Ring of Sequestering

[Jack Zander]

Let's say I activate my Ring of Sequestering and then I make an attack. Does my invisibility end? If so, do the other abilities end with it?

[Jack_Simth]

Let's say I activate my Ring of Sequestering and then I make an attack. Does my invisibility end? If so, do the other abilities end with it?
RAW, invisibility ends when you attack because the clause in that 2nd level spell says so. That's it.

Sequester doesn't have any such clause.

So yes, the Ring of Sequestering is one of the more powerful of the items in the ELH.

[Jack Zander]

RAW, invisibility ends when you attack because the clause in that 2nd level spell says so. That's it.

Sequester doesn't have any such clause.

So yes, the Ring of Sequestering is one of the more powerful of the items in the ELH.

That's what I was figuring but my DM and I wanted to be sure.

[nyjastul69]

Let's say I activate my Ring of Sequestering and then I make an attack. Does my invisibility end? If so, do the other abilities end with it?

The item description states 'as the sequester spell' the sequester spell states 'as the invisibility spell', so yes you become visible if you attack. The other effects should not be affected. Also, this is more appropriate for the Simple Q&A thread rather than its own thread.

[Jack_Simth]

The item description states 'as the sequester spell' the sequester spell states 'as the invisibility spell', so yes you become visible if you attack. The other effects should not be affected. Also, this is more appropriate for the Simple Q&A thread rather than its own thread.

Ah, you're right - I missed that line of inheritance. Good call.

[Jack Zander]

My DM just pointed out that Sequester states, "it also renders the affected creature or object invisible to any form of sight or seeing (as the invisibility spell)."

That should imply that it wears off on an attack, no?

[Emperor Tippy]

My DM just pointed out that Sequester states, "it also renders the affected creature or object invisible to any form of sight or seeing (as the invisibility spell)."

That should imply that it wears off on an attack, no?

The Invisibility goes away, the rest of the Sequester keeps working.

It really should be greater invisibility but w/e.

[nyjastul69]

My DM just pointed out that Sequester states, "it also renders the affected creature or object invisible to any form of sight or seeing (as the invisibility spell)."

That should imply that it wears off on an attack, no?

Your DM is correct as my previous post states.

[Jack Zander]

Wow I'm slow. Thanks guys. I'll post simple questions like this in the appropriate thread next time.

[Phelix-Mu]

Note that the original spell makes the subject comatose, so the invisibility wearing off from the subject attacking would not have to be addressed in the spell entry. The ring from ELH removes the comatose aspect, allowing the target to move normally and attack. It would be reasonable to change it to greater invisibility, otherwise the effect is totally inferior to the 8th level spell superior invisibility, from Spell Compendium. Epic items should probably be better than single, non-epic spells (or if they're not, they should be cheaper).

I wonder if any wording in the 3.5 sequester changed from the 3.0 sequester. The 3.5 wording seems substantially not as cool as it should be (masked from any form of sight...except for the half-dozen sight-ish senses and spells that allow one to see invisible things...sheesh).

[nyjastul69]

...I wonder if any wording in the 3.5 sequester changed from the 3.0 sequester...


Originally posted by the 3.0 SRD:
Sequester
Abjuration
Level: Sor/Wiz 7
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Target: One creature or object (up to a 2-ft. cube/level) touched
Duration: 1 day/level (D)
Saving Throw: Will negates (object)
Spell Resistance: Yes (object)

When cast, this spell not only prevents divination spells from working to detect or locate the creature or object affected by sequester, it also renders the affected creature or object invisible to any form of sight or seeing. The spell does not prevent the subject from being discovered through tactile means or through the use of magic devices. Living creatures (and even undead creatures) affected by sequester become comatose and are effectively in a state of suspended animation until the spell wears off or is dispelled.

Note: The Will save prevents a character from being sequestered. There is no save to see the sequestered creature or object or to detect it with a divination spell.



Originally posted by the 3.5 SRD:
Sequester
Abjuration
Level:Sor/Wiz 7
Components:V, S, M
Casting Time:1 standard action
Range:Touch
Target:One willing creature or object (up to a 2-ft. cube/level) touched
Duration:One day/level (D)
Saving Throw:None or Will negates (object)
Spell Resistance:No or Yes (object)

When cast, this spell not only prevents divination spells from working to detect or locate the creature or object affected by sequester, it also renders the affected creature or object invisible to any form of sight or seeing (as the invisibility spell). The spell does not prevent the subject from being discovered through tactile means or through the use of devices. Creatures affected by sequester become comatose and are effectively in a state of suspended animation until the spell wears off or is dispelled.

Note: The Will save prevents an attended or magical object from being sequestered. There is no save to see the sequestered creature or object or to detect it with a divination spell.

Material Component: A basilisk eyelash, gum arabic, and a dram of whitewash.


The most notable difference is a lack of reference to the invisibility spell.

