Ring of Blinking [Archive] - Wizards Community

Ring of Blinking [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
sabrestrike
02-04-07, 09:45 AM Okay I've seen this in the forums but couldn't find it. Is a Ring of Blink grossly undercosted? If my understanding of the rules are correct the ring should cost (spell level x caster level x 2000) (3rd x 5th x 2000 = 30,000) in addition (If a continuous item has an effect based on a spell with a duration measured in rounds, multiply the cost by 4. If the duration of the spell is 1 minute/level, multiply the cost by 2, and if the duration is 10 minutes/level, multiply the cost by 1.5. If the spell has a 24-hour duration or greater, divide the cost in half.) make the total cost = 120,000 gp. But the DMG price is only 27,000gp. What am I missing?
Mysteria
02-04-07, 12:24 PM It is command word activated: On command, this ring makes the wearer blink, as with the blink spell.

So, that would be 3rd lvl spell x 5th lvl caster x 1800gp = 27.000gp. :)
Archmage Atrus
02-04-07, 11:48 PM Holy God would a constant ring of blinking be the most annoying thing ever.

(Or, if I were wearing the ring: "H.ly G.d ...ld a con.... ..ng o....king be the m.st....ying ...ing ever.")
The_Monkey_King
02-06-07, 02:25 PM I find Ring of Blinking to be one of those items where a DM with sense should have adjusted the price. A rogue with one of these is problematic. Not only are they doing huge damage, all the time, but they are 50% immune to the problem with doing huge damage, all the time.

Our home game house ruled the item to be 50,000 gold. Like magic we went from half the party having rogue levels to none. Weird how people's brains work.
Archmage Atrus
02-06-07, 02:28 PM Not only are they doing huge damage, all the time, but they are 50% immune to the problem with doing huge damage, all the time.

uhm, no... they're doing "huge" damage 80% of the time. Blink doesn't allow you to control when you phase in and out, meaning you're going to be missing half the time on each and every one of your attacks. And the "huge" damage is really only "normal, non-sneak attack" damgae, since nowhere in the spell descriptor does it say the opponent is denied his Dex bonus against your attacks.

So this is, in fact, a horrible item to get.
bave
02-06-07, 02:57 PM It is a defensive item, thats it.

The 20% miss rate is a pain, and it still takes actions to activate. It is far from the god item you make it out to be. Also consider that a rogue of mid level is going to be struggling at best to do any damage compared to the casters and real fighters, so the rogues only chance is to find a new way to garuntee a sneak attack.... until the monsters are immune and the fun is over.

Rogues need all the help they can get... right up there with monks.
The_Monkey_King
02-06-07, 03:23 PM Well both of you are just plain wrong, but you wont see that until you give a 10th level rogue one and watch the jump in damage from a sneak attack every so often to multiple itterative attacks every round.

20% miss chance is far far less than removing the need to move, position and cover oneself from retaliation. It is most definitely not a defensive item only. Why deactivate it while on a dungeon crawl? If I had one, I wouldn't, would you?
The_Monkey_King
02-06-07, 03:27 PM Rogues need all the help they can get... right up there with monks.

Oi, I reread this and it broke my head. Monks are a wonderful class. As are rogues.

Anyways, I didn't post to start a discussion about class balance, but to comment on a magic item pricing.
Merestil Haye
02-06-07, 04:30 PM The Blink spell says, in part.While blinking, you take only half damage from area attacks (but full damage from those that extend onto the Ethereal Plane). You strike as an invisible creature (with a +2 bonus on attack rolls), denying your target any Dexterity bonus to AC.The last sentence means that rogues get their sneak attack damage in.

Yes, you miss one in five of your attacks; this is annoying. However, because you have concealment (not full concealment, as enemies who can strike into the Ethereal Plane have only a 20% miss chance "due to concealment") you are not vulnerable to sneak attacks in return.

27k? Cheap at the price - provided it's active. It's worth remembering that the CL5 version lasts only five rounds per activation.
Nom
02-06-07, 10:49 PM It's also worth noting that from about 7th or 8th level onward see invisibility and inivisibility purge should be pretty standard equipment. There are just too many ways to use inivisibility offensively to afford to be without some way of dealing with them. Wands of the above spells cost 4500 and 11250 respectively.

