In that case how does it work with storing Self targetting spells like Alter Self? If it's the SSI casting the spell then it must be the target of a Self targetting spell? That can't be right at all.
Self Targeting spells out of a Spell Storing item take an easy little leap of logic and work upon the user just like any other magical item of that kind of nature. The only difference is that a SSI is not necessarily something that you put on like most of the other magical items that use these self targetting spells. But the self that is talked about runs this wierd little grey area that isn't explicitly said in the rules that self means not purely just the item unless specifically stated but the one wearing/wielding/holding the item at the time of activation.
It's an issue and tiny leap of logic we don't really think about in a number of magical items really and one that has been exploited to make interesting little cursed items in previous editions or D&D offshoots like PF. The concept of rings that only turn themselves invisible or armor that only protects itself from damage started out because of this very literal translation. As did things like Armor of Glamor which only changes how it looks and not it's wearer, though such armor is not explicitly considered cursed like some of the others.
Except that every item that I've seen that provide spellcasting will say "you can do [this or that] to cast a spell" meaning they provide the ability - but it is still the creature holding/wielding it that is doing the casting. There's no leap of logic there in those cases. Self range spells target the thing that's doing the casting. So if SSI was the caster - it is the target of a Self range spell.
I mean - do you know of any that work any other way (besides the SSI)?
Except that every item that I've seen that provide spellcasting will say "you can do [this or that] to cast a spell" meaning they provide the ability - but it is still the creature holding/wielding it that is doing the casting. There's no leap of logic there in those cases. Self range spells target the thing that's doing the casting. So if SSI was the caster - it is the target of a Self range spell.
I mean - do you know of any that work any other way (besides the SSI)?
Wrong. It is not the person doing the casting. They are only activating a magical item. The this or that which comes with it is only how they activate it. It is not the same as to how the spell would be cast if cast by the person themselves. The spell storing item even tells you this because it says the Artificer must cast the spell into the item (with the bonus that it doesn't need to be in their known spells at the time to do so, just one that they can learn). The spell is effectively coming from the artificer through the item. This is why it uses the Artificers stats when it takes effect just like so many other items of this nature. All the Person activating is doing is following whatever directions there are to the item to cast the spell, whether that be a command word (that is not necessarily actually part of the spell), wearing it or affecting the item in some way, or whatever else.
While holding the object, a creature can take an action to produce the spell's effect from it, using your spellcasting ability modifier.
The spell's effect comes from the item but it is the creature that is doing the producing. The spell storing item doesn't act independently. If the spell storing item were a creature it might be a different story.
Regardless splitting hairs over this distinction is overly pedantic. And just leads to word bloat in online forums.
A DM should just decide whether or not applying effects like Hex is or isn't too powerful in their game and make a ruling. If the DM is okay with it, cool. If they aren't it's also cool.
While holding the object, a creature can take an action to produce the spell's effect from it, using your spellcasting ability modifier.
The spell's effect comes from the item but it is the creature that is doing the producing. The spell storing item doesn't act independently. If the spell storing item were a creature it might be a different story.
Regardless splitting hairs over this distinction is overly pedantic. And just leads to word bloat in online forums.
A DM should just decide whether or not applying effects like Hex is or isn't too powerful in their game and make a ruling. If the DM is okay with it, cool. If they aren't it's also cool.
It's using the Artificer's modifier to use it. Because The Artificer is the one casting the spell. Not the person using the item. That's what the section your quoting is talking about. So no. Again, It is not the person using the item casting it. It is the Item casting it, Or more technically the artificer casting it and the item allowing it to take effect later.
Wrong. It is not the person doing the casting. They are only activating a magical item.
SSIs aren't magic items, and also aren't infusions (e.g. an Artificer can't use an SSI as a focus, base, although there are myriad ways around this if you want an SSI focus). They're definitely items. As an example of the distinction mattering, the Disintegrate spell can just destroy a small enough SSI, because the SSI hasn't got Disintegrate immunity like actual magic items do.
The person isn't "activating an item". Anyone holding the object is granted the ability to take an action (whose details do not exist in the raw) to "produce the spell's effect from it", so the effect comes out of the SSI if that matters. The issue is that the action has no descriptive text. Here are some consequences of various GM rulings:
It counts as Cast a Spell. Artillerists add their 1d8, Counterspell works on the SSI's output. Both of those statements are false for any other ruling.
