• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Ring of Sustenance and Growing Up

So, soon our group will be adventuring with a baby - not just any baby... a newly born infant. To complicate the already complicated situation, the child will be adventuring with its father, no mother to feed it.

This has caused some heated debate about how we are going to keep the baby alive without mother's milk. We have discusses wetnurses along with various other (read: weirder) methods... one of the things is to get the child a Ring (or bracelet or booties) of Sustenance in order to avoid feeding the child at all...

I discussed it with the DM this afternoon and he contends that the Ring of Sustenance would stop the baby from growing up - it would essentially stay an infant so long as it had the Ring on... and, while I don't disagree with him, I'd like to get a feel for what other people think...

How do you think a Ring of Sustenance would impact a growing child - in particular, an infant??
 

log in or register to remove this ad

domino

First Post
"This ring continually provides its wearer with life-sustaining nourishment. " Not removes the need for nourishment, but provides it. If it made someone immune to hunger and thirst, I'd agree with