# MIC127 Ring of Spell-Battle



## eamon (Dec 3, 2007)

The way I read it, for 12k, you get to retarget an arbitrary spell pretty much without limitations.  Is that right? it's damn powerful, then.  Sure, you need a valid target, but those are abundant usually.

Does it only work on real targetted spells?  Or on anything?  If it only works on Target: spells, can the alternative counterspell as if using dispel magic effect still be used?

Does anybody else think this is problematic, and if so how best to deal with it, and if not, why?


----------



## shilsen (Dec 3, 2007)

eamon said:
			
		

> The way I read it, for 12k, you get to retarget an arbitrary spell pretty much without limitations.  Is that right?




Yes, that's correct.



> it's damn powerful, then.  Sure, you need a valid target, but those are abundant usually.




Yes, it is. Much too powerful for that price, IMNSHO.



> Does it only work on real targetted spells?  Or on anything?  If it only works on Target: spells, can the alternative counterspell as if using dispel magic effect still be used?




As written, it seems to work on anything. Some spells, of course, you won't be able to move to a target because of the spell's restrictions. Even if you treat it as only working on targeted spells, you should still be able to use the counterspell option on all kinds of spells.



> Does anybody else think this is problematic, and if so how best to deal with it, and if not, why?




As noted above - yes, I think it's highly problematic. Heck, I think the ability to detect any spellcasting within 60 ft of you, even without being able to see its casting or effect, is incredibly useful and handy and worth more than 12,000 gp on its own. Being able to detect spellcasting assassins, an enemy buffing himself two rooms away, etc. is especially handy. I personally just don't allow the item in my game. The MIC has lots of well-designed and appropriately priced rings, so not allowing one doesn't really seem like a big loss to me.


----------



## eamon (Dec 4, 2007)

It's a weird ring.  I prefer trying to come up with a non-broken interpretation than simply ban an item, so as an excersize to see how best to limit the effect of the ring suppose the following interpretation:

The ring informs you of all spellcasting within 60 feet.  This is a normal magical effect, and you must have line of effect.
Second, once per day you can change the target - but only of a targeted spell to which spell turning might apply, i.e. it must be a targetted spell not of range: touch.
Alternatively you can instead try to counter any spell as if with dispel magic.

Would this interpretation be playable, you think?  We can compare it to the ring of greater counterspelling which has a comparable cost; this can counter any single spell you've stored in it automatically, doesn't make you aware of spell-caster, and can, once per day, counter as if with greater dispel.


----------



## amethal (Dec 4, 2007)

It always seemed to me that making a spell only affect the caster was in effort in balance - some spell effects they didn't want available to non-casters.

The ring of spell battle throws that out of the window (if I'm reading it right) so I've banned it for that reason.

I really don't fancy seeing a high level rogue under the effect of Tenser's Transformation.


----------



## thorian (Dec 5, 2007)

It was a VERY nice ring for 67,600 gp when it came out in Complete Arcane.  Why they changed it to 12,000 gp is beyond me.


----------



## Thurbane (Dec 5, 2007)

amethal said:
			
		

> I really don't fancy seeing a high level rogue under the effect of Tenser's Transformation.



Rogue with high UMD can do this from a scroll quite easily.

However, I certainly see your point with the ring.


----------



## Slaved (Dec 5, 2007)

The first ability looks like it will usually be a nonability since it only really applies to close by casters that you are not able to see.  

The second part gives a chance for a d20+10 check against the caster level of the spell to dispel it or to switch a targetted spells target to another legal target. By the time a character has this ring the first ability will probably have a low chance of success. The second effect will only work on targetted spells with sufficient range to switch to another target so a character could not steal another casters transformation spell since the range is too short and ray spells are immune.  

It looks like an interesting item. It does take a lot of skill points to make it work well which limits which characters can use it. Once per day being able to change a hold monster spell being used against you or one of your allies to one of your opponents is pretty nice though!   I am not sure that I would want to pay 12000 gold for the option though.


----------



## eamon (Dec 5, 2007)

thorian said:
			
		

> It was a VERY nice ring for 67,600 gp when it came out in Complete Arcane.  Why they changed it to 12,000 gp is beyond me.



The version in the MIC is less powerful.  

Firstly, when it comes to retargetting, the complete arcane version says "can change the target or the point of effect of the spell" whereas the MIC says "change the target of the spell" which is far more limiting (no rays, certainly no "personal" spells, no redirecting effect spells).

Secondly, the counterspell effect in the MIC is much, much less useful, since it requires a dispel check of maximally 1d20+10, which is likely to fail against high-level casters, whereas the version in the CArc always succeeds at counterspelling.


----------



## amethal (Dec 5, 2007)

eamon said:
			
		

> The version in the MIC is less powerful.
> 
> Firstly, when it comes to retargetting, the complete arcane version says "can change the target or the point of effect of the spell" whereas the MIC says "change the target of the spell" which is far more limiting (no rays, certainly no "personal" spells, no redirecting effect spells).



