Ring of Improved Invisibility [2002 Thread]

[kreynolds]

Others have responded at greater length, but I will reiterate: the calculation chart on DMG p. 242 is for "guidelines" only (DMG p. 243). "The formulas only provide a starting point." (DMG p. 243) "just as you [the DM] have to be careful about new spells, you need to be careful with new magic items" (DMG p. 178).

Hence, DMs have full control over any "new magic items".

I can't speak for everyone else, but I fully realize that the calculation chart in the DMG on page 242 is a "guideline". However, my problem is that when most people see a "new magic item" that they don't approve of, they tend to immediately shout "illegal", when there is no legality involved in "new magic items", as they are created by "guidelines" governed and ruled upon by the respective "DM". So, no magic item is "illegal" unless it blatantly costs way too much or far too little given it's real value based upon by it's usefulness.

What I was pointing out was that the given examples of "new magic items" on this thread, the ones that I specifically addressed, were well balanced by their gold piece cost and usefulness, which also includes the disadvantages to using said item, which, for example, might involve burning up a whole round of attacks, just to activate the item.

The real problem with many people is that they tend to look at a magic item, rule it as too powerful, yet they don't fully understand it's usefulness/disadvantages. For instance, in my games, you have a chance of finding/purchasing/creating the following items because they are all well balanced: Ring of True Strike (use activated, unlimited charges), Ring of Improved Invisibility (use activated, unlimited charges, possibly even constant functionality - activated/deactivated at will as a standard action - if you're willing to spend the cash), Longsword with True Strike (use activated, unlimited charges), Longsword of Disintigration (use activated, unlimited charges), Gauntlet of Finger of Death (use activated, unlimited charges), Glove of Harm (use activated, unlimited charges).

Those are just a few examples of the items you could find in my games, and each and every one of them is balanced within said games. Why are they balanced? Because I, the DM, have created them per the "guidelines" and have fully taken into consideration their benefits and true value/worth. Each and every one of those items, I could defend. Why can I defend them? Well, to be blunt, I'm really damn good at magic item creation. But more importantly, I read the magic item creation "guidelines" in the DMG over and over and over to make sure that my finger was firmly planted on the pulse of the "spirit" of the game.

That's what creating "new magic items" is all about; freshness, story aids, game depth, treasure, making your player's smile when they feel rewarded, and fun. Magic item creation is not a science, when in fact, it is an art. In fact, I would argue that DMing as a whole is in art, not just a science. It involves creativity, great imagination, and most important, more than just math skills. And as everyone knows, it is a rare case indeed when a large group of individuals shares a common opinion regarding a piece of art.

 

[Bobbystopholes]

Thanee, I agreed with your reasoning more. The difference, to me, is a ring of invisibility is continuous and you can turn it right back on as many times as you like. The ring I was wanting, 1 charge/day for 7 minutes at a whack is not near as powerful, IMO.

Also, I was also asking for the rules by the book since the beginning. I would have went to House Rules if I wanted house rules. I probably just should have asked how do you put a spell on a ring without asking for a certain spell.

Thanks

 

[kreynolds]

But where do you draw the line?

At the line of "reason". I'll explain, briefly, as I have already addressed this before, in a bit.

Why does noone in your campaign have rings of continuous true strike for 2,000 gp apiece? +20 to hit, all the time! Isn't that great?

There's a very good reason why nobody in my games has a Ring of True Strike, but I'll get to that later.

First of all, you're interpretation of the Ring of True Strike is is not entirely correct. Rings are simply themed magic items, meaning that they are just like many other items, but they tend to grant continous benefits, like a ring of Protection. However, a ring of useable spells is just a wondrous item. Use-activated magic items are either a standard action or not an action at all. Ring of Protection does not need an action. Boots of Speed, however, require an action to activate the Haste function. The activation method is basically determined by the "theme" of your item.

In the case of a Ring of True Strike, the activation method is a standard action. So, you don't get +20 to hit "all the time". Why? Because +20 to hit all the time is most certainly not reasonable for such a low cost. However, making the ring a standard action to activate doesn't even require mucking up of the original guidelines, as the guidelines themselves suggest two different activation methods of use-activated magic items, and you choose one based upon how the item is used.