The other defense against a blinking attacker is to blanket the area in darkness or similar. Now everyone has a 20% concealment miss chance (and no sneak attacks).
bave
02-07-07, 12:08 PM Oi, I reread this and it broke my head. Monks are a wonderful class. As are rogues.

Anyways, I didn't post to start a discussion about class balance, but to comment on a magic item pricing.

My point is not one of class comparo, but rather a statement that with relatively core buildings/books the rogue and monk are fine classes, but very much niche in their skills and abilities and when it comes to combat, sub par.

That is all...

I will admit that the 27k is a good bargain, particularly for a rogue, but it is a very good defensive ability additionally.
mvincent
02-07-07, 12:32 PM A rogue with one of these is problematic.An intelligent ring of invisibility could be worse (i.e. it could re-activate itself each round after the rogue attacked).
Black Sneak
07-29-07, 11:07 PM It is massively underpriced!

Compare:
Ring of Invisibility (grants bonuses as if invisible, wears off if you attack): 20000 gp.
Cloak of Displacement [major] (50% miss chance, 15 rounds a day): 50000 gp.
Ring of Blinking (grants bonuses as if invisible, gives 50% miss chance, functions all day): 27000 gp.

Ethereal Jaunt (level 7 spell, you go ethereal, and can't interact with the material plane).
Blink (level 3 spell, you are ethereal and you can fight, cast spells etc).

Sure, your attacks miss 20% of the time, and you have to spend a standard action every 7 rounds, but given the price of the item and the other benefits, who cares!

In my group, our weretiger fighter has one. He is a Bbn2/Rog5/Weretiger.
And with a Ring of Blinking, he is uber.

True Seeing and See Invisibility help a little, in that it reduces the miss chance to 20% as you can see into the ethereal.
But as neither lets you strike the ethereal, you can't negate the miss chance that way.

The Blink spell doesn't add up - how can you get most of the benefits of a 7th level spell, but also gain the ability to affect the material plane?
Surely it should be the same level (or close to)?
And the Ring itself is way underpriced. I think it should be around 100,000 gp to bring it in line with the Ring of Invisibility and the Cloak of Displacement (major).
Infernostrider
07-30-07, 06:45 AM The Blink spell says, in part.The last sentence means that rogues get their sneak attack damage in.

Yes, you miss one in five of your attacks; this is annoying. However, because you have concealment (not full concealment, as enemies who can strike into the Ethereal Plane have only a 20% miss chance "due to concealment") you are not vulnerable to sneak attacks in return.

27k? Cheap at the price - provided it's active. It's worth remembering that the CL5 version lasts only five rounds per activation.

look at it like this: 5 attacks that hit, assuming hitrolls work out, for normal weapon damage (or 1 sneak attack and 4 normal ones) for x damage
or 5 sneak attacks from which 1 misses. you do at least 1d6 extra damage if you're low level, if you're a 20rogue/10assassin i'd cry if i were the target. 4 sneak attacks? YIKES ><
Merestil Haye
07-30-07, 01:48 PM It is massively underpriced!

Compare:
Ring of Invisibility (grants bonuses as if invisible, wears off if you attack): 20000 gp.
Cloak of Displacement [major] (50% miss chance, 15 rounds a day): 50000 gp.
Ring of Blinking (grants bonuses as if invisible, gives 50% miss chance, functions all day): 27000 gp.The Ring of Blinking is not a continuously active item. It is command-word activated.

Because it is imitating a spell, the duration of the spell effect is the same as f the spell had been cast by a creature of the same CL the item was created at. Every 30 seconds it has to be reactivated, using a standard action.

(The Ring of Invisibility lasts only 3 minutes per use).

Infernostrider : That ring is a trinket to a 30th level character. It would be virtually meaningless at that level. It's a high level toy; doesn't really become affordable until 13th level or so.
DragonDan
07-30-07, 02:23 PM Rings of Blinking are good, but not overly good. Any type of see invisibility negates it.

As for Rogues with RoB, any creature immune to crits totally negates a rogues damage capacity.
mvincent
07-30-07, 02:37 PM Every 30 seconds it has to be reactivatedI believe the actual answer you are looking for here is:
42

(the question being: "what is 6 x 7?")
Black Sneak
07-30-07, 06:29 PM The Ring of Blinking is not a continuously active item. It is command-word activated.

