Glove of Storing too powerful?

[jontherev]

feel free to house rule it if you wish, but they seem to read as though the save the current state of the item no matter what it is as they go in the gloves. If that current state includes magical effects then that should be saved just as being on fire is. There is nothing to indicate that the clock on spells should continue to run, but on the other hand it mentions that it stores things in stasis. So zero indicators that spells durations continue, one indication that they stopped until the item is brought back out of the gloves.

It will take more than an interpretation of "stasis" to convince me they intended to give such a cheap magic item the ability to delay spell durations cast on stored objects. If this was the intention, I believe they would have more clearly stated this. For example, by saying something like, "the time spent stored in the glove does not count towards the duration of any spells that were cast on the object prior to being stored." Barring errata similar to this, I would say that spell duration continues as normal while an object is stored. Either that, or increase the cost of the glove significantly.

 

[Oni]

Intention is all well and good, but I'm talking about the rules as written (the letter of the law as opposed to the spirit of the law). If the game designers intended something different then there should be some note in the eratta. This being the rules forum as opposed to the house rules forum I am more interested into the exact nature of the rule as it is written not as someones best guess (be it a good one or not) as to what the designers intended.

 

[Henrix]

Intention is all well and good, but I'm talking about the rules as written (the letter of the law as opposed to the spirit of the law).

And the rules as written say nothing about spell duration.

Stasis is not a defined term, as far as I can see.
The most similar would be the Temporal Stasis spell, which does not mention duration of spells, but only the physical processes of a creature under the effect of the spell.

If you have a better source, please refer to it so that we may look it up.

 

[jontherev]

Intention is all well and good, but I'm talking about the rules as written (the letter of the law as opposed to the spirit of the law). If the game designers intended something different then there should be some note in the eratta. This being the rules forum as opposed to the house rules forum I am more interested into the exact nature of the rule as it is written not as someones best guess (be it a good one or not) as to what the designers intended.

Good, then we agree. Since there is no definition for stasis as a game term, why would you assume it does something like stop a spell's duration? It doesn't say this ANYWHERE in the rules, hence why I posted what I did. You are creating a house rule by assuming stasis does anything but store an item until it is called. It's up to the DM to interpret exactly what 'stasis' means, or if there's even a need to do so. I stand by my last post as to why this was most likely NOT the intention of the designers (to allow one spell to last for weeks and weeks by storing it everytime you are "done" using it). So, you don't think it is unbalancing to allow a 2200 gp magic item that allows ONE spell to work for months on end? Cast Greater Magic Weapon ONCE, and if you only have the weapon out of storage during battle, the spell should last for weeks, even MONTHS possibly. This is absurdly powerful for a 2200 gp magic item. You can try to interpret a loophole to exploit this, but if I'm DM, it wouldn't fly. Try raising the price to about 30000 for ONE glove and maybe then. I'd probably increase it even more, but 30k is a good start for the power level imo. YMMV of course.

 

[Xahn'Tyr]

Wow Oni, you certainly win the award for pompous condesention for today. Now, could you please show me the written rule that defines Statis as an effect that changes the duration of a spell? You speak of the letter of the law, but I cannot find any letters at all that define this term in the D&D 3E ruleset.

 

[Xahn'Tyr]

Another potential abuse problem: assume you had one of these on your left hand and used it to store a shield. Couldn't you fight with a two handed weapon, then at the end of your turn retrieve the shield (shifting your weapon to the other hand).

At the start of your next turn, you store the shield, attack with your two handed weapon, and then retrieve the shield again. Seems silly, but if it helps your AC between your turns it would probably be worth it (especially if you can store a tower shield).

It says you store things "with a command", so that means a move-equivalent action right? At least this would slow it down a little, even if retrieving is free.

 

[jontherev]

Another potential abuse problem: assume you had one of these on your left hand and used it to store a shield. Couldn't you fight with a two handed weapon, then at the end of your turn retrieve the shield (shifting your weapon to the other hand).

At the start of your next turn, you store the shield, attack with your two handed weapon, and then retrieve the shield again. Seems silly, but if it helps your AC between your turns it would probably be worth it (especially if you can store a tower shield).

It says you store things "with a command", so that means a move-equivalent action right? At least this would slow it down a little, even if retrieving is free.

While this is true, you're better off getting an animated shield I think. A +1 animated shield only costs around 10000 I think. They rock for two-handed or two-weapon fighters. Tower shields won't work in your example because they weigh over 20 pounds (the limit of the gloves). A mithril tower shield would still weigh too much. But you're right, this is one abuse. There are many more that could arise. Let's see here's another potential abuse...summon a pixie (I'm assuming they weigh less than 20 pounds...if not, forget it), put it in a box (qualifies as "item"), and presto! If you only need the creature for a round or 2 one day, put it in storage until needed again and you won't need to waste a spell. I'm sure others can come up with worse abuses than this.

 

[Krystoff]

Has anyone emailed the Sage regarding this issue? If not I can email the Sage if someone gives me the addy to email him at.

 

[Artoomis]

Ah, but remember that:

1. The number of free actions allowed in a round is limited by what the DM thinks is reasonable. One store or retrieve is a reasonable limit.

2. Just because you get it as a free action doen not mean the item is ready for use. A sword may still need to be the equivalent of "drawn" to ready it for use, a shield still needs to be "readied." Okay, maybe this is a bit of a stretch for a weapon, but a shield needs to be readied after retrieval or un-readied before storage.

As for other "statis" uses - they seem legal, if a bit powerful for a this inexpensive item. It seems claer to me that spell durations stopping was not intended by the designers. That all depends on your definition of "statis." I think I'd call it this a mundane item only statis - magical effects are not halted or suspended by putting them in the glove.

This is a bit of a stretch, but so is allowing near-infinite spell durations.

 

[IceBear]

I'd also rule that the spell durations aren't affected by stasis. It states that the object is put in stasis, and the only real example that they give of something with a duration (the torch) is not the same as a spell. A spell doesn't consume the object, a burning torch provides heat and light because the torch is being consumed. Since the torch is in stasis, I would rule that the torch can't burn anymore as it is in stasis. Thus, the duration of the torch appears to be extended. A spell, however, would continue to run when the object it is applied to is put into stasis. It is not doing anything to affect the object while it is running, and thus can continue to run while the object itself is in stasis.

IceBear