Ring of Blinking question

[James McMurray]

And I already showed the irregularities of this argument early on in the thread with the price breakdown of the item. I knoiw that the price of an item isn't a 100% solid argument, but it can't just be summarily ignored and dismissed with impunity either.

And I already answered that idea by explaining to you how Monte Cook, on his message boards, has said that the 2 round increase did not warrant a full, by the formula increase in the item's cost. If you choose to ignore that and all other rule quotes, go ahead. You are free to have rings function until deactivated in your game. But as you have said so many times in the past:

The house rules forum is over there.

 

[James McMurray]

Note that most rings function continuously once activated, allowing for virtually unlimited use unless the ring produces an effect that can be broken.

I'd sure like to hear Skip's rationale behind this, since it is in no way supported by the rules. The rules themselves state that if an item has a power with variable effects based on level, then its caster level determines those effects.

Blink has avariable effect duration, and a caster level of 7. Anything beyond that is a house rule. House rules are fine, but at least don't try to pass them off as the actual rules.

 

[kreynolds]

I'd sure like to hear Skip's rationale behind this, since it is in no way supported by the rules. The rules themselves state that if an item has a power with variable effects based on level, then its caster level determines those effects.

The rules also state that rings are either continuous or command activated, and they say nothing about the duration of effects on rings, not even in the item descriptions.

Blink has avariable effect duration, and a caster level of 7. Anything beyond that is a house rule. House rules are fine, but at least don't try to pass them off as the actual rules.

James, there's no reason to be rude. If you don't like it, that's perfectly understandable. Rule it however you feel is best. So long as your games are fun, you don't have anything to worry about. I didn't intend for this discussion to get nasty at all, and I even refrained from being confrontational. Quite simply, I remembered reading somewhere that rings generally don't have a limited duration, but I just couldn't remember where. I had hoped that someone had read that as well, and could point me in the right direction to verify what I remembered. Suffice to say, this thread having taken a turn for the worse was a shock to say the least.

Oh well. Maybe it'll be better next time.

 

[kreynolds]

And I already answered that idea by explaining to you how Monte Cook, on his message boards, has said that the 2 round increase did not warrant a full, by the formula increase in the item's cost.

I know, and personally, I didn't feel that was a discussion-breaker. You know, many people like to point out how Skip is flawed in some of his decisions. Now is a great time to point out that Monte has made mistakes as well (insert Mind Blank here). What's that mean? They're both human. No biggie.

If you choose to ignore that and all other rule quotes, go ahead.

I haven't ignored it. I simply didn't see any confounding evidence posted that said otherwise.

You are free to have rings function until deactivated in your game. But as you have said so many times in the past:

The house rules forum is over there.

This is one of those times where an emoticon simply doesn't remove nor justify the snippy edge of a comment, and believe me, I should know.

 

[James McMurray]

Then by all means ignore the fact that the emoticon is there.

The difference between Monte Cook and Skip Williams is that Monte actually wrote the book in question, therefore what he says about it holds a lot more weight. Given some of Skip's answers in Sage advice, I sometimes wonder if he has even read the book. But that's immaterial to the matter at hand.

The rules have been laid out ofr you, with the relative sections explained. If you still refuse to understand it, then you deserve to be snipped at. You certainly have no room whatsoever to complain when someone gets a bit snippy with directions towards the house rules forum, as you yourself do that quite frequently. If you don't like the taste, don't invent the recipe.

 

[Quidam]

Sticking head above the crenellations

When I'm the DM, rings you activate remain activated until deactivated. Why?

Because there are times when you want NOT to be blinking. Or to not be invisible. But you don't want to have to take the ring on and off when you want to change states. If you're the wizard designing the thing, you build in a command word to turn it on and off. All those other rings that work all the time? No reason for them not to be. Why would you ever turn off a Ring of Jumping? Look back at that list of continuous rings- any reason to turn any of them off?

 

[James McMurray]

The problem with that is simple: when would you NOT want to be blinking? Unless of course you are in a social situation, in which case you wouldn't activate the ring in the first place.

If the Ring of Blinking were meant to make the wearer immune to almost 50% of all ambushes, it would probably cost a whole heck of a lot more.

 

[kreynolds]

Then by all means ignore the fact that the emoticon is there.

I didn't ignore it, but recognized it as a veiled bark.

The difference between Monte Cook and Skip Williams is that Monte actually wrote the book in question, therefore what he says about it holds a lot more weight. Given some of Skip's answers in Sage advice, I sometimes wonder if he has even read the book. But that's immaterial to the matter at hand.

Yes, it is immaterial. In that, you and I agree.

The rules have been laid out ofr you, with the relative sections explained.

Yes, you quoted sections of the rules. Unfortunately, I didn't feel that your quotes held much weight. It's not a matter of understand the rules, more its a matter of me simply disagreeing with you and finding your argument refutable. Disagreements happen all the time. No big deal. Why you're making this personal is beyond me.

If you still refuse to understand it, then you deserve to be snipped at.

So, because I disagree with you, you have the right to be rude and improper? That logic simply fails me. *shrug*

You certainly have no room whatsoever to complain when someone gets a bit snippy with directions towards the house rules forum, as you yourself do that quite frequently. If you don't like the taste, don't invent the recipe.

I haven't been snippy in weeks. I have been quite polite and non-confrontational, yet you seem to actually want me to revert to my former behavior. You demonstrate this because you refuse to have a civil discussion. You made it personal when there was no cause. Your snippy attitude is inexcusable because it wasn't called for at all. You have nobody to blame for your attitude but yourself. No matter what my past reputation was, I don't deserve your attitude today, nor did I deserve it yesterday, or the week before, or for the last couple of months.

You have little room to speak of the "recipe", when it is you yourself that is keeping it alive.

 

[hammymchamham]

The problem with that is simple: when would you NOT want to be blinking? Unless of course you are in a social situation, in which case you wouldn't activate the ring in the first place.

If the Ring of Blinking were meant to make the wearer immune to almost 50% of all ambushes, it would probably cost a whole heck of a lot more.

Why wouldn't you want to be blinking? Well, you move at 75% of your speed, which could hold your party back, especially if you're a little person. If normally I move 20ft per round and now its 15, my group is now pretty slow. I say 'Shazam make me blink' (the command word, so as to stop blinking), and now we're moving faster. You mentioned social instances, but if combat breaks out, I want to be able to use the ring without fumbling around for it. Instead of fumbling around for the ring, I can say 'Shazam make me blink' or what ever the command word is.

 

[Quidam]

Why not blink ALL the time?

There's the fact that, IIRC, 20% of your spells fail.

Rings should be powerful. They require higher caster levels and a feat of their own when many of their effects can be produced by Wondrous Items.