Because it is imitating a spell, the duration of the spell effect is the same as f the spell had been cast by a creature of the same CL the item was created at. Every 30 seconds it has to be reactivated, using a standard action.

And? So once every 7 rounds I have to spend a standard action to reactivate the ring - so what?
How many combats last more than 5 rounds?

In our group, the weretiger bbn/rog gets 3 attacks per round, and using the ROB he gets sneak attack on each one. On average, he deals 50 damage per hit. 3 attacks per round.
For 6 rounds. (Sure, 20% miss, so he only hits around 15 out of 18 attacks.) Then he reactivates the ROB if there is anything left standing. So far, he's never needed to.

See Invisibility doesn't negate the ROB - it reduces the miss chance from 50% to 20% (as See Invis still doesn't let you strike ethereal foes).

OK, so using my previous comparison, drop the Cloak of Displacement (major) to (minor) at 24000 gp (with the added benefit that the minor cloak has no round limit per day) and the ROB at a minimum should be worth 44000 gp. Minimum.
Ryoohki
07-31-07, 04:50 PM ASee Invisibility doesn't negate the ROB - it reduces the miss chance from 50% to 20% (as See Invis still doesn't let you strike ethereal foes).

If a rogue is wearing a ring of blinking and attacking someone who can see invisible, the rogue doesn't get a +2 to hit on his attacks, nor is the defender denied their dex to ac, nor does the rogue get sneak attack. The opponent will still have a 20% miss chance if it tries to attack the rogue. (dropped from 50%) So see invisibility does negate the most useful part of the ring of blinking for a character with sneak attacks.
Black Sneak
07-31-07, 05:58 PM Sorry - yes, good call.

I had overlooked that, as currently at the table the sneak attack damage is not the major factor in the ROB discussion.
The character in question only has 5 levels or rogue, so is only gaining +3d6 damage when blinking against foes who can't see him.

I suppose my main beef is with how effective the ROB is as an offensive item. Sure, a Cloak of Displacement is the same with regards to melee attacks, but ROB stops 50% of targetted spells and halves damage from area spells. It is a fantastic boon to a melee character.

Blink can only be cast by arcane spellcasters (who generally don't stand in the middle of a fight) and it has a range of personal. To me that says it is a defensive spell for low-hp characters.
Making blink into a ring usable by massive-damage melee fighters just doesn't seem right. They have lots of hit points and a high AC already!
Ryoohki
08-01-07, 12:22 PM I have a spell-thief character who I have taken both blink and invisibility-greater. I've found that invisibility-greater is much nicer than blink in most cases. First, if you find out your opponent can see invisible, you're not stuck with a 20% miss chance. Granted, you opponent would also have that same miss chance, but I personally still find it annoying. Secondly, blink makes you move slower, which can sometimes become a factor. Note that invisibility-improved is a higher-level spell. The nicest thing about the blink spell is that you only take half damage from area-effect spells except those that extend onto the ethereal plane. That's really nice coupled with some elemental resistances.

Anyway, for a personal-only spell, it's fairly well-balanced. For putting it into a ring, I don't think it's overly unbalanced. They still have to take a standard action to activate it. If they're trying to talk around with it activated all the time, they'll have to spend a standard action doing so every 7 rounds. They'll also be moving slower, thus slowing down the entire party. What kind of party would be happy with that? Also, bouncing into the ethereal plane 20% of the time for a long period of time may attract the attention of some ethereal monsters. But regardless, there's still the possibility that they start an encounter with just a round or two left before the ring deactivates in which case they'd have to forget about it or spend a standard action to reactivate it. And it uses up a precious ring slot.

As I mentioned in my previous post, any creature with the ability to see invisible nullifies most of this ring's capabilities, and a lot of the higher-level creatures have the ability to see invisible naturally or the ability to make themselves do so.
Matthew77
08-01-07, 01:08 PM ROB stops 50% of targetted spells and halves damage from area spells. It is a fantastic boon to a melee character.

By the time you hit 16th level (7 class levels + 6 animal HD +3 LA), a melee characters needs any possible defense he can get against the spellcasters. Casters have so many options that being able to dodge a few targeted spells won't make you invincible. Regarding that particular character, I would look at the weretiger template instead of the ring of blink as the problematic bit.

