Ring of Spell Battle? where & what is it?

[shilsen]

Disjunction is really the problem, not the Ring. Disjunction, in my opinion, is highly annoying and stupid as written. I've had parties that lost 700,000 GP worth of equipment to it, so I houseruled that it now acts like a Dispel check wherein the opponent gets 1+Caster Level instead of 11+Caster Level (so you still automatically dispel the spells of someone your level, but at least a level 17 wizard can't instantly destroy everything made by anyone ever).

Another way to handle it is to make it suppress magical items for some amount of time rather than actually destroying them. Then it is still useful as a tactical spell without destroying the PCs' (or their enemy's, which most PCs are very loath to do) equipment. If you want to retain the ability to destroy magic, maybe allow it to be used as an area (as currently written) or targeted spell, just as dispel magic is. The area effect suppresses magic. The targeted version actually destroys magic.

Dang! I think I just came up with a workable house rule for MD. *runs off to add it to his notes*

 

[KarinsDad]

I really don't think it is overpowered. For the same price you could buy a 3/day metamagic rod to boost your own spells. Its basically a last resort once per day spell to save the party when the DM throws a meteor swarm your way or possibly a way to intercept the overpowered buff that the NPC casts on themself (although it doesn't work on Personal only buffs, and that leaves you open to attacks).

Actually, it is more than that.

The redirect is great for saving the party's bacon.

But, the instant absolute knowledge of all spells cast within 60 feet is huge. Sure, you can do that sometimes with Spell Craft without the Ring anyway, but you do not always see or hear everything going on in the middle of a chaotic loud battle. In my game, any spell cast over 30 feet away requires a Listen or Spot check (DC varies based on distance) to hear/see enough of it to get a Spell Craft check.

Tactically, this ability of the ring is pretty nice.

 

[Victim]

Disjunction is really the problem, not the Ring. Disjunction, in my opinion, is highly annoying and stupid as written. I've had parties that lost 700,000 GP worth of equipment to it, so I houseruled that it now acts like a Dispel check wherein the opponent gets 1+Caster Level instead of 11+Caster Level (so you still automatically dispel the spells of someone your level, but at least a level 17 wizard can't instantly destroy everything made by anyone ever).

I didn't say I thought the ring was a problem, though. It does provide a new and very broad defense (since normally there's no way to stop area spells) which is why I understand people could have problems with it.

 

[Mistwell]

One time a day you can defend against one spell. Big deal! How could people have such a problem with that?

I can see people thinking the knowledge of locally cast spells is useful (I feel a disturbance in the force, as if something just got much stronger in preparation for a battle)...but that's all, just useful. It's just a nifty utility for a single PC that in no way breaks the game. In fact, that power is fairly RP-heavy, and crunchy-lite, when it comes down to it.

I just don't get it. What on earth about this item makes people react like "It is an incredibly bad idea to let it anywhere near a game you respect."? That just seems like a massive exagerated over-reaction.

 

[DevoutlyApathetic]

So the ability to instantly counter any spell cast within 60' and recast that same spell immediatly all as a free action is roughly equivalent to say....a Horn of Blasting, Greater? Bracers of armor +8?

The best for that price range is a normal rod of quicken. An item that is at the upper bound of price to value to begin with.

Really the item in question should be epic. In a fight between otherwise equal casters, he who has one; wins. 70k-ish is too cheap for that.

 

[Sir ThornCrest]

the ring would allow a mage to know what spells, who & where mage is casting?

It would possibly give the mage with the ring a chance to react accordingly vs spells. Does the ring inform the wearer what spell is being cast? Or who is casting it? Or does it just say "someones casting a spell within 60' of you? If it told the player who and what was being cast then yes its powerful, but if it says someone ? is casting a spell and the ring allows you to ruin 1 spell a day then that aint all that great, certainly not game breaking.....with 67,000 you can buy some hella magicals out there and this one doesnt seem to be all that great for the cost....-but again if it tells wearer who, where and what spell is being cast if the wearer has initiative then he can counterspell or hit that mage with some magic missiles or like to test his concentration or use the rings 1 time ability per day to ruin a casters spells....


Thorncrest

One time a day you can defend against one spell. Big deal! How could people have such a problem with that?