So, the reason why nobody in my games has a Ring of True Strike is because they don't want one. Why? Simple. Burning up half of your round, and only being able to move or perform a move-equivalent action after activating the ring, is not worth the loss of giving up a full round of attacks, etc. That's why nobody wants it. A Ring of True Strike is a great low level magic item. Why? Because I can promise you that it will be a rare occasion that a low level character is hasted more than a few rounds and I doubt they have 10 attacks per round, when in fact they only have a precious 2 or 3 attacks per round, so why sacrifice them for a single attack at +20 to hit, when you could potentially deal much more leathal damage if you used all of your attacks. Answer? You would use the item in a pinch, which is the only reason a high-level character would hold onto the ring, because you never know when you might need it.

Not reasonable? You bet! But by the book it is!

It's perfectly reasonable, by the book and by my own process of reason. See above.

The comparison I took for pricing the item was pretty much by the book also. Just extrapolating from an existing and very similar item.

The only thing I can say about that is this: Drawing upon the work of one painting to create another, without your own inspiration to create something original or "from your heart" is not art.

You can compare the functionality of some magic items to figure out how they should work or be priced. But it would help a lot if I knew what item you were comparing it to. Care to share?

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Ring of Improved Invisibility

1) Continuous like the Ring of Regular Invisibility...

...What would the formulae be? The stuff in the DMG just confuses me. I'm so lost!

Thanks

That's perfectly understandable that it is confusing. I'll break down the ring of invisibility and show you what I mean:

Invisibility is a 2nd level spell, minimum caster level of 3rd. Technically, the formula to calculate the cost of this ring would be 2 (spell level) x 3 (caster level) x 2,000gp = a mere 12,000gp. In my opinion, that is a bit low, but not by much. Here is how they fixed it:

2 (spell level) x 5 (higher set caster level) x 2,000gp = 20,000gp, which is bit better. Basically, when you are trying to price a ring like this that you make, one of the easiest ways to play with the price is to grab a trusty calculator, or use your omnipotent mathematical genius level brain (that I most certainly do not possess) and calculate it like this:

2 x 3 x 2,000gp = 12,000gp - Nah. Too low. How about this?...
2 x 4 x 2,000gp = 16,000gp - Nah. Still too low. How about this?...
2 x 5 x 2,000gp = 20,000gp - Well. That looks better, but I'm still not sure. How about this?...
2 x 6 x 2,000gp = 24,000gp - Nah. That's a bit too high. So, looks like 20,000gp is the lucky number!

Remember, Art, not just Science.

 

[gamecat]

The only thing I can say about that is this: Drawing upon the work of one painting to create another, without your own inspiration to create something original or "from your heart" is not art.

Boy, this is deep...

 

[kreynolds]

Boy, this is deep...

ROTFLMAO It is a little cheesy, isn't it?

 

[Thanee]

I was comparing it to a ring of invisibility. The comparison is on the 2nd page if my memory doesn't fail me.

About the True Strike, your point is absolutely valid, but has nothing to do with what I said. The ring of continuous True Strike I was talking about does not have to be activated with a standard action, it is operating continuously, no time lost.

The cost for this item is 2,000 gp per the item creation rules and it is very well possible to create it without the standard action necessary.

It's just one extreme example of how the guidelines should not be taken literally and as fixed rules, but as the guidelines they are meant to be.

I totally agree with you, that item creation is an art in and by itself!

Bye
Thanee

 

[kreynolds]

I was comparing it to a ring of invisibility. The comparison is on the 2nd page if my memory doesn't fail me.

Got it. Took me a bit to find it, but I did.

About the True Strike, your point is absolutely valid, but has nothing to do with what I said.

It most certainly does. See below.

The ring of continuous True Strike I was talking about does not have to be activated with a standard action, it is operating continuously, no time lost.

The cost for this item is 2,000 gp per the item creation rules and it is very well possible to create it without the standard action necessary.

Which is absolutely rediculous. I know that, you know that, we all know that. I will state this again: The "guidelines" for use-activated items are activated with either a standard action or don't require an action at all. You must choose which kind is appropriate for the item you are creating. You make this decision based upon whether or not you feel the item is balanced via cost and usefulness. Obviously, this item would not be balanced in any way shape or form. You know that, I know that, we all know that. So, it would appear that what I said had everything to do with what you previously posted.

It's just one extreme example of how the guidelines should not be taken literally and as fixed rules, but as the guidelines they are meant to be.

I totally agree with you, that item creation is an art in and by itself!

Bye
Thanee

At least we're eye-to-eye on something.

 

[Thanee]

But you do understand, that I'm basically saying the exact same thing as you do, or not?

Well, obviously not...

Bye
Thanee

 

[kreynolds]

But you do understand, that I'm basically saying the exact same thing as you do, or not?

Yes and no. But I'm not too worried about it.