Ring of Blink is useful, but not overpowered. Having to waste a standard action activating it every battle is a serious drawback at high levels, when combats can often be decided in the first round.
mvincent
08-01-07, 01:12 PM Ring of Blink is useful, but not overpowered. Having to waste a standard action activating it every battle is a serious drawback at high levels, when combats can often be decided in the first round.Maybe make it intelligent (so it can activate itself).
Matthew77
08-01-07, 05:12 PM Maybe make it intelligent (so it can activate itself).

That would solve the problem, but several bad experiences have left me with an absolute loathing towards intelligent items.
meabolex
08-01-07, 05:32 PM Maybe make it intelligent (so it can activate itself).

. . . when you're yodeling. . . in Dwarvish. . . wearing nothing but a Large Steel Shield. Then it will activate itself.
Merestil Haye
08-02-07, 12:35 PM I believe the actual answer you are looking for here is:
42

(the question being: "what is 6 x 7?")I said 30. I meant 30.

The Ring of Blinking is not crafted with a caster level of 7. It is crafted at CL5.

Cost of a CL7 Ring : 3*7*1,800 = 37,800.
Cost of a CL5 ring : 3*5*1,800 = 27,000.

Cost of the Ring of Blinking in the SRD? 27,000.

Ring of Blinking is CL5, not CL7. The effect lasts 30 seconds.
mvincent
08-02-07, 12:45 PM I said 30. I meant 30.

The Ring of Blinking is not crafted with a caster level of 7. It is crafted at CL5.The rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rings.htm#blinking) say:
"Blinking
On command, this ring makes the wearer blink, as with the blink spell.
Moderate transmutation; CL 7th; Forge Ring, blink; Price 27,000 gp."

Are you saying that the rules are wrong? Are you opposed to someone following the description in the rules? Did you get the Douglas Adams reference?
Merestil Haye
08-02-07, 05:04 PM The rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rings.htm#blinking) say:
"Blinking
On command, this ring makes the wearer blink, as with the blink spell.
Moderate transmutation; CL 7th; Forge Ring, blink; Price 27,000 gp."

Are you saying that the rules are wrong?In short? Yes. The entry for the Ring of Blinking has a discrepancy between the listed CL and the listed price.

The price of the RIng is calculated by the formula for a command-word activated item. That formula is :-
Spell Level * Caster Level * 1,800

If you use the ring's nominal CL the formula yields a price of 37,800gp. Are you saying that the price of the Ring as listed in the SRD is 37,800gp?

Alternatively you can solve for the CL by the formula
CL=Price / (1,800*spell level)

Substituting known values CL = 27,000 / (1,800*3) = 27,000/5,400 = 5.

Therefore either the Ring is actually CL5 or the price is 37,800gp. In either case the rules are wrong.

Are you opposed to someone following the description in the rules?No of course not. But since the description is wrong, DMs must choose for themselves which element the error lies in. In view of the known problems of the caster level section of item descriptions, where there is a discrepancy between the CL and another part of the description, I ignore the CL unless there is good evidence that the other bit is wrong.

Did you get the Douglas Adams reference?Of course I did. :)

I just didn't feel like responding to it. Sorry.
Toki_Wartooth
08-02-07, 05:24 PM The entry for the Ring of Blinking has a discrepancy between the listed CL and the listed price.It's a silly discussion (both of you), but for edification: you made no mention of this discrepancy when you said 30 seconds. It seems presumptive to change the rules without telling anyone. In fact, many magic items and monsters intentionally do not follow the formulas. It seems like a leap to assume that the rules contain a mistake and to take it upon yourself to change it, but also to expect each reader to come to the same conclusion (without you making mention of it in your post).

It seems like the only conclusion one could make from this is either:
1) You are being exceedingly niggling and abstruse, or
2) You made a simple mistake and are trying to hide it.

