Glyph Seals from Magic Item Compendium

[FatherTome]

Perhaps, but I'm inclined to doubt that a potion vial is large enough.

 

[Twowolves]

I'm certain you could put the glyph on a belt pouch. Just open the pouch to activate, no need to retrieve anything.

 

[MarkB]

I'm certain you could put the glyph on a belt pouch. Just open the pouch to activate, no need to retrieve anything.

Likewise a haversack or scroll case.

 

[FatherTome]

Haversacks and belt pouches are not solid surfaces. You could tie a leather strap to a box and tie that to your belt, but you're still picking up an object/retrieving an object, which is a move action - just like drawing a sword.

 

[Twowolves]

Haversacks and belt pouches are not solid surfaces. You could tie a leather strap to a box and tie that to your belt, but you're still picking up an object/retrieving an object, which is a move action - just like drawing a sword.

How are they not solid? They sure ain't liquid, gas or plasma.

 

[Nail]

I would rule that:

• Spells with Target: Personal can't be put into the glyph, as the glyph cannot target itself, and
• the seals have a market price that reflects their spell level. For the Lesser Seal it would be (2000gp (Use activated) * 3 (Spl Lvl) * 5 (CL) =) 30,000 gp, for the Greater Seal it would be (2000gp (Use activated) * 6 (Spl Lvl) * 11 (CL) =) 132,000 gp. These are extremely portable and adaptable; they do not deserve the "Magical Trap" price.

 

[FatherTome]

Good thing you're not my DM. You and I wouldn't get along at all.

Have you even read the Magic Item Compendium? It's a good read and it would help you understand why a ruling like yours is in conflict with the ideas that spawned it.

It includes such items as a 3,000 GP item that 3x a day as a swift action allows you to make your next melee attack as a touch attack instead. The Design and Development articles specifically talk about how players will ignore items that are either not useful and cheap, or useful but ridiculously overpriced. So there are a lot of useful, cheap items that were deemed to be not unbalancing, and the majority of them are under 10,000 GP - a far cry from your 30,000 GP and 132,000 GP costs, which don't come close to being reasonable.

As far as your 'use-activated' cost goes, I could get a continuous Ring of Greater Invisibility for less and it would be far more unbalancing. Therefore you need to reevaluate your concept of cost.

Compare it to the closest similar item: Ring of Spell Storing. You have more than doubled the base price of the regular Ring of Spell Storing on a magic item which is much more limited in function. Does this make sense? No.

 

[hong]

D00d, stop whinging, kthxb

 

[Infiniti2000]

Have you even read the Magic Item Compendium? It's a good read and it would help you understand why a ruling like yours is in conflict with the ideas that spawned it.

Perhaps then you could just paraphrase the sections where the book discusses why it's okay to allow Personal range spells in a rechargeable item? That's the problem that people are having with this item and if the book is such a good read, it must surely discuss this issue.

 

[FatherTome]

Perhaps then you could just paraphrase the sections where the book discusses why it's okay to allow Personal range spells in a rechargeable item? That's the problem that people are having with this item and if the book is such a good read, it must surely discuss this issue.

Unnecessary. The book doesn't have to say it's okay to allow Personal range spells into a rechargeable item - it says 'any spell'. I'm pretty sure that Personal range spells fall under the category of 'any spell'.

If you want an example of a reusable spell storing item that doesn't allow Personal range spells, take a look at the Companion Spirit from (if I recall) DMGII. It specifically disallows casting Personal range spells into it, but it is the exception, as neither the Ring of Spell Storing nor the Glyph Seal have any restrictions on what kind of spell can be cast into it; merely what level of spell(s).