Ring of Wizardry [why?]

[SangoProduction]

Ring of Wizardry, in Pathfinder at least, grants double your base spells for that spell level from you class.

Hmm, ok thinking back over it, it seems pretty clear it was meant for prepared casters, who effectively double the number of "prepared" spells they can cast in the same day, getting 8 different spells instead of simply 2 castings of 4 spells. Derp.

But still, wizards have a cap of 4 spells per day per spell level. That means you are paying 5x the cost of pearls of power (at spell level 1) and an item slot. That seems like a pretty harsh tax. Is it really worth it?

[FocusWolf413]

It can be. It's not always worth it for every character. If, for example, you really need to have every second level divination spell memorized, it's potentially good. It really just depends on the situation.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I believe the answer here is "bard."

Also of note, you don't have to choose between ring of wizardry and pearls of power. You can do both and have all the spell slots.

[SangoProduction]

I believe the answer here is "bard."

Also of note, you don't have to choose between ring of wizardry and pearls of power. You can do both and have all the spell slots.

You do have to choose where you spend your gold though. Also, why is the bard important?

[Rubik]

I like wands of Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer, myself. Bonus points if you make a few eternal wands of Sanctum Mnemonic Enhancer. Is there some way to reduce the level by 2 so you can use Mordenkainen's Lucubration, too? Perhaps some metamagic cost reduction and Invisible Spell?

[Kelb_Panthera]

You do have to choose where you spend your gold though. Also, why is the bard important?

A bard gets 5 spells of a given level at most and 4th level spells are a lot more valuable to a bard than they are to a wizard of equal level.

Also, what's more valuable than spell slots? Getting as many as you can of your highest/most frequently used levels is an obvious boon. Spontaneous casters can't use pearls of power either, IIRC, so there's not much choice there.

[SangoProduction]

Ah, ok....lol. I thought pearls of power could be used by any caster. Well, sucks to be spontaneous caster eh?

[sleepyphoenixx]

There's also the point that a Pearl of Power only allows you to recall a spell you've already cast, not prepare a different one. If you want a broader selection you have to get the ring.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Ah, ok....lol. I thought pearls of power could be used by any caster. Well, sucks to be spontaneous caster eh?

Not really. The ring of wizardry is -way- better for 3rd and lower level spells anyway and, in 3.X, there's the memento magica; a more expensive equivalent to pearls of power for spontaneous casters.

[Rubik]

There's also the point that a Pearl of Power only allows you to recall a spell you've already cast, not prepare a different one. If you want a broader selection you have to get the ring.Though they do work well together. One broadens your selection, while the other deepens it. Used together, they do both.

Poor sorcerers. They get shafted on everything but a few specialty spells.

[SangoProduction]

Not really. The ring of wizardry is -way- better for 3rd and lower level spells anyway and, in 3.X, there's the memento magica; a more expensive equivalent to pearls of power for spontaneous casters.

I'd like to know why Ring of wizardry is better for 3rd level or lower (excluding the Wizard's ability to prepare different spells). It costs, about half again, than the equivalent in pearls of power (assuming bards could actually use them).

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'd like to know why Ring of wizardry is better for 3rd level or lower (excluding the Wizard's ability to prepare different spells). It costs, about half again, than the equivalent in pearls of power (assuming bards could actually use them).

Sorry, memory derp. I got the costs flipped in my head for a minute there. I was dead wrong about that part. The ability to prepare a wider variety still weighs more than being able to cast everything twice but not necessarily by enough to justify the rings of wizardry 1 and 2 over the pearls.

[ericgrau]

The ring of wizardry II and up has a better value relative to the pearls.

Also wizards don't have much good to spend their gold on besides more spells and the generic items that help every class.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I never saw the point of the rings. The main advantages over pearls are that they let you prepare DIFFERENT spells instead of just more of the ones you already prepared, and that you don't need to spend an action to get the additional spells (may be an issue in combat). Pearls are much more cost-effective.

Pathfinder may have made them better for spont. casters by making the spontaneous version of pearls cost 1.5x as much (even though pearls are more beneficial than the equivalent is to spont. casters, since either way they're just letting you use more of a spell that *surprise!* turned out to be super important today...a power spont. casters ALREADY HAVE). In 3E, where Memento Magica cost the same as pearls of power, I have no idea why one would buy one over a bunch of pearls/mementos.