I'm not trying to be mean, as I have no vested interest here... just trying to make an honest observation.
weasel0
08-02-07, 05:42 PM Take for example the Ring of Darkhidden. It's a FR:M item reprinted in the MIC at half the value but nothing has been changed. Some items are looked at and deemed "off" in price given effect and cost. If something seems underpowered(overpriced compared to other items of same value) it gets changed outside of the formula. That's why the formulaic "rules" are included in the DM's Guide where the first rules is: These are not rules. They are guidelines.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
sabrestrike 02-04-07, 09:45 AM	Okay I've seen this in the forums but couldn't find it. Is a Ring of Blink grossly undercosted? If my understanding of the rules are correct the ring should cost (spell level x caster level x 2000) (3rd x 5th x 2000 = 30,000) in addition (If a continuous item has an effect based on a spell with a duration measured in rounds, multiply the cost by 4. If the duration of the spell is 1 minute/level, multiply the cost by 2, and if the duration is 10 minutes/level, multiply the cost by 1.5. If the spell has a 24-hour duration or greater, divide the cost in half.) make the total cost = 120,000 gp. But the DMG price is only 27,000gp. What am I missing?
Mysteria 02-04-07, 12:24 PM	It is command word activated: On command, this ring makes the wearer blink, as with the blink spell. So, that would be 3rd lvl spell x 5th lvl caster x 1800gp = 27.000gp. :)
Archmage Atrus 02-04-07, 11:48 PM	Holy God would a constant ring of blinking be the most annoying thing ever. (Or, if I were wearing the ring: "H.ly G.d ...ld a con.... ..ng o....king be the m.st....ying ...ing ever.")
The_Monkey_King 02-06-07, 02:25 PM	I find Ring of Blinking to be one of those items where a DM with sense should have adjusted the price. A rogue with one of these is problematic. Not only are they doing huge damage, all the time, but they are 50% immune to the problem with doing huge damage, all the time. Our home game house ruled the item to be 50,000 gold. Like magic we went from half the party having rogue levels to none. Weird how people's brains work.
Archmage Atrus 02-06-07, 02:28 PM	Not only are they doing huge damage, all the time, but they are 50% immune to the problem with doing huge damage, all the time. uhm, no... they're doing "huge" damage 80% of the time. Blink doesn't allow you to control when you phase in and out, meaning you're going to be missing half the time on each and every one of your attacks. And the "huge" damage is really only "normal, non-sneak attack" damgae, since nowhere in the spell descriptor does it say the opponent is denied his Dex bonus against your attacks. So this is, in fact, a horrible item to get.
bave 02-06-07, 02:57 PM	It is a defensive item, thats it. The 20% miss rate is a pain, and it still takes actions to activate. It is far from the god item you make it out to be. Also consider that a rogue of mid level is going to be struggling at best to do any damage compared to the casters and real fighters, so the rogues only chance is to find a new way to garuntee a sneak attack.... until the monsters are immune and the fun is over. Rogues need all the help they can get... right up there with monks.
The_Monkey_King 02-06-07, 03:23 PM	Well both of you are just plain wrong, but you wont see that until you give a 10th level rogue one and watch the jump in damage from a sneak attack every so often to multiple itterative attacks every round. 20% miss chance is far far less than removing the need to move, position and cover oneself from retaliation. It is most definitely not a defensive item only. Why deactivate it while on a dungeon crawl? If I had one, I wouldn't, would you?
The_Monkey_King 02-06-07, 03:27 PM	Rogues need all the help they can get... right up there with monks. Oi, I reread this and it broke my head. Monks are a wonderful class. As are rogues. Anyways, I didn't post to start a discussion about class balance, but to comment on a magic item pricing.
Merestil Haye 02-06-07, 04:30 PM	The Blink spell says, in part.While blinking, you take only half damage from area attacks (but full damage from those that extend onto the Ethereal Plane). You strike as an invisible creature (with a +2 bonus on attack rolls), denying your target any Dexterity bonus to AC.The last sentence means that rogues get their sneak attack damage in. Yes, you miss one in five of your attacks; this is annoying. However, because you have concealment (not full concealment, as enemies who can strike into the Ethereal Plane have only a 20% miss chance "due to concealment") you are not vulnerable to sneak attacks in return. 27k? Cheap at the price - provided it's active. It's worth remembering that the CL5 version lasts only five rounds per activation.
