Since it was first revealed the description for the consumable, Ramalandi’s Gift, has caused confusion for some. It reads “Use this item and select an unsocketd item to add the maximum number of sockets.” It wasn’t entirely clear if it added a further affix slot (the new sockets) or it replaced an existing affix of your choice. I’d also seen it asked if ‘unsocketed’ meant it didn’t have a gem socketed in an existing socket (therefore it’s unsocketed), in which case it could have more sockets added.
A Blizzard rep fielded the questions by clarifying how the item is supposed to work.
- It will add a socket to an unsocketed weapon
- It only works on weapons
- It will work on enchanted weapons, so long as they don’t have a socket
- It effectively adds an item affix in the form of a socket
Further questions gleaned further answers:
- The added socket provided by Ramaladni’s Gift cannot be enchanted.
- You cannot use Ramaladni’s on a weapon more than once.
- Similarly, you cannot use Ramaladni’s on a weapon that already has a socket.
You can, however:
- Replace a natural socket on a weapon with another primary stat (like VIT or STR or INT), and then use Ramaladni’s after.
- Replace a re-rolled socket on a weapon with another primary stat (like VIT or STR or INT), and then use Ramaladni’s Gift after.
- Enchant a weapon after a socket has been added using Ramaladni’s Gift. You just won’t be able to re-roll another socket on that particular weapon.
I realize the above may be somewhat confusing, so please let me know if you have any additional questions about this item’s functionality.
Edited to add: This is how the item should work under current design. That design may change before PTR ships.
Right now though it’s a moot point. As some of you have noticed when coming across Ramalandi’s Gift on the PTR, you can not pick it up. Blizzard are aware of the situation and had this to say on the subject.
* Updated (27/06/14):
Clarification on whether you can enchant the socket/s given by Ramalandi’s Gift and the answer is currently “no”.
Of course, this is still under development, though, so there’s a chance that it will change before all is said and done.
Seems reasonable, otherwise Ramalandi’s just becomes an +1 affix slot.Related to this article