Candle of invocation+ unguent of timelessness

[eggynack]

So, I was laying due consideration to the slightly less broken half of the candle of invocation, the part which gives a cleric 2 extra levels for determining their spells per day. I noticed that absent the 4 hour time limit, this ability seems insanely broken. Furthermore, I was reading through the ever useful Shax's indispensable haversack, and I came across the idea of using the unguent of timelessness on stuff like magic candles. Naturally, given the title of this thread, I considered combining the two. Doing the math, it comes out to about 61 days of a cleric that's two levels ahead of the party in just about any way that matters, for just 8550 gp.
I don't know if this is a new thing, but I don't think I've seen it before. I'm also aware that this is relatively useless, as the second that you get a candle, you've basically broken the game already. I figure that the way this'd work is that a DM would assume that the gating feature is the only way in which the candle is broken, and allow the item without that ability. In any case, it seems interesting. Final note: Apparently any amount of clerics can gain this benefit, so that lends more credence to the all cleric party.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Combining them wouldn't accomplish anything. The candle isn't experiencing the natural forces of decay. It's burning. The ungeant wouldn't do anything except maybe make it smell funny.

[Sgt. Cookie]

Source Kelb?

[Diarmuid]

Unguent of Timelessness: When applied to any matter that was once alive this ointment allows that substance to resist the passage of time. Each year of actual time affects the substance as if only a day had passed. The coated object gains a +1 resistance bonus on all saving throws. The unguent never wears off, although it can be magically removed (by dispelling the effect, for instance). One flask contains enough material to coat eight Medium or smaller objects. A Large object counts as two Medium objects, and a Huge object counts as two Large objects.


Source provided.

[Sgt. Cookie]

Is that an argument for, or against? Because it looks like it would work by RAW to me.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The passage of time and the passage of fire are two different things.

[Nettlekid]

What about using Shrink Item to make it tiny? If a burning fire and its fuel can be shrunk, so can a candle. If you never extinguish it, it's still burning. But if it's in a small, clothlike form (as per Shrink Item) then its not wearing away, either. Right?

[Diarmuid]

A vial of oil left to its own devices will eventually evaporate/spoil/etc. That is what the unguent would protect against.

Using that same oil in a lantern is not a "passage of time", it's being expended as fuel.

[Mnemnosyne]

Hm, but the burning only happens over a period of time. So, if the candle is resisting the passage of time, and therefore experiencing time slower, the fire burns it slower, too. This is different from something that would instantly destroy it (like a lot of fire) because even if that event happens really, really slowly, it still happens pretty damn fast. If you, for instance, hit it with a fireball, you'd see the candle consumed within a number of seconds, as though observed through a slow motion camera.

This is definitely a plausible interpretation, although I would say it lacks definitiveness, so I don't think I could rightly argue that RAW specifically supports this interpretation over the more conservative one that says it only stops natural decay.

[ko_sct]

If you hit a leather shield with an axe, and it take 2 round before you destroy it, you just destroyed it over a period of time.

By your logic, using ungent of timelesness on that shield would allow you to make it last longer...

There is absolutly no support from RAW for what you are trying to do, sorry it was a nice idea but it does not work.

[mattie_p]

Just put the unguent on the flame itself. Problem solved. :smalltongue:

[Kelb_Panthera]

What about using Shrink Item to make it tiny? If a burning fire and its fuel can be shrunk, so can a candle. If you never extinguish it, it's still burning. But if it's in a small, clothlike form (as per Shrink Item) then its not wearing away, either. Right?

Shrink item can't shrink magic items.

[Nettlekid]

Shrink item can't shrink magic items.

Oh, right...Hm...Dispel Magic to make it nonmagical for 1d4 rounds, but would not extinguish the flame (because a nonmagical candle burns too), Shrink Item at that time, turn it cloth, 1d4 rounds later the cloth-candle becomes magical again but its burning is still locked in stasis by Shrink Item. Would that do?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Oh, right...Hm...Dispel Magic to make it nonmagical for 1d4 rounds, but would not extinguish the flame (because a nonmagical candle burns too), Shrink Item at that time, turn it cloth, 1d4 rounds later the cloth-candle becomes magical again but its burning is still locked in stasis by Shrink Item. Would that do?