So no personal spells. That's good news.

Of course, they could have made that a bit clearer.


----------



## eamon (Dec 7, 2007)

amethal said:
			
		

> So no personal spells. That's good news.
> 
> Of course, they could have made that a bit clearer.



And, the way I read it, also no Effect: spells - so no fireballs or scorching ray's or whatnot.  Only Target: spells (like hold person, or baleful polymorph) can be redirected.  Also, though you can redirect something like charm person, it's not as useful since the caster remains the caster, right?

Also, since dispel magic automatically succeeds against any spell you've cast, it's annoying but not hard to dispel a cast someone has "retargetted", should you need to.  Something like Hold Person is even dismissable, so a standard action suffices to end an unfortunate spell (not that standard actions are cheap, but they might be cheaper than casting dispel magic).

However, I'm now wonder how it interacts with things like "Suggestion" - I assume that the caster first casts the spell and as part of the casting, specifies the suggestion the creature must follow.  However, you could imagine that the spell includes only the basic "suggestibility" and that you must redirect that part then, and thus that the original caster knows his spell was redirected before giving the text of the suggestion.  I prefer the first interpretation, but the second is not inconceivable.


----------



## Storme (Dec 8, 2007)

I just want to point out that the current magic item pricing system is Broken, not the newer items coming out of WotC.  MIC is the first step in fixing the 24,000 gp Helms of Underwater Actions that few will ever want or use, and the 200,000 gp Mirror of Mental Prowess, which is a neat item but is curiously not really reasonable to own pre epic, condiering the rather odd Gold Per Level Chart.

I've heard that one of the 4th Edition ideas is to fix the wildly silly gold per level/item calculation thing.  It s one of the few things I'm pleased to hear about it.  MIC is just a preview.

I think most people have become so accustomed to the way things are that they don't really see how odd it is.  These well meaning folk are generally the first to wince at attempts to fix it.  I for one am looking forward to the day that a level 12 character in my game can have a staff of power and not have to feel guilty as a DM, and when a character can build a stronghold with their hard earned money, and not have to be level 20, and sell all their gear to be able to afford it.  When the rich level 3 aristocrat can ACTUALLY afford his mansion and treasures within the context of the rules, and not be limited to a few hundred gold.

Game balance controlled by gold was a neat idea...but never really worked in my opinion.  

None of this is meant to change your view, of course.  You're welcome to it.  This is just a heads up as to the possibility of an overall impending change which we are all experiencing.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 8, 2007)

Storme said:
			
		

> I for one am looking forward to the day that a level 12 character in my game can have a staff of power and not have to feel guilty as a DM...




Well, the impression I got for 4E is that all magic items will have a level associated with them... so if Staff of Power is a level 16 magic item, say, then there's probably still going to be a guideline that says it's inappropriate for a 12th level character.

-Hyp.


----------



## green slime (Dec 8, 2007)

Bah... its a game. Game as in fun. Guidelines be toast. They are just guidelines. Just because there is a road carved in the middle of the desert doesn't mean you have to follow it. Sure it may be a good idea for the newb to stick to the road, but if you want real adventure...


----------



## Wycen (Dec 10, 2007)

eamon said:
			
		

> The version in the MIC is less powerful.
> 
> Firstly, when it comes to retargetting, the complete arcane version says "can change the target or the point of effect of the spell" whereas the MIC says "change the target of the spell" which is far more limiting (no rays, certainly no "personal" spells, no redirecting effect spells).
> 
> Secondly, the counterspell effect in the MIC is much, much less useful, since it requires a dispel check of maximally 1d20+10, which is likely to fail against high-level casters, whereas the version in the CArc always succeeds at counterspelling.




The complete arcane version annoyed me more than once in my high level game.  I still think it is dubious what the revised wording can do.  Personal spells, touch range spells could still be screwed with in my reading of your post, but I don't know what the actual books say.


----------



## eamon (Dec 10, 2007)

Wycen said:
			
		

> The complete arcane version annoyed me more than once in my high level game.  I still think it is dubious what the revised wording can do.  Personal spells, touch range spells could still be screwed with in my reading of your post, but I don't know what the actual books say.




The new target must be valid.  For personal spell's there is only one valid "target" - the caster himself.  For range:touch spells, you'd need to redirect the spell to another creature the caster happens to be touching as well.  In any case, given the spell turning prerequisite, I'd probably rule that range:touch spells simply are not effected.


----------



## Storme (Dec 12, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Well, the impression I got for 4E is that all magic items will have a level associated with them... so if Staff of Power is a level 16 magic item, say, then there's probably still going to be a guideline that says it's inappropriate for a 12th level character.
> 
> -Hyp.




Hmm...that makes alot more sense than money as the gage.  I can live with that.  That's more in line with online RPGs which seems to me to be what they are trying to emulate. 

Now I can go back to having a character build a Lumber mill, a few jewelry shops and not have people scream bloody murder because my character is rich!  Hehe.


----------