Nom 02-06-07, 10:49 PM	It's also worth noting that from about 7th or 8th level onward see invisibility and inivisibility purge should be pretty standard equipment. There are just too many ways to use inivisibility offensively to afford to be without some way of dealing with them. Wands of the above spells cost 4500 and 11250 respectively. The other defense against a blinking attacker is to blanket the area in darkness or similar. Now everyone has a 20% concealment miss chance (and no sneak attacks).
bave 02-07-07, 12:08 PM	Oi, I reread this and it broke my head. Monks are a wonderful class. As are rogues. Anyways, I didn't post to start a discussion about class balance, but to comment on a magic item pricing. My point is not one of class comparo, but rather a statement that with relatively core buildings/books the rogue and monk are fine classes, but very much niche in their skills and abilities and when it comes to combat, sub par. That is all... I will admit that the 27k is a good bargain, particularly for a rogue, but it is a very good defensive ability additionally.
mvincent 02-07-07, 12:32 PM	A rogue with one of these is problematic.An intelligent ring of invisibility could be worse (i.e. it could re-activate itself each round after the rogue attacked).
Black Sneak 07-29-07, 11:07 PM	It is massively underpriced! Compare: Ring of Invisibility (grants bonuses as if invisible, wears off if you attack): 20000 gp. Cloak of Displacement [major] (50% miss chance, 15 rounds a day): 50000 gp. Ring of Blinking (grants bonuses as if invisible, gives 50% miss chance, functions all day): 27000 gp. Ethereal Jaunt (level 7 spell, you go ethereal, and can't interact with the material plane). Blink (level 3 spell, you are ethereal and you can fight, cast spells etc). Sure, your attacks miss 20% of the time, and you have to spend a standard action every 7 rounds, but given the price of the item and the other benefits, who cares! In my group, our weretiger fighter has one. He is a Bbn2/Rog5/Weretiger. And with a Ring of Blinking, he is uber. True Seeing and See Invisibility help a little, in that it reduces the miss chance to 20% as you can see into the ethereal. But as neither lets you strike the ethereal, you can't negate the miss chance that way. The Blink spell doesn't add up - how can you get most of the benefits of a 7th level spell, but also gain the ability to affect the material plane? Surely it should be the same level (or close to)? And the Ring itself is way underpriced. I think it should be around 100,000 gp to bring it in line with the Ring of Invisibility and the Cloak of Displacement (major).
Infernostrider 07-30-07, 06:45 AM	The Blink spell says, in part.The last sentence means that rogues get their sneak attack damage in. Yes, you miss one in five of your attacks; this is annoying. However, because you have concealment (not full concealment, as enemies who can strike into the Ethereal Plane have only a 20% miss chance "due to concealment") you are not vulnerable to sneak attacks in return. 27k? Cheap at the price - provided it's active. It's worth remembering that the CL5 version lasts only five rounds per activation. look at it like this: 5 attacks that hit, assuming hitrolls work out, for normal weapon damage (or 1 sneak attack and 4 normal ones) for x damage or 5 sneak attacks from which 1 misses. you do at least 1d6 extra damage if you're low level, if you're a 20rogue/10assassin i'd cry if i were the target. 4 sneak attacks? YIKES ><
Merestil Haye 07-30-07, 01:48 PM	It is massively underpriced! Compare: Ring of Invisibility (grants bonuses as if invisible, wears off if you attack): 20000 gp. Cloak of Displacement [major] (50% miss chance, 15 rounds a day): 50000 gp. Ring of Blinking (grants bonuses as if invisible, gives 50% miss chance, functions all day): 27000 gp.The Ring of Blinking is not a continuously active item. It is command-word activated. Because it is imitating a spell, the duration of the spell effect is the same as f the spell had been cast by a creature of the same CL the item was created at. Every 30 seconds it has to be reactivated, using a standard action. (The Ring of Invisibility lasts only 3 minutes per use). Infernostrider : That ring is a trinket to a 30th level character. It would be virtually meaningless at that level. It's a high level toy; doesn't really become affordable until 13th level or so.
DragonDan 07-30-07, 02:23 PM	Rings of Blinking are good, but not overly good. Any type of see invisibility negates it. As for Rogues with RoB, any creature immune to crits totally negates a rogues damage capacity.
mvincent 07-30-07, 02:37 PM	Every 30 seconds it has to be reactivatedI believe the actual answer you are looking for here is: 42 (the question being: "what is 6 x 7?")