How is the magic supposed to resume if the item is locked in stasis? If it does resume its magical effects and becomes a magic item again; it's no longer a valid target for shrink item. Why wouldn't it resume its normal shape?

[Nettlekid]

Aha, because it says you can't shrink a magical item, but it says nothing about an item that becomes magical being unshrunk. The target of the spell is "one touched object," not "one touched nonmagical object." If you shrunk a Huge sword into a Tiny one, and then cast Magic Weapon on it, I don't think it would unshrink. No part of what you've done has gone against what Shrink Item's description states.

[Menzath]

Originally Posted by SRD

Unguent of Timelessness: When applied to any matter that was once alive this ointment allows that substance to resist the passage of time. Each year of actual time affects the substance as if only a day had passed. The coated object gains a +1 resistance bonus on all saving throws. The unguent never wears off, although it can be magically removed (by dispelling the effect, for instance). One flask contains enough material to coat eight Medium or smaller objects. A Large object counts as two Medium objects, and a Huge object counts as two Large objects.

Note that it says "Once Living matter" the wick is made from plants which were once alive, and the tallow is most likely an animal/plant by-product or fat.

Though yes it has absolutly no effect on being burned.
But does the item specify that it has to be burning with fire? what about coldfire or some other form?

[nedz]

Candle of Invocation

Each of these special tapers is dedicated to one of the nine alignments. Simply burning the candle generates a favourable aura for the individual so doing if the candle’s alignment matches that of the character. Characters of the same alignment as the burning candle add a +2 morale bonus on attack rolls, saving throws, and skill checks while within 30 feet of the flame.

A cleric whose alignment matches the candle’s operates as if two levels higher for purposes of determining spells per day if he burns the candle during or just prior to his spell preparation time. He can even cast spells normally unavailable to him, as if he were of that higher level, but only so long as the candle continues to burn. Except in special cases (see below), a candle burns for 4 hours.

In addition, burning a candle also allows the owner to cast a gate spell, the respondent being of the same alignment as the candle, but the taper is immediately consumed in the process. It is possible to extinguish the candle simply by blowing it out, so users often place it in a lantern to protect it from drafts and the like. Doing this doesn’t interfere with its magical properties.

Strong conjuration; CL 17th; Craft Wondrous Item, gate, creator must be same alignment as candle created; Price 8,400 gp; Weight ½ lb.
Actually I'm not sure the trick is required.
Looking at the bolded text above: the following would seem to be possible by RAW

Light the candle
Blow it out immediately
Prepare spells as if you were two levels higher
Rinse and repeat every day
Profit

[Menzath]

well as Per the spell Continual flame Continual Flame
Evocation [Light]
Level: Clr 3, Sor/Wiz 2
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Object touched
Effect: Magical, heatless flame
Duration: Permanent
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

A flame, equivalent in brightness to a
torch, springs forth from an object that
you touch. The effect looks like a regular
flame, but it creates no heat and doesn’t
use oxygen. A continual flame can be cov-
ered and hidden but not smothered or
quenched.
Light spells counter and dispel darkness
spells of an equal or lower level.
Material Component: You sprinkle ruby
dust (worth 50 gp) on the item that is to
carry the flame.

And also I don't think blowing it out would work
but only so long as the candle continues to burn., Taking it to mean you would loose all benifits as soon as it is extinguished, including extra spell slots etc.

[eggynack]

I think the unguent has some possibility of slowing the burn down. The whole thing is a continual spontaneous reaction that takes a certain span of time, and the unguent makes that span of time take longer. For example, I think that the unguent would slow the process of rusting, and those seem like equivalent actions from the object's perspective.

[mattie_p]

I think the unguent has some possibility of slowing the burn down. The whole thing is a continual spontaneous reaction that takes a certain span of time, and the unguent makes that span of time take longer. For example, I think that the unguent would slow the process of rusting, and those seem like equivalent actions from the object's perspective.

It doesn't work on rust, and I was being facetious earlier in reference to putting it on the fire.


Unguent of Timelessness
When applied to any matter that was once alive this ointment allows that substance to resist the passage of time.

Even if you somehow manage to construe fire as matter, the fire was never alive. Metal was never alive.