I can see people thinking the knowledge of locally cast spells is useful (I feel a disturbance in the force, as if something just got much stronger in preparation for a battle)...but that's all, just useful. It's just a nifty utility for a single PC that in no way breaks the game. In fact, that power is fairly RP-heavy, and crunchy-lite, when it comes down to it.

I just don't get it. What on earth about this item makes people react like "It is an incredibly bad idea to let it anywhere near a game you respect."? That just seems like a massive exagerated over-reaction.

 

[Mistwell]

So the ability to instantly counter any spell cast within 60' and recast that same spell immediatly all as a free action is roughly equivalent to say....a Horn of Blasting, Greater? Bracers of armor +8?

The best for that price range is a normal rod of quicken. An item that is at the upper bound of price to value to begin with.

Really the item in question should be epic. In a fight between otherwise equal casters, he who has one; wins. 70k-ish is too cheap for that.

Really, I find this silly. D&D is not a game based on who will win a single one on one battle. It's a game played with multiple players vs. multiple opponants in multiple encounters in a day. If the game were balanced on single encounters, suddenly potions would be a LOT more valuable.

This is a ONE TIME USE item per day. It does not allow you to recast "any" spell. The point of effect has to still be within the spells range as measured from the original caster. That means all "personal" and "touch" spells are not re-castable, and any line of sight spells where you are not within line of sight of the caster cannot be re-cast, and a spell that affects a different type of creature (like an animal spell with no other animals present) cannot be recast, etc...That is a TON of spells which cannot be recast. Remember, the ring does not identify who cast the spell or what the location of the caster is...just that the spell was cast.

Has anyone on this board ever played with a party member who had this item and found the item to be unbalancing on the game?

 

[Mistwell]

It would possibly give the mage with the ring a chance to react accordingly vs spells. Does the ring inform the wearer what spell is being cast? Or who is casting it? Or does it just say "someones casting a spell within 60' of you? If it told the player who and what was being cast then yes its powerful, but if it says someone ? is casting a spell and the ring allows you to ruin 1 spell a day then that aint all that great, certainly not game breaking.....with 67,000 you can buy some hella magicals out there and this one doesnt seem to be all that great for the cost....-but again if it tells wearer who, where and what spell is being cast if the wearer has initiative then he can counterspell or hit that mage with some magic missiles or like to test his concentration or use the rings 1 time ability per day to ruin a casters spells....


Thorncrest

Wearer can identify the spell beng cast on a spellcraft check (DC 15+spell level). Wearer can NOT identify WHO cast the spell. There is nothing in the description that gives any idication of who or where exactly the spell was cast, just that a spell was cast within 60 feet and what the spell was if you make your spellcraft check. So if the caster is invisible, or around the corner, or in another room, you may well have a lot of trouble placing a new target or even identifying it as being cast by someone not in your own party or by a non-ally. And, if you guess wrong on the range of the spell...the spell goes off normally and you just wasted your one-time a day use of the ring.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I've had an NPC who used this ring. The NPC in question was a dedicated abjurer who challenged the party's abjurer (whose strange disdain for abjuration despite her specialisation had been bothering me for some time) to an "abjuration duel." The ring combined with Reciprocal Gyre and Kaleidoscopic Doom allowed the NPC abjurer to win, but he didn't really have to use the ring to win, since they were using single-target spells that would have been affected by Spell Turning (at least in my campaign all single target ray spells are affected by Spell Turning, although I recently discovered that they technically aren't in the RAW due to a silly semantics game in the spell wording). In conclusion, the PC abjurer thought the ring was neat and wanted to buy one from the NPC's people, who refused to sell it, but it wasn't the deciding factor in this battle (the NPC abjurer always had the fight completely under control).

 

[Saeviomagy]

I think that the rings most basic function (allow spellcraft checks without needing sight and sound to the target) is a really big hole in the rules at present. Fundamentally, the already weak tactic of counterspelling is made even worse by the many ways that one can stop a foe from telling that you're even casting a spell. I think a device that gets around those is almost essential to the game.

I'd much prefer it if they hadn't tacked on the item's secondary effect though. It makes it that much less likely for a DM to approve the thing's use...