Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Borlon" data-source="post: 2615301" data-attributes="member: 27589">I would vote that it does protect from fireballs.&nbsp; I have several reasons:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">There has to be circumstances whereby what goes into the ring comes out again.&nbsp; Jack Smith points that out nicely.&nbsp;</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The spell used for the prerequisite (imbue with spell ability) is not spell turning, and so shouldn't have the limitations of spell turning.&nbsp;</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The mechanic referenced (counterspelling) makes no distinction between the two types of spells: a wizard can counterspell both targetted and area-effect spells.&nbsp; A ring of counterspells would logically be expected to do the same.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">If it were only limited to targetted spells, why didn't they say so?&nbsp;</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">&quot;Upon&quot; is genereally interchangeable with &quot;on&quot; when it indicates a spatial relation between an action and an endpoint, but the endpoint can consist of more than one object.&nbsp; The meaning of &quot;cast upon&quot; is thus broader than &quot;targetted at&quot; and so the two phrases need not be taken as synonymous.</li>
</ul>Besides logic, you also have to refer to game balance to adjudicate the effect of a magic item.&nbsp; In this case, it is a question of how much utility you should get for 4000 gp.&nbsp; Using a ring slot to be protected once from a fireball?&nbsp; That's not too bad.&nbsp; Still, it would be reasonable to say that the AoE of the spell has to be centered somewhere in the square occupied by the wielder.&nbsp; That limits the item a lot, but still addresses the reasons above.&nbsp; Just tell the wielder that the AI that runs the ring is awfully near-sighted.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Borlon, post: 2615301, member: 27589"] I would vote that it does protect from fireballs. I have several reasons: [list] [*]There has to be circumstances whereby what goes into the ring comes out again. Jack Smith points that out nicely. [*]The spell used for the prerequisite ([i]imbue with spell ability[/i]) is not [i]spell turning[/i], and so shouldn't have the limitations of [i]spell turning[/i]. [*]The mechanic referenced (counterspelling) makes no distinction between the two types of spells: a wizard can counterspell both targetted and area-effect spells. A ring of counterspells would logically be expected to do the same. [*]If it were only limited to targetted spells, why didn't they say so? [*]"Upon" is genereally interchangeable with "on" when it indicates a spatial relation between an action and an endpoint, but the endpoint can consist of more than one object. The meaning of "cast upon" is thus broader than "targetted at" and so the two phrases need not be taken as synonymous.[/list] Besides logic, you also have to refer to game balance to adjudicate the effect of a magic item. In this case, it is a question of how much utility you should get for 4000 gp. Using a ring slot to be protected once from a [i]fireball[/i]? That's not too bad. Still, it would be reasonable to say that the AoE of the spell has to be centered somewhere in the square occupied by the wielder. That limits the item a lot, but still addresses the reasons above. Just tell the wielder that the AI that runs the ring is awfully near-sighted. [/QUOTE]

Verification