[eggynack]

It doesn't work on rust,
I mean, assuming that metal were organic as candles are. I'm talking about any process of decay. They can all be considered to exist in a similar state as the burning candle. You can't apply the unguent to the air causing objects to erode and decay, any more than you can on the fire causing the object to burn. They're both effectively fuel for the reaction.

[Acanous]

He can even cast spells normally unavailable to him, as if he were of that higher level, but only so long as the candle continues to burn.

Continual Flame doesn't burn the candle, so provides no benefit :/

You keep the spells prepared, but can't cast them if the candle is out.

So the real trick is a Dedicated Wright in your backpack with orders to light the candle whenever you say a command word.

Then you only eat 1 round every time you prep spells, and 1 round every time you cast a spell of a higher level.


Also, I believe this also means that you can still cast out of the extra slots you get for levels you can already cast.

In which case, let's assume here that a cleric has 2+Domain+1 from Wisdom spells to cast thanks to the candle.
So one round of burning before prep, and 4 rounds during the day to cast all 4 spells. The candle lasts 4 hours, an hour is 600 rounds...

The cleric can keep this up for 480 days.

[Ravenica]

I mean, assuming that metal were organic as candles are. I'm talking about any process of decay. They can all be considered to exist in a similar state as the burning candle. You can't apply the unguent to the air causing objects to erode and decay, any more than you can on the fire causing the object to burn. They're both effectively fuel for the reaction.

No, just no, if you are "assuming" then it isn't RAW

[eggynack]

No, just no, if you are "assuming" then it isn't RAW
I'm not really assuming. I'm just drawing a parallel. I had forgotten that it only worked on organic things when I said it, but I think the point about decay seems pretty reasonable.

[Ravenica]

except rust isn't decay, it's oxidation.

[Arcanist]

If you hit a leather shield with an axe, and it take 2 round before you destroy it, you just destroyed it over a period of time.

By your logic, using ungent of timelesness on that shield would allow you to make it last longer.

This is actually the most sound argument for why this wouldn't work. Alas, as much as I wished this worked (for the sake of Theurges everywhere!) It does not. I suppose you could argue that because the flame is burning over a period of time then you might get way with it, however then we'd have to apply this to the leather shield in the example above... I wonder if I can do this with Electrons? :smallamused:

[TuggyNE]

This is actually the most sound argument for why this wouldn't work. Alas, as much as I wished this worked (for the sake of Theurges everywhere!) It does not. I suppose you could argue that because the flame is burning over a period of time then you might get way with it, however then we'd have to apply this to the leather shield in the example above... I wonder if I can do this with Electrons? :smallamused:

D&D makes a distinction between continuous damage and damage that merely happens to come in repeatedly, though, so why wouldn't a similar distinction apply here? Burning is a continuous degeneration of the candle, but under no possible interpretation is sundering a shield continuous.

[Ravenica]

put it more simply, fire deals damage, even mundane fire
the candle has already been defined as being able to burn.

Find a way to give it fire resist and it won't be consumed but then it won't provide benefits either

[Arcanist]

D&D makes a distinction between continuous damage and damage that merely happens to come in repeatedly, though, so why wouldn't a similar distinction apply here? Burning is a continuous degeneration of the candle, but under no possible interpretation is sundering a shield continuous.

I'm curious what the definition of continuous damage is. Is Lava continuous damage? Better yet, is being on fire continuous damage? I mean at the end of the day a human(oid) is just a living candle waiting to be burned.

Now back to the Glue and Electrons :smallamused:

[TuggyNE]

I'm curious what the definition of continuous damage is. Is Lava continuous damage? Better yet, is being on fire continuous damage? I mean at the end of the day a human(oid) is just a living candle waiting to be burned.

As far as I know, the only context it's strictly defined in is spell concentration rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm#concentration):
If you are taking continuous damage half the damage is considered to take place while you are casting a spell. You must make a Concentration check (DC 10 + ½ the damage that the continuous source last dealt + the level of the spell you’re casting). If the last damage dealt was the last damage that the effect could deal then the damage is over, and it does not distract you.

Repeated damage does not count as continuous damage.