This (http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd.html) is my 3.0 SRD source.

[Emperor Tippy]

The most notable difference is a lack of reference to the invisibility spell.

Which is really what changes everything.

Without the "as the invisibility spell" bit the Ring of Sequester would work like it should (i.e. not making you visible when you attack).

Granted, by epic being invisible is generally not much use at all as everyone can beat it (if they can't then they shouldn't be playing epic).

[nyjastul69]

Which is really what changes everything.

Without the "as the invisibility spell" bit the Ring of Sequester would work like it should (i.e. not making you visible when you attack).

Granted, by epic being invisible is generally not much use at all as everyone can beat it (if they can't then they shouldn't be playing epic).

Agreed. That's why I noted it. The ring is kind of weak for an epic item.

[TuggyNE]

Amusingly, 3.0 sequester didn't do anything to constructs.

[Phelix-Mu]

So, since ELH was 3.0, it hardly makes sense to try to mesh the epic ring of sequestering with the pretty blatantly nerfed 3.5 sequester text.

I would also put forward the idea that "it also renders the affected creature or object invisible to any form of sight or seeing" could be read to imply that even blindsight or blindsense don't work, as they are forms of seeing. Even magically enhanced sight don't work, as the spell blocks divinations (see the poorly worded first sentence).

Tactile means and the use of devices (or magic devices in the 3.0 version) are set out as the ways of getting around the spell. Goodness knows what they were thinking of by "devices."

In short, attacking probably shouldn't drop the invisibility as per the initial 3.0 intent referenced in ELH, and the whole spell is actually pretty nifty, as I'm not seeing an easy way to detect the creature that is invisible to all forms of sight, and effectively immune to divinations.

The ring might be worth it for the immunity clause alone, since it seems there is no save or CL check involved, and sequester wouldn't be subject to work arounds like shatter mind blank.

EDIT: Borderline rules dysfunction here. Their quasi-editing when 3.5 came out is pretty "impressive" at times.

[nyjastul69]

Due note that the SRD's are notorious for lacking examples and clarifications. It's one of the reasons why I don't use SRD's as primary sources. The 3.0 PH has more descriptive text than the 3.0 SRD. There are examples of devices in the 3.0 PH, to wit, robe of eyes and gem of true seeing. Take that FWIW.

I'd also like to note that neither the 3.0 Open Gaming Foundation SRD or the 3.5 Hypertext d20 SRD are official SRD's.

[Jack_Simth]

I'd also like to note that neither the 3.0 Open Gaming Foundation SRD or the 3.5 Hypertext d20 SRD are official SRD's.
Text was copied from the source (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35), formatted a bit, and updated with errata (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a).

While strictly speaking, it's not an official SRD... it's a lot easier to use for such things, and contains the same info.

[Phelix-Mu]

Wow, so, if those devices are the only exceptions to the blanket divinations immunity, and immunity to any sight or seeing, then the effect still seems pretty strong. Take away the coma, and the ring from ELH sounds pretty nice.

It's amazing how muddled the ELH made it. They should have just said "this ring blocks all manner of detection except x, y, and z" if that's what they meant.

[nyjastul69]

Text was copied from the source (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35), formatted a bit, and updated with errata (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a).

While strictly speaking, it's not an official SRD... it's a lot easier to use for such things, and contains the same info.

I assume that to be correct. I've never crossed referenced them so I can't say for sure. I didn't mean to impugn the hypertext d20 SRD. I was just stating the facts as they are.

[Phelix-Mu]

Would the ring of sequestering block mindsight?

[nyjastul69]

Wow, so, if those devices are the only exceptions to the blanket divinations immunity, and immunity to any sight or seeing, then the effect still seems pretty strong. Take away the coma, and the ring from ELH sounds pretty nice.

It's amazing how muddled the ELH made it. They should have just said "this ring blocks all manner of detection except x, y, and z" if that's what they meant.

I don't think the text states that those are the only examples. They are just two examples of devices, not an exhaustive list of devices.

[ikosaeder]

Maybe I misinterpret something. But as far as I see it, you can not attack while a sequester spell is active on you:
"Creatures affected by sequester become comatose and are effectively in a state of suspended animation until the spell wears off or is dispelled. "

[TuggyNE]

Maybe I misinterpret something. But as far as I see it, you can not attack while a sequester spell is active on you:
"Creatures affected by sequester become comatose and are effectively in a state of suspended animation until the spell wears off or is dispelled. "

That's true of the spell, but not of the ring that is the subject of discussion here. (Which is, presumably, one of the main reasons it's an epic magic item.)

[Phelix-Mu]

And it's why they should have just written a rule for that epic item, instead of the rules-runaround, which they should have known is more likely to generate conflicts.

Is mindsight a form of sight? Sequester seems to imply that any form of sight is blocked, so would the ring block the otherwise trump of mindsight?