It counts as Use Item. Thieves can use an SSI as a bonus action, but probably you can't use your free item interaction on it, as the rule about taking an action will be interpreted by many GMs to be an example of specific beating general (I believe this is how GMs get out of the problem they introduce when they declare throwing acid to be Use Item, which would otherwise let anyone throw acid using their one free Use). This is the only ruling in which Thieves are good with SSIs.
It counts as the mysterious action used to activate Magic Items. Artillerists, Thieves, and enemy casters with Counterspell are all sad simultaneously - none of their tricks work.
I think all three rulings have good arguments for and against.
I'm pretty sure no-one and nothing is "casting" the spell from an SSI, because the product is a spell-like effect, not a spellcasting.
I'm picking up what you're putting down, but so far as I know, 5E doesn't have the rules 3.5E did for well-distinguishing the two, which is why you need to analyse every situation on its own merits. For example, racial spells are always spells the race can cast, sometimes without any components at all - but it's still a casting.
If they'd copied the text from a Wand of Magic Missiles for SSIs, this would be a lot easier to figure out (it would be cast a spell, no question). I think what they did instead is invent new rules text not previously found anywhere else. Even a Necklace of Fireballs has clearer rules than an SSI, and there's grey area in its text subject to GM interpretation.
I'm pretty sure no-one and nothing is "casting" the spell from an SSI, because the product is a spell-like effect, not a spellcasting.
I'm picking up what you're putting down, but so far as I know, 5E doesn't have the rules 3.5E did for well-distinguishing the two, which is why you need to analyse every situation on its own merits. For example, racial spells are always spells the race can cast, sometimes without any components at all - but it's still a casting.
5e did go all implicit-as-possible with the rules, so yeah they don't have a formal concept called "spell-like abilities" or "spell-like effects." But it's pretty clear that they didn't use the word "cast" on purpose, and that there are no components to the spell. It's basically button-pushing, which makes sense for the general artificer aesthetic.
I'm imagining an SSI with "front towards enemy" printed on it...
It uses the artificer's casting ability modifier because it's says so. The artificer never casts anything in regard to the SSI. they store the magic in an object, magical or otherwise, so that line in the description was necessary for any modifier to be added to it.
As for self targeting spell effects, it's an issue with the lack of adequate punctuation in the first line of the second paragraph. Once the SSI produces the spell effect the creature takes over. The casting time is predetermined by limits on the SSI, the components are bypassed other than M of holding the SSI, and the duration, range, and targeting is handled by the creature. For example if an artificer stores cure wounds in the SSI the user still needs to be in touch range to use it one anyone but themselves.
The big confusion is SSI bypassing castings but not spells. It and the wand of paralysis are the only items that act in this way and the wand falls under using a magic item rules which the SSI doesn't.
The way SSI's work they are partly in effect adding powers to an item and in many cases a "magic item" even though it's only temporarily magical do to the nature of infusions. The objects that they can go in are very specific... either a weapon or a spell casting focus for the Artificer. This means that if it's not a weapon it must be a tool or an infused item. They are putting magic into it.
Being Temporary can be the easy and obvious reason why they aren't protected from disintegration. Or conversely it is completely possible that a spell storing item and infused Items would survive disintegration for being magical. The reason being is that there is literally no rule for it and these items from the artificer ride the line between magical and not magical. Even counting as magical for some effects from it's own class but not for others. Such as an SSI can be the same item that an Artificer Infused through their infusion feature, in a way creating an item with a sort of double infusion. The first being the typical infusion and the second being the SSI which can be considered much like an infusion if you want to except a special kind with it's own specific rules. Going either way with it is a choice that DM's have to make. They could even decide to allow Infusion items to be disintegrated really because most of them aren't even classified as magical items, and the only ones that kind of are have the issue of being temporarily replications that will not last forever. But Again. It is up to the DM at the table on how to deal with this and even infused items.
There is also nothing in the rules that says that SSI's do not work basically exactly like wands. Because the truth of the matter is that they actually do work like wands that just have the variant limited charges rule applied. The only way that they differ is that they do not expressly have to be wands.
Wands work exactly like other magical items that I mentioned that "cast" spells when it comes to variables like DC's and such. They either have a set DC that must be overcome that basically imitates the makers stats for the use of the spell, or they have requirements of being used by certain classes that are capable of shaping the energies of the spell released to lesser or greater effect depending on their own skill. Most of which actually doing the former because they are meant to be usable by non-spell casters and so they are basically the pre-castings done by the creator to be used at a later date.