EDIT: Crap, they're 1.5x the price in 3E, too. WTF? Pearls are more beneficial. :smalleek:

[sleepyphoenixx]

I never saw the point of the rings. The main advantages over pearls are that they let you prepare DIFFERENT spells instead of just more of the ones you already prepared, and that you don't need to spend an action to get the additional spells (may be an issue in combat). Pearls are much more cost-effective.

Pathfinder may have made them better for spont. casters by making the spontaneous version of pearls cost 1.5x as much (even though pearls are more beneficial than the equivalent is to spont. casters, since either way they're just letting you use more of a spell that *surprise!* turned out to be super important today...a power spont. casters ALREADY HAVE). In 3E, where Memento Magica cost the same as pearls of power, I have no idea why one would buy one over a bunch of pearls/mementos.

There's a few cases where the ring can be better. Multiclass arcane/arcane casters (Ultimate Magus, for example) and wizards that use Arcane Manipulation (LEoF) come to mind.

That's all i can think of though, aside from those cases you're right.
And those with more than one arcane casting class usually have enough lower level spells, unless they're sacrificing them for something.

[StreamOfTheSky]

There's a few cases where the ring can be better. Multiclass arcane/arcane casters (Ultimate Magus, for example) and wizards that use Arcane Manipulation (LEoF) come to mind.

That's all i can think of though, aside from those cases you're right.
And those with more than one arcane casting class usually have enough lower level spells, unless they're sacrificing them for something.

I guess a dual-spontaneous arcane caster Ultimate Magus using Versatile Spellcasting to generate higher level spells with twice as many of the next-lower-level ones (and perhaps the DM foolishly allowing him to "stepladder" them, for example: 8 1st level spells --> 4 2nd level spells --> 2 3rd level spells --> 1 4th level spell) could make good use out of the rings of wizardry. :smallbiggrin:

[ExLibrisMortis]

The rings are also good for duskblades, who get 6/10/10/10/8/6 spells per day at level 20 (0-5).

[ericgrau]

An ultimate magus could really milk the rings of wizardry by getting 11 spells out of one.

The ring of wizardy type I costs 4 times more than the pearls.
II: twice as much
III: About 1.5 times as much
IV: 25% more.

The advantage is that you get more options than you do with the pearls. If you didn't want more options, why not play a sorcerer?

A sorcerer version of a pearl is worth more to him because he doesn't have to decide which of his spells known to use it on ahead of time. And for each spell level he only has 0 to 2 fewer options to use it on. Since a high level one is probably too expensive, it's more likely to be useful for 0 options fewer than the wizard. So it is better in ever way for a sorcerer. It can apply to any of 6 options and he doesn't have to pick which of those 6 ahead of time. A wizard does.

That's an often ignored key advantage sorcerers have over wizards. Assuming perfect foreknowledge with divinations that only happen in forum theory, the sorcerer has no advantage. In practice, on the fly, especially after the wizard burns 1-2 spells and the sorcerer uses spontaneous metamagic, the sorcerer has more on-the-fly high level options. If on the fly options don't really matter to you and you want more options total at the beginning a day, then get a ring of wizardry. If on the fly options do matter more to you than options at the beginning of the day, then play a sorcerer instead of a wizard.

[Rubik]

Why aren't there rings of wizardry for 0th level spells? I find that having more cantrips is really, really great, as some are at least as powerful as 1st level spells, if utilized properly.

[ericgrau]

Why aren't there rings of wizardry for 0th level spells? I find that having more cantrips is really, really great, as some are at least as powerful as 1st level spells, if utilized properly.

They really should for completeness. But most cantrips don't have a save and those that do aren't very effective against the thing that rolls the save. You may as well buy a pile of 12.5 gp scrolls for more versatility for less coin. Even with the cost of all the times you will want to use cantrips in a campaign put together it won't add up to the 7,000-10,000 gp that fits the cost pattern. So it's not a big loss. But I think a 0th level ring priced low enough to make up for the weakness compared to scrolls would be a cool item. Still perhaps not as useful than a dirt cheap pile of practically every cantrip, but there's less book-keeping.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Why do people keep saying a level 1 ring of wizardry is 4x as much as a pearl?

