Ring of Spell storing question

[Hypersmurf]

I suggest that, if you have the mental capacity, you adjudicate this rule.

Why do you consider it lame?

-Hyp.

 

[ARandomGod]

Why do you consider it lame?

-Hyp.

Personal predjudice. I mean, here is an item that *should* be useful to a spellcaster. It's the only rechargeable staff or wand like item in the game. And yet it suffers from the fatal flaw of all wands, in that it's not really useful for spellcasters to store spells. Or, at any rate, it's not really useful for them to store spells wherein caster level is important.

I mean, it's not like these rings are cheap. You're paying more for a ring of spellstoring than you would be for a set of pearls of power that would do the same thing (in general). Yet the pearls will give you more. Sure, if you're storing infrequently used utility spells that's another story, the rings allow you to have more spells "memorized", literally at your fingertips. But then again, why not just buy scrolls in that case? You'll likely end up using them nearly the same way, you'll keep the rings in a pouch or strategically aligned along your belt so that you can put them on and cast them as if casting from a scroll. If, on the other hand, it's a spell you're planning on using frequently enough to rate actually wearing the ring... then you're likely to want to cast it more than once anyhow... I mean, if you're having that much trouble with alloted number of spells per day it could be useful, but I've never really HAD that kind of trouble. If it's a spell I want to cast frequently I memorize it.

Or if you're a non caster, they're great rings. Assuming you've got a caster friend to refill it for you, it gives you casting ability you wouldn't otherwise have. But for a caster, well... it does suck, you've got to admit. As written, it won't do for any of the caster's I've played anything they'd want from it. And so I think it's a lame rule because it's an item that was IMO written FOR a caster, and then they nerfed it to the realm of "with this item you're paying for the ambiance", because you can get better bang for your buck elsewhere.

 

[boolean]

And so I think it's a lame rule because it's an item that was IMO written FOR a caster, and then they nerfed it to the realm of "with this item you're paying for the ambiance", because you can get better bang for your buck elsewhere.

There's your problem. The ring of spell storing isn't designed to increase the capacity of casters. That's what the ring of wizardry, pearls of power, and of course, simple scrolls are for. The ring of spell storing gives a little spellcasting to a non-caster (or a little of a different type.)

 

[Seravin]

<snip> I mean, here is an item that *should* be useful to a spellcaster. It's the only rechargeable staff or wand like item in the game. And yet it suffers from the fatal flaw of all wands, in that it's not really useful for spellcasters to store spells. Or, at any rate, it's not really useful for them to store spells wherein caster level is important.<snip>

Actually, my party's wizard quite liked the Ring of Spell Storing. Under the 3.0 rules the party's wizard kept it filled with a few Cure Lights, and a full Heal. When we switched to 3.5 rules, it lost a little power, but having some cure spells on tap was nice for her.
She didn't need the ring to store her own spells - that's what the various wands, staves, and scrolls were for. The ring provided her extra utility that she couldn't bring to bear herself. She generally had more then sufficient blasting spells on tap.

 

[Vrecknidj]

Ring of Spell Storing, plus someone to cast fireball, plus a character with Improved Evasion to wear it. . . .

Dave

 

[Jalkain]

There's your problem. The ring of spell storing isn't designed to increase the capacity of casters. That's what the ring of wizardry, pearls of power, and of course, simple scrolls are for.

Well, originally they were. These items date back to 1st Ed, when casting level wasn't an issue as it is today, so my wizard's most treasured item was in fact his ring of spell storing. At the end of each day, the choicest spells that I hadn't yet cast went into the ring, ready to be added to the next day's repetoire. Needless to say, I was a little dismayed when I found out how the new ones work, but such is life...

The ring of spell storing gives a little spellcasting to a non-caster (or a little of a different type.)

Technically a wizard can use it well, but only his highest level spells will work at close to their maximum efficiency (it can be very inconvenient, if, for instance, your Charm Monster spell ends a week earlier than it usually does). And it does overcome arcane spell failure, which is sometimes a consideration. But overall, best to give the ring to a trusted cohort or party member, perhaps containing spells you think would compliment their abilities, or even just yesterdays leftovers.

 

[ARandomGod]

There's your problem. The ring of spell storing isn't designed to increase the capacity of casters. That's what the ring of wizardry, pearls of power, and of course, simple scrolls are for. The ring of spell storing gives a little spellcasting to a non-caster (or a little of a different type.)

Are you sure? Did you design them? If what you say is true then the current incarnation definitely does what they were designed to do better than the original design, because what they did in their original incarnation is help out wizards. In fact, as I remember, people were surprised when it was ruled that non-wizards could even use it!

Actually, my party's wizard quite liked the Ring of Spell Storing. Under the 3.0 rules the party's wizard kept it filled with a few Cure Lights, and a full Heal. When we switched to 3.5 rules, it lost a little power, but having some cure spells on tap was nice for her.
She didn't need the ring to store her own spells - that's what the various wands, staves, and scrolls were for. The ring provided her extra utility that she couldn't bring to bear herself. She generally had more then sufficient blasting spells on tap.

Well, it's pretty obvious that the wizard in question is a non caster in the way you're meantioning!

I suggest that, if you have the mental capacity, you adjudicate this rule.

You know, on second reading this part came across as a more... harsh... than I'd meant. Just meantioned in case anyone felt offended. I suppose if *I* had more mental capacity I'd know how to not come across as condescending unless I'm MEANING to be condescending.

 

[EvilGM]

You can, of course, metamagic the spells you put in the ring - which will increase the minimum caster level (as long as the metamagic has a + spell level adjustment). Heighten works well for this.

 

[Jalkain]

Very true. This works well if you've got a day off from adventuring and you want to prepare certain spells to go into the ring. It doesn't work when you've spent all day killing things, and want to save some of your remaining spells to use the next day. An exception would be if you had used heighten spell to increase the save DC of some of your spells, and then ended up not casting them. But that situation might not come up too often.

Also, a spell that is Heightened will take up more space in the ring as a result.