The SSI, much like wands, does not follow the casting time rules of the spells. It just takes an action. So you can actually put spells in it that take longer and still get their effects because the one activating the item is not the one casting the spell. If they were casting the spell they would have to follow the rules for time casting spells. Instead SSI like Wands is written so that you just use a magical device and it just takes your action to use it regardless of the spell inside of it or the time that it takes a normal caster to do the same thing.
Edit: I want to add one more comment in that I thought of just after posting. If you really look at SSI it's written in a way to save the Artificer from using up their spell slots for active rest by making it only doable after a rest. Effectively meaning that any spell casting done for the SSI is done during that rest, potentially in a way that means you don't lose your spell slots, whether it's a special way of doing ritual casting that isn't explicitly stated or the rest is enough to gain them back or however you want to view it, but it also takes the extremely lazy approach that all infusions do of just touching items to gloss over this idea rather than explain it. It's just another one of those things that the Artificer can just brush his hand across in the morning and suddenly has magical powers when it's looked at purely mechanically but a lot of the mechanics to these types of items for the artificer are extremely lazy and help to cause the Cognitive Dissonance that some feel with the class and why others sometimes say it feels unfinished or not entirely thought out in places.
If anything they officially answered part of the puzzle in the 2.6 version of the sage advice compendium on page 5. It falls under the "use an object" action which cuts out half the issues. RAI that means an invisible familiar blasting away with a SSI(shatter) is legit.
The DMG states (and I can't remember the page but it's in with the magic item stuff) that magical items specifically do not do the "Use an Object" action so that things like Thieves with certain of their subclass features cannot use them as a bonus action. They instead use the "Use a Magic Device" action instead when they take some kind of action to be used. Which actually does interact with another subclass feature thieves get.
If anything they officially answered part of the puzzle in the 2.6 version of the sage advice compendium on page 5. It falls under the "use an object" action which cuts out half the issues. RAI that means an invisible familiar blasting away with a SSI(shatter) is legit.
The DMG states (and I can't remember the page but it's in with the magic item stuff) that magical items specifically do not do the "Use an Object" action so that things like Thieves with certain of their subclass features cannot use them as a bonus action. They instead use the "Use a Magic Device" action instead when they take some kind of action to be used. Which actually does interact with another subclass feature thieves get.
The SSI is not a magical item unless the artificer chooses to make it so. The only criteria are a weapon or something the artificer can use as a spell focus which thanks to tools required can be practically anything.
The artificer could have the SSI be a weapon that also has one of thier infusions which would retroactively make it follow the DMG rules for magical items but a normal dagger with SSI isn't a magic item as far as the rules are concerned.
Except that Nothing about infusions actually says that Infused Items actually follow the rules of the DMG for magical items as per the Disintigration spell specifically (which is actually what makes the distinction) or the fact that they are truely magic items. Just that they function like magic items to varying extent. The magic is just as easily stripped from them as it was given to them. This is entirely an assumption and ruling that we choose to make for them when we try to say that magical item rules apply to them. Magical items themselves as per the DM are at least as durable as any normal item. With Artifacts alone being called out as nearly indestructible.
Edit: It should also be noted that if the Artificer is Disintegrated that even if we allow these items to follow Magic Item rules as far as the the Infused Items are concerned. They still now have a ticking clock put on them that in a matter of days they are no longer magical anyway.
If anything they officially answered part of the puzzle in the 2.6 version of the sage advice compendium on page 5. It falls under the "use an object" action which cuts out half the issues. RAI that means an invisible familiar blasting away with a SSI(shatter) is legit.
The DMG states (and I can't remember the page but it's in with the magic item stuff) that magical items specifically do not do the "Use an Object" action so that things like Thieves with certain of their subclass features cannot use them as a bonus action. They instead use the "Use a Magic Device" action instead when they take some kind of action to be used. Which actually does interact with another subclass feature thieves get.
The SSI is not a magical item unless the artificer chooses to make it so. The only criteria are a weapon or something the artificer can use as a spell focus which thanks to tools required can be practically anything.
The artificer could have the SSI be a weapon that also has one of thier infusions which would retroactively make it follow the DMG rules for magical items but a normal dagger with SSI isn't a magic item as far as the rules are concerned.