A 1st level pearl of power is 1000 gp.
A 1st level ring of wizardry is 20,000 gp.
The ring is TWENTY TIMES more expensive! The rings are more competitive at higher spell levels, since their cost increases are practically linear while as the pearls go up quadratically.

[ericgrau]

Why do people keep saying a level 1 ring of wizardry is 4x as much as a pearl?

A 1st level pearl of power is 1000 gp.
A 1st level ring of wizardry is 20,000 gp.
The ring is TWENTY TIMES more expensive! The rings are more competitive at higher spell levels, since their cost increases are practically linear while as the pearls go up quadratically.
The ring gives you 5 spells. So it costs 4 times as pearls giving 5 spells.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Alright. I was looking at it as, "the ring is 20 times as expensive, so you could buy 20 pearls for it." Because not all casters will have the same base spell slots.

[sleepyphoenixx]

A sorcerer version of a pearl is worth more to him because he doesn't have to decide which of his spells known to use it on ahead of time. And for each spell level he only has 0 to 2 fewer options to use it on. Since a high level one is probably too expensive, it's more likely to be useful for 0 options fewer than the wizard. So it is better in ever way for a sorcerer. It can apply to any of 6 options and he doesn't have to pick which of those 6 ahead of time. A wizard does.

That's an often ignored key advantage sorcerers have over wizards. Assuming perfect foreknowledge with divinations that only happen in forum theory, the sorcerer has no advantage. In practice, on the fly, especially after the wizard burns 1-2 spells and the sorcerer uses spontaneous metamagic, the sorcerer has more on-the-fly high level options. If on the fly options don't really matter to you and you want more options total at the beginning a day, then get a ring of wizardry. If on the fly options do matter more to you than options at the beginning of the day, then play a sorcerer instead of a wizard.

That's the theory at least. Then the wizard takes Uncanny Forethought or Mage of the Arcane Order and the only advantage the sorcerer has left are a few unique spells, the most effective of which (Wings of Cover) can easily and cheaply be used with a wand and UMD.

Even without UF the wizard can simply leave slots open and take the time to prepare another instance of what he used up in a previous encounter.
As long as he has enough spells to get through one encounter and isn't in a massive hurry all the time the advantage of the sorcerer effectively doesn't exist.
It certainly doesn't make up for getting spells a level later and being incredibly limited in his spell selection.

[elonin]

IMHO Rings of Wizardry are better for limited casters or gishes. If you are talking about wizards casting below their level, which is closer to when a wizard would be able to afford the ring easily, then they will have limited use for those spells or are using metamagic to use those slots. For the gish I'll use my ranger as an example, who if he had a ring of wizardry could cast gravity bow before each fight if remotely able.

[Rubik]

IMHO Rings of Wizardry are better for limited casters or gishes. If you are talking about wizards casting below their level, which is closer to when a wizard would be able to afford the ring easily, then they will have limited use for those spells or are using metamagic to use those slots. For the gish I'll use my ranger as an example, who if he had a ring of wizardry could cast gravity bow before each fight if remotely able.Even low levels can devastate a non-casting enemy if you think about it a bit. Grease can obviate epic-level golems, and Glitterdust remains nasty at all levels. Polymorph really ought to be level 7 or 8, at least, and lots of utility spells are extremely useful at all levels.

So yeah, those low level slots are definitely worthwhile at later levels, especially if your group goes for the occasional extra-long day or you're not one to just spam your highest level spells and then rest.

[sleepyphoenixx]

IMHO Rings of Wizardry are better for limited casters or gishes. If you are talking about wizards casting below their level, which is closer to when a wizard would be able to afford the ring easily, then they will have limited use for those spells or are using metamagic to use those slots. For the gish I'll use my ranger as an example, who if he had a ring of wizardry could cast gravity bow before each fight if remotely able.

Rangers aren't arcane casters, so they can't use the ring. Not even with Sword of the Arcane Order.
And as far as i know there isn't an equivalent item for divine casters. My druid could sure use one because there are a lot of great low level spells on the druid list that are worthwhile even at higher levels.

As for the rest i'll have to agree with Rubik. A lot of low level wizard spells are universally useful even at high levels, and the more you have the longer you can keep going without needing to break off your day early to rest and regain spells.