Black Sneak 07-30-07, 06:29 PM	The Ring of Blinking is not a continuously active item. It is command-word activated. Because it is imitating a spell, the duration of the spell effect is the same as f the spell had been cast by a creature of the same CL the item was created at. Every 30 seconds it has to be reactivated, using a standard action. And? So once every 7 rounds I have to spend a standard action to reactivate the ring - so what? How many combats last more than 5 rounds? In our group, the weretiger bbn/rog gets 3 attacks per round, and using the ROB he gets sneak attack on each one. On average, he deals 50 damage per hit. 3 attacks per round. For 6 rounds. (Sure, 20% miss, so he only hits around 15 out of 18 attacks.) Then he reactivates the ROB if there is anything left standing. So far, he's never needed to. See Invisibility doesn't negate the ROB - it reduces the miss chance from 50% to 20% (as See Invis still doesn't let you strike ethereal foes). OK, so using my previous comparison, drop the Cloak of Displacement (major) to (minor) at 24000 gp (with the added benefit that the minor cloak has no round limit per day) and the ROB at a minimum should be worth 44000 gp. Minimum.
Ryoohki 07-31-07, 04:50 PM	ASee Invisibility doesn't negate the ROB - it reduces the miss chance from 50% to 20% (as See Invis still doesn't let you strike ethereal foes). If a rogue is wearing a ring of blinking and attacking someone who can see invisible, the rogue doesn't get a +2 to hit on his attacks, nor is the defender denied their dex to ac, nor does the rogue get sneak attack. The opponent will still have a 20% miss chance if it tries to attack the rogue. (dropped from 50%) So see invisibility does negate the most useful part of the ring of blinking for a character with sneak attacks.
Black Sneak 07-31-07, 05:58 PM	Sorry - yes, good call. I had overlooked that, as currently at the table the sneak attack damage is not the major factor in the ROB discussion. The character in question only has 5 levels or rogue, so is only gaining +3d6 damage when blinking against foes who can't see him. I suppose my main beef is with how effective the ROB is as an offensive item. Sure, a Cloak of Displacement is the same with regards to melee attacks, but ROB stops 50% of targetted spells and halves damage from area spells. It is a fantastic boon to a melee character. Blink can only be cast by arcane spellcasters (who generally don't stand in the middle of a fight) and it has a range of personal. To me that says it is a defensive spell for low-hp characters. Making blink into a ring usable by massive-damage melee fighters just doesn't seem right. They have lots of hit points and a high AC already!
Ryoohki 08-01-07, 12:22 PM	I have a spell-thief character who I have taken both blink and invisibility-greater. I've found that invisibility-greater is much nicer than blink in most cases. First, if you find out your opponent can see invisible, you're not stuck with a 20% miss chance. Granted, you opponent would also have that same miss chance, but I personally still find it annoying. Secondly, blink makes you move slower, which can sometimes become a factor. Note that invisibility-improved is a higher-level spell. The nicest thing about the blink spell is that you only take half damage from area-effect spells except those that extend onto the ethereal plane. That's really nice coupled with some elemental resistances. Anyway, for a personal-only spell, it's fairly well-balanced. For putting it into a ring, I don't think it's overly unbalanced. They still have to take a standard action to activate it. If they're trying to talk around with it activated all the time, they'll have to spend a standard action doing so every 7 rounds. They'll also be moving slower, thus slowing down the entire party. What kind of party would be happy with that? Also, bouncing into the ethereal plane 20% of the time for a long period of time may attract the attention of some ethereal monsters. But regardless, there's still the possibility that they start an encounter with just a round or two left before the ring deactivates in which case they'd have to forget about it or spend a standard action to reactivate it. And it uses up a precious ring slot. As I mentioned in my previous post, any creature with the ability to see invisible nullifies most of this ring's capabilities, and a lot of the higher-level creatures have the ability to see invisible naturally or the ability to make themselves do so.
Matthew77 08-01-07, 01:08 PM	ROB stops 50% of targetted spells and halves damage from area spells. It is a fantastic boon to a melee character. By the time you hit 16th level (7 class levels + 6 animal HD +3 LA), a melee characters needs any possible defense he can get against the spellcasters. Casters have so many options that being able to dodge a few targeted spells won't make you invincible. Regarding that particular character, I would look at the weretiger template instead of the ring of blink as the problematic bit. Ring of Blink is useful, but not overpowered. Having to waste a standard action activating it every battle is a serious drawback at high levels, when combats can often be decided in the first round.