Except that Nothing about infusions actually says that Infused Items actually follow the rules of the DMG for magical items as per the Disintigration spell specifically (which is actually what makes the distinction) or the fact that they are truely magic items. Just that they function like magic items to varying extent. The magic is just as easily stripped from them as it was given to them. This is entirely an assumption and ruling that we choose to make for them when we try to say that magical item rules apply to them. Magical items themselves as per the DM are at least as durable as any normal item. With Artifacts alone being called out as nearly indestructible.
Edit: It should also be noted that if the Artificer is Disintegrated that even if we allow these items to follow Magic Item rules as far as the the Infused Items are concerned. They still now have a ticking clock put on them that in a matter of days they are no longer magical anyway.
The second part of the first line of the infusion feature explicitly calls infusions magical items.
it also says that are effectively prototypes. While your taking one part you might as well want to take the other part as well. And since Prototype magic items are completely undefined. You end up right back at the situation that nothing actually explicitly says that they function like magic items. Because the only thing that comes close to saying what these prototype items are is the rest of the infusion ability which doesn't make the distinction clear.
Problem remains that using an SSI doesn't, RAW, involve interacting with the SSI at all. You have to be holding it, but that's passive, and can be rendered even more passive with an SSI glove, assuming your GM has ruled that you're always holding a worn glove (standard for artificers who want to use their armor as a focus). While holding it, you can use an action to produce the spell's effect from it. We know nothing about the action. It could be pushing a button, but it could also be saying a word, and it could also be thinking about pink elephants, and it could also be humming a tune. There's no descriptive text and no rules support. That's why Use Item is a hard sell.
USE AN OBJECT You normally interact with an object while doing something else, such as when you draw a sword as part of an attack. When an object requires your action for its use, you take the Use an Object action. This action is also useful when you want to interact with more than one object on your turn.
But the SSI doesn't require an action for "its use", because no text is ever offered saying that you're using the SSI. Instead, the wording is that while holding the SSI, you have an action. It's a lot like Dragon's Breath, a spell that grants an action you have while the spell is on you - an SSI grants you an action while you're holding it. Just as the DB action is its own thing - it's not an attack, not casting a spell - SSI could be anything at all, but even Dragon's Breath has more descriptive text than SSIs do, because Dragon's Breath tells you you're exhaling. SSIs don't even have a one-word verb for the action.
Now that I think about it, I think the simplest explanation that SSI activation is literally like DB: its own unique action, not covered by any other action in the game (it's not Use Item, Cast A Spell, or Use Magic Item - it's Produce Effect from SSI). That turns off a whole lot of interactions, like how an invisible person can use an SSI and will neither be Counterspellable nor turn Visible, but it obeys the RAW and doesn't lead to any actual paradoxes I can think of, just as DB has no actual paradoxes.
Self Targeting spells out of a Spell Storing item take an easy little leap of logic and work upon the user just like any other magical item of that kind of nature. The only difference is that a SSI is not necessarily something that you put on like most of the other magical items that use these self targetting spells. But the self that is talked about runs this wierd little grey area that isn't explicitly said in the rules that self means not purely just the item unless specifically stated but the one wearing/wielding/holding the item at the time of activation.
It's an issue and tiny leap of logic we don't really think about in a number of magical items really and one that has been exploited to make interesting little cursed items in previous editions or D&D offshoots like PF. The concept of rings that only turn themselves invisible or armor that only protects itself from damage started out because of this very literal translation. As did things like Armor of Glamor which only changes how it looks and not it's wearer, though such armor is not explicitly considered cursed like some of the others.
Except that every item that I've seen that provide spellcasting will say "you can do [this or that] to cast a spell" meaning they provide the ability - but it is still the creature holding/wielding it that is doing the casting. There's no leap of logic there in those cases. Self range spells target the thing that's doing the casting. So if SSI was the caster - it is the target of a Self range spell.
I mean - do you know of any that work any other way (besides the SSI)?
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Wrong. It is not the person doing the casting. They are only activating a magical item. The this or that which comes with it is only how they activate it. It is not the same as to how the spell would be cast if cast by the person themselves. The spell storing item even tells you this because it says the Artificer must cast the spell into the item (with the bonus that it doesn't need to be in their known spells at the time to do so, just one that they can learn). The spell is effectively coming from the artificer through the item. This is why it uses the Artificers stats when it takes effect just like so many other items of this nature. All the Person activating is doing is following whatever directions there are to the item to cast the spell, whether that be a command word (that is not necessarily actually part of the spell), wearing it or affecting the item in some way, or whatever else.
