Apropos to nothing, I'm reminded of a story I read once, might have been a fanfic (I wish I could remember) that had a character going in depth into the exact extent of an item like the One Ring as far as invisibility went. It included experiments like - If I wrap my hand around a cup it stays visible, if I left it it goes invisible. If I wear clothing they're invisible, if I touch someone else's clothing they remain visible. The ultimate conclusion was that if the individual was supporting an item off the ground, it was invisible (which brings up the interesting question of shoes).
That sounds like some serious D&D Rules Lawyering right there, testing the limits of a magic item to a ridiculous degree. Which is exactly what real people would do with a magic item, I think. XD
Convenient that a big question centers around shoes, when the Ringbearers we spend the most time with are all hobbits, who don't wear them! (I call a common sense clause on this one - what good is a ring of invisibility if everyone can still see your shoes walking around?)
Everything you say makes complete sense. But in your example, when Frodo's finger was inside Gollum (*twitch**squick*), Frodo was the one wearing the Ring at the time, not Gollum - and he and his finger both became visible when Gollum bit it off. Which totally fits - that was the moment when the Ring changed ownership again.
I agree with your headcanon about the Ring's varying tides of dormancy and "sentience," or at least something like a Will, and that could totally account for a lot seeming inconsistencies (at the very least, as a retcon, it's no worse than Tolkien's own). But at the time Bilbo was fighting the spiders, Sting wouldn't have been glowing, because there weren't any orcs or goblins around. Could well be accounted for by the Ring being weaker, though.
Ugh, that could be VERY problematic during the BoFA. Or almost any other battle, come to think of it. Good thing Frodo never used it in Mordor, and Sam only did when he was able to win.
no subject
That sounds like some serious D&D Rules Lawyering right there, testing the limits of a magic item to a ridiculous degree. Which is exactly what real people would do with a magic item, I think. XD
Convenient that a big question centers around shoes, when the Ringbearers we spend the most time with are all hobbits, who don't wear them! (I call a common sense clause on this one - what good is a ring of invisibility if everyone can still see your shoes walking around?)
Everything you say makes complete sense. But in your example, when Frodo's finger was inside Gollum (*twitch**squick*), Frodo was the one wearing the Ring at the time, not Gollum - and he and his finger both became visible when Gollum bit it off. Which totally fits - that was the moment when the Ring changed ownership again.
I agree with your headcanon about the Ring's varying tides of dormancy and "sentience," or at least something like a Will, and that could totally account for a lot seeming inconsistencies (at the very least, as a retcon, it's no worse than Tolkien's own). But at the time Bilbo was fighting the spiders, Sting wouldn't have been glowing, because there weren't any orcs or goblins around. Could well be accounted for by the Ring being weaker, though.
Ugh, that could be VERY problematic during the BoFA. Or almost any other battle, come to think of it. Good thing Frodo never used it in Mordor, and Sam only did when he was able to win.