible until you activate the ring again. That's how my group has played it in Pathfinder.


No, it's vague language (activating and not command word activation, as the spell/as with the spell instead of cast invisibility/disguise self at will) and the fact that the best argument for command word (as compared to some other activation) is pricing, which doesn't apply to the ring as it explicitly doesn't follow the formula.

And the action to activate a magic item defaults to command word (I think), but use-activated is also a thing.


The language is from the GameMastery Guide. Found it via Gauss, so I'll just copypasta his post.

Gauss wrote:

Archmagi1: It is NOT priced as you just stated.

First, it is a command activation item so uses 2(SL)*3(CL)*1800(command word) pricing (which puts it at 10,800 by formula).
Second, since it is a command activation item footnote 2 does not apply.
Third, footnote 2 applies to continuous, not use activated. It states this in the footnote.

There are sources via WoTC and Paizo that state what the Ring's pricing is. Here is the Paizo one:

GMG p117 wrote:
Pricing a magic item is more art than science. Guidance on item pricing is given in Table 15–29 on page 550 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, but a trip through the magic item section shows the formulas are often not applied exactly. An example is the ring of invisibility, with a calculated price of 10,800 gp, but a book value of 20,000 gp. This is because the at-will nature of the ring offsets the biggest drawback of invisibility, namely that it ends after attacking. When pricing new magic items, watch out for any item that counteracts a basic weakness of an ability, class, or spell.
- Gauss

As can be seen, it was created as a command word item, but would be underpriced. Thus, they increased it to 20k. It comes directly from 3.5 where it worked the same way, so 1st Ed. and 2nd Ed. are irrelevant here.


Shadowborn wrote:
As the ring of invisibility is a legacy item from the early days of D&D, it's not unreasonable to assume it's meant to be a persistent effect. That's how the ring was played in 1st and 2nd edition. You put the ring on, and you disappeared. If you attacked, you were visible again, until your next turn, when the invisibility would reassert itself. Everyone I know carried the persistent effect into 3rd ed. You activate it, it stays on until you take an offensive action. Then you're visible until you activate the ring again. That's how my group has played it in Pathfinder.

^I think many rules questions would benefit if tradition could be used as an argument, but sadly RAW must be divined somewhere for anything to function. I would have a hierarchy of arguement support going:

1.RAW
2.Developer Comment
3.Tradition in degrees of edition similarity, the greatest 3.5e, the lowest Chain-mail.

But this is just because I hate 200 page rules question posts.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Lord Vukodlak wrote:
The thing is an item with unlimited uses of a spell like disguise self, levitation, or invisibility. Why bother making the PC refresh it every so often. They don't even have to wait for it to expire to refresh the duration.

The primary difference would occur if you lose consciousness while wearing the item. After a few minutes, you would become visible or return to your true appearance. Remember that post about a party requiring a few days to recover a party member who was lost while wearing a ring of invisibility? If the invisibility had a fixed duration, the person would be much easier to find once the invisibility wears off.


Emmanuel Nouvellon-Pugh wrote:
Shadowborn wrote:
As the ring of invisibility is a legacy item from the early days of D&D, it's not unreasonable to assume it's meant to be a persistent effect. That's how the ring was played in 1st and 2nd edition. You put the ring on, and you disappeared. If you attacked, you were visible again, until your next turn, when the invisibility would reassert itself. Everyone I know carried the persistent effect into 3rd ed. You activate it, it stays on until you take an offensive action. Then you're visible until you activate the ring again. That's how my group has played it in Pathfinder.

^I think many rules questions would benefit if tradition could be used as an argument, but sadly RAW must be divined somewhere for anything to function. I would have a hierarchy of arguement support going:

1.RAW
2.Developer Comment
3.Tradition in degrees of edition similarity, the greatest 3.5e, the lowest Chain-mail.

But this is just because I hate 200 page rules question posts.

And I'm not saying that my interpretation is the right one for everyone. It's certainly the right one for me, however. I know what you mean about rules question posts. There's a reason I rarely go past the third page.

Grand Lodge

fretgod99 wrote:

The language is from the GameMastery Guide. Found it via Gauss, so I'll just copypasta his post.

Gauss wrote:

Archmagi1: It is NOT priced as you just stated.

First, it is a command activation item so uses 2(SL)*3(CL)*1800(command word) pricing (which puts it at 10,800 by formula).
Second, since it is a command activation item footnote 2 does not apply.
Third, footnote 2 applies to continuous, not use activated. It states this in the footnote.

There are sources via WoTC and Paizo that state what the Ring's pricing is. Here is the Paizo one:

GMG p117 wrote:
Pricing a magic item is more art than science. Guidance on item pricing is given in Table 15–29 on page 550 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, but a trip through the magic item section shows the formulas are often not applied exactly. An example is the ring of invisibility, with a calculated price of 10,800 gp, but a book value of 20,000 gp. This is because the at-will nature of the ring offsets the biggest drawback of invisibility, namely that it ends after attacking. When pricing new magic items, watch out for any item that counteracts a basic weakness of an ability, class, or spell.
- Gauss
As can be seen, it was created as a command word item, but would be underpriced. Thus, they increased it to 20k. It comes directly from 3.5 where it worked the same way, so 1st Ed. and 2nd Ed. are irrelevant here.

You got a rules citation for 3.5 that shows it works that way? I only ever saw it as a continuous item, with the invisibility suppressed when someone attacked, not as something that needed to be activated, in whatever fashion, every three minutes.

Oh, and the main reason a ring of greater invisibility would be expensive as all get out is that it circumvents one of the few weaknesses of a regular ring of invisibility, going visible when attacking.

No, having to reactivate a hat of disguise every 10 minutes is definitely against the spirit of the item, and should be something mentioned in its write-up, since that would be a fairly significant curb on its use, even above and beyond using the head slot.

And this discussion has come up with the ring of feather falling. How does that work? Is it a duration, with additional activations each X rounds, if you haven't landed yet? Or does it just go off when you fall more than X feet, and stay active until you land?


If 'activation' just requires you to remember to concentrate briefly every few minutes, it's really not much of a curb on the item - you'd just have to be careful not to let anyone watch you sleep.
When I had a ring of invisibility, I assumed it required a renewal every three minutes (and that this was not a command word, because that would be stupid - Core p458 "Although this activation sometimes requires a command word... usually it means mentally willing the activation to happen"). I never had a problem with that.

1 to 50 of 964 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / On the duration of hats of disguise and rings of invisibility All Messageboards