From the Spell Storing Item text:
The spell's effect comes from the item but it is the creature that is doing the producing. The spell storing item doesn't act independently. If the spell storing item were a creature it might be a different story.
Regardless splitting hairs over this distinction is overly pedantic. And just leads to word bloat in online forums.
A DM should just decide whether or not applying effects like Hex is or isn't too powerful in their game and make a ruling.
If the DM is okay with it, cool. If they aren't it's also cool.
It's using the Artificer's modifier to use it. Because The Artificer is the one casting the spell. Not the person using the item. That's what the section your quoting is talking about. So no. Again, It is not the person using the item casting it. It is the Item casting it, Or more technically the artificer casting it and the item allowing it to take effect later.
SSIs aren't magic items, and also aren't infusions (e.g. an Artificer can't use an SSI as a focus, base, although there are myriad ways around this if you want an SSI focus). They're definitely items. As an example of the distinction mattering, the Disintegrate spell can just destroy a small enough SSI, because the SSI hasn't got Disintegrate immunity like actual magic items do.
The person isn't "activating an item". Anyone holding the object is granted the ability to take an action (whose details do not exist in the raw) to "produce the spell's effect from it", so the effect comes out of the SSI if that matters. The issue is that the action has no descriptive text. Here are some consequences of various GM rulings:
I think all three rulings have good arguments for and against.
I'm pretty sure no-one and nothing is "casting" the spell from an SSI, because the product is a spell-like effect, not a spellcasting.
I'm picking up what you're putting down, but so far as I know, 5E doesn't have the rules 3.5E did for well-distinguishing the two, which is why you need to analyse every situation on its own merits. For example, racial spells are always spells the race can cast, sometimes without any components at all - but it's still a casting.
If they'd copied the text from a Wand of Magic Missiles for SSIs, this would be a lot easier to figure out (it would be cast a spell, no question). I think what they did instead is invent new rules text not previously found anywhere else. Even a Necklace of Fireballs has clearer rules than an SSI, and there's grey area in its text subject to GM interpretation.
5e did go all implicit-as-possible with the rules, so yeah they don't have a formal concept called "spell-like abilities" or "spell-like effects." But it's pretty clear that they didn't use the word "cast" on purpose, and that there are no components to the spell. It's basically button-pushing, which makes sense for the general artificer aesthetic.
I'm imagining an SSI with "front towards enemy" printed on it...
The way SSI's work they are partly in effect adding powers to an item and in many cases a "magic item" even though it's only temporarily magical do to the nature of infusions. The objects that they can go in are very specific... either a weapon or a spell casting focus for the Artificer. This means that if it's not a weapon it must be a tool or an infused item. They are putting magic into it.
Being Temporary can be the easy and obvious reason why they aren't protected from disintegration. Or conversely it is completely possible that a spell storing item and infused Items would survive disintegration for being magical. The reason being is that there is literally no rule for it and these items from the artificer ride the line between magical and not magical. Even counting as magical for some effects from it's own class but not for others. Such as an SSI can be the same item that an Artificer Infused through their infusion feature, in a way creating an item with a sort of double infusion. The first being the typical infusion and the second being the SSI which can be considered much like an infusion if you want to except a special kind with it's own specific rules. Going either way with it is a choice that DM's have to make. They could even decide to allow Infusion items to be disintegrated really because most of them aren't even classified as magical items, and the only ones that kind of are have the issue of being temporarily replications that will not last forever. But Again. It is up to the DM at the table on how to deal with this and even infused items.
There is also nothing in the rules that says that SSI's do not work basically exactly like wands. Because the truth of the matter is that they actually do work like wands that just have the variant limited charges rule applied. The only way that they differ is that they do not expressly have to be wands.
Wands work exactly like other magical items that I mentioned that "cast" spells when it comes to variables like DC's and such. They either have a set DC that must be overcome that basically imitates the makers stats for the use of the spell, or they have requirements of being used by certain classes that are capable of shaping the energies of the spell released to lesser or greater effect depending on their own skill. Most of which actually doing the former because they are meant to be usable by non-spell casters and so they are basically the pre-castings done by the creator to be used at a later date.