However, using that as a model seems plausible enough (since I doubt any specific RAW is available for candles and unguent together). And yeah, I believe lava and fire and immersion in acid and so on would count as continuous damage.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Aha, because it says you can't shrink a magical item, but it says nothing about an item that becomes magical being unshrunk. The target of the spell is "one touched object," not "one touched nonmagical object." If you shrunk a Huge sword into a Tiny one, and then cast Magic Weapon on it, I don't think it would unshrink. No part of what you've done has gone against what Shrink Item's description states.

And the fact that the object is in stasis? If you can get a DM to agree to this absurdity, more power to you. It's not RAW though.

Damage is damage, continous or not. Arguing that coating the candle in the ungeant slows down the burning is applying the ungeant's effect to the fire that was never alive and isn't matter.

That or the fire simply can't propogate since it's only producing 1/365th the energy in the same time-frame that it normally produces 1/1 units of energy.

[Mnemnosyne]

Even if you somehow manage to construe fire as matter, the fire was never alive. Metal was never alive.
Actually, that's not necessarily the case. There are plenty of ways to get both fire and metal that were, in fact, alive at one point.

[mattie_p]

Granted there are some edge cases, but the flame of the candle is not tangible like a fire elemental is. Even if a fire elemental lit the candle, it doesn't make that flame alive at one point.

[Darrin]

That or the fire simply can't propogate since it's only producing 1/365th the energy in the same time-frame that it normally produces 1/1 units of energy.

Wrong frame of reference. From the standpoint of the burning candle, everything around it is happening 365 times faster than what was happening before the unguent was applied. From the standpoint of an observer outside of the candle's frame of reference, the chemical reactions going on with the flame would be happening 1/365th slower than before. From a metaphysical standpoint, we might expect the candle to put out only 1/365th of the heat and light, which would probably be barely detectable. But we don't need the candle to produce heat or light, we just need it burning, which it does, albeit slowly.

From a RAW standpoint, the text of the unguent does not address the issues with energy output or chemical reactions. All it affects is the passage of time. To go beyond that, the DM needs to decide how much he wants to drench his hands in the innocent blood of catgirls.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Wrong frame of reference. From the standpoint of the burning candle, everything around it is happening 365 times faster than what was happening before the unguent was applied. From the standpoint of an observer outside of the candle's frame of reference, the chemical reactions going on with the flame would be happening 1/365th slower than before. From a metaphysical standpoint, we might expect the candle to put out only 1/365th of the heat and light, which would probably be barely detectable. But we don't need the candle to produce heat or light, we just need it burning, which it does, albeit slowly.No it's the right frame of reference. The candle may be experiencing time at 1/365th speed but the flame isn't. The flame can't be effected by the ungeant.


From a RAW standpoint, the text of the unguent does not address the issues with energy output or chemical reactions. All it affects is the passage of time. To go beyond that, the DM needs to decide how much he wants to drench his hands in the innocent blood of catgirls.

From a RAW standpoint, the ungeant protects the coated item from the passage of time. Fire is not time.

[Sgt. Cookie]

Does it not take time for the fire to burn the candle?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Does it not take time for the fire to burn the candle?

Given that the concept of time being an illusion is a thing; maybe not.

Look at it this way. If you allow this ruling, then an undead could slather itself with ungeant of timelessness and become completely immune to fire, acid, or any other chemical reaction that would cause it damage. Does that sound right?

I'm sorry, but the proposed interaction is nothing less than blatant munchkinism.

[eggynack]

Look at it this way. If you allow this ruling, then an undead could slather itself with ungeant of timelessness and become completely immune to fire, acid, or any other chemical reaction that would cause it damage. Does that sound right? As noted above, this fire attack would occur a single time, and not along a time frame. Now I'm actually wondering what effects unguent has on undead though. For example, if you used summon undead, would unguent effect the length of the summons? I'm not really sure how summons work with respect to time.


I'm sorry, but the proposed interaction is nothing less than blatant munchkinism.
Well, obviously. I probably would only try to pull this in a high op game, and even then there would probably be objections on the same basis that you folks have. I just like thinking about weird item interactions.

[Shred-Bot]

Speaking of unguent of timelessness... could you apply it to yourself so as to prevent having to take aging penalties? Technically the outer layers of skin are all dead. Even if the DM makes you reapply every so often, due to natural exfoliation at 150gp a pop it's not exactly breaking the bank. Or would it basically act as Unguent of Olay? In which case you could mix it with some ylang-ylang and sell it to vain nobles and the like.