mvincent 08-01-07, 01:12 PM	Ring of Blink is useful, but not overpowered. Having to waste a standard action activating it every battle is a serious drawback at high levels, when combats can often be decided in the first round.Maybe make it intelligent (so it can activate itself).
Matthew77 08-01-07, 05:12 PM	Maybe make it intelligent (so it can activate itself). That would solve the problem, but several bad experiences have left me with an absolute loathing towards intelligent items.
meabolex 08-01-07, 05:32 PM	Maybe make it intelligent (so it can activate itself). . . . when you're yodeling. . . in Dwarvish. . . wearing nothing but a Large Steel Shield. Then it will activate itself.
Merestil Haye 08-02-07, 12:35 PM	I believe the actual answer you are looking for here is: 42 (the question being: "what is 6 x 7?")I said 30. I meant 30. The Ring of Blinking is not crafted with a caster level of 7. It is crafted at CL5. Cost of a CL7 Ring : 371,800 = 37,800. Cost of a CL5 ring : 351,800 = 27,000. Cost of the Ring of Blinking in the SRD? 27,000. Ring of Blinking is CL5, not CL7. The effect lasts 30 seconds.
mvincent 08-02-07, 12:45 PM	I said 30. I meant 30. The Ring of Blinking is not crafted with a caster level of 7. It is crafted at CL5.The rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rings.htm#blinking) say: "Blinking On command, this ring makes the wearer blink, as with the blink spell. Moderate transmutation; CL 7th; Forge Ring, blink; Price 27,000 gp." Are you saying that the rules are wrong? Are you opposed to someone following the description in the rules? Did you get the Douglas Adams reference?
Merestil Haye 08-02-07, 05:04 PM	The rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rings.htm#blinking) say: "Blinking On command, this ring makes the wearer blink, as with the blink spell. Moderate transmutation; CL 7th; Forge Ring, blink; Price 27,000 gp." Are you saying that the rules are wrong?In short? Yes. The entry for the Ring of Blinking has a discrepancy between the listed CL and the listed price. The price of the RIng is calculated by the formula for a command-word activated item. That formula is :- Spell Level * Caster Level * 1,800 If you use the ring's nominal CL the formula yields a price of 37,800gp. Are you saying that the price of the Ring as listed in the SRD is 37,800gp? Alternatively you can solve for the CL by the formula CL=Price / (1,800spell level) Substituting known values CL = 27,000 / (1,8003) = 27,000/5,400 = 5. Therefore either the Ring is actually CL5 or the price is 37,800gp. In either case the rules are wrong. Are you opposed to someone following the description in the rules?No of course not. But since the description is wrong, DMs must choose for themselves which element the error lies in. In view of the known problems of the caster level section of item descriptions, where there is a discrepancy between the CL and another part of the description, I ignore the CL unless there is good evidence that the other bit is wrong. Did you get the Douglas Adams reference?Of course I did. :) I just didn't feel like responding to it. Sorry.
Toki_Wartooth 08-02-07, 05:24 PM	The entry for the Ring of Blinking has a discrepancy between the listed CL and the listed price.It's a silly discussion (both of you), but for edification: you made no mention of this discrepancy when you said 30 seconds. It seems presumptive to change the rules without telling anyone. In fact, many magic items and monsters intentionally do not follow the formulas. It seems like a leap to assume that the rules contain a mistake and to take it upon yourself to change it, but also to expect each reader to come to the same conclusion (without you making mention of it in your post). It seems like the only conclusion one could make from this is either: 1) You are being exceedingly niggling and abstruse, or 2) You made a simple mistake and are trying to hide it. I'm not trying to be mean, as I have no vested interest here... just trying to make an honest observation.
weasel0 08-02-07, 05:42 PM	Take for example the Ring of Darkhidden. It's a FR:M item reprinted in the MIC at half the value but nothing has been changed. Some items are looked at and deemed "off" in price given effect and cost. If something seems underpowered(overpriced compared to other items of same value) it gets changed outside of the formula. That's why the formulaic "rules" are included in the DM's Guide where the first rules is: These are not rules. They are guidelines.