The SSI, much like wands, does not follow the casting time rules of the spells. It just takes an action. So you can actually put spells in it that take longer and still get their effects because the one activating the item is not the one casting the spell. If they were casting the spell they would have to follow the rules for time casting spells. Instead SSI like Wands is written so that you just use a magical device and it just takes your action to use it regardless of the spell inside of it or the time that it takes a normal caster to do the same thing.
Edit: I want to add one more comment in that I thought of just after posting. If you really look at SSI it's written in a way to save the Artificer from using up their spell slots for active rest by making it only doable after a rest. Effectively meaning that any spell casting done for the SSI is done during that rest, potentially in a way that means you don't lose your spell slots, whether it's a special way of doing ritual casting that isn't explicitly stated or the rest is enough to gain them back or however you want to view it, but it also takes the extremely lazy approach that all infusions do of just touching items to gloss over this idea rather than explain it. It's just another one of those things that the Artificer can just brush his hand across in the morning and suddenly has magical powers when it's looked at purely mechanically but a lot of the mechanics to these types of items for the artificer are extremely lazy and help to cause the Cognitive Dissonance that some feel with the class and why others sometimes say it feels unfinished or not entirely thought out in places.
The DMG states (and I can't remember the page but it's in with the magic item stuff) that magical items specifically do not do the "Use an Object" action so that things like Thieves with certain of their subclass features cannot use them as a bonus action. They instead use the "Use a Magic Device" action instead when they take some kind of action to be used. Which actually does interact with another subclass feature thieves get.
Except that Nothing about infusions actually says that Infused Items actually follow the rules of the DMG for magical items as per the Disintigration spell specifically (which is actually what makes the distinction) or the fact that they are truely magic items. Just that they function like magic items to varying extent. The magic is just as easily stripped from them as it was given to them. This is entirely an assumption and ruling that we choose to make for them when we try to say that magical item rules apply to them. Magical items themselves as per the DM are at least as durable as any normal item. With Artifacts alone being called out as nearly indestructible.
Edit: It should also be noted that if the Artificer is Disintegrated that even if we allow these items to follow Magic Item rules as far as the the Infused Items are concerned. They still now have a ticking clock put on them that in a matter of days they are no longer magical anyway.
it also says that are effectively prototypes. While your taking one part you might as well want to take the other part as well. And since Prototype magic items are completely undefined. You end up right back at the situation that nothing actually explicitly says that they function like magic items. Because the only thing that comes close to saying what these prototype items are is the rest of the infusion ability which doesn't make the distinction clear.
Problem remains that using an SSI doesn't, RAW, involve interacting with the SSI at all. You have to be holding it, but that's passive, and can be rendered even more passive with an SSI glove, assuming your GM has ruled that you're always holding a worn glove (standard for artificers who want to use their armor as a focus). While holding it, you can use an action to produce the spell's effect from it. We know nothing about the action. It could be pushing a button, but it could also be saying a word, and it could also be thinking about pink elephants, and it could also be humming a tune. There's no descriptive text and no rules support. That's why Use Item is a hard sell.
USE AN OBJECT
You normally interact with an object while doing
something else, such as when you draw a sword as part
of an attack. When an object requires your action for
its use, you take the Use an Object action. This action
is also useful when you want to interact with more than
one object on your turn.
But the SSI doesn't require an action for "its use", because no text is ever offered saying that you're using the SSI. Instead, the wording is that while holding the SSI, you have an action. It's a lot like Dragon's Breath, a spell that grants an action you have while the spell is on you - an SSI grants you an action while you're holding it. Just as the DB action is its own thing - it's not an attack, not casting a spell - SSI could be anything at all, but even Dragon's Breath has more descriptive text than SSIs do, because Dragon's Breath tells you you're exhaling. SSIs don't even have a one-word verb for the action.
Now that I think about it, I think the simplest explanation that SSI activation is literally like DB: its own unique action, not covered by any other action in the game (it's not Use Item, Cast A Spell, or Use Magic Item - it's Produce Effect from SSI). That turns off a whole lot of interactions, like how an invisible person can use an SSI and will neither be Counterspellable nor turn Visible, but it obeys the RAW and doesn't lead to any actual paradoxes I can think of, just as DB has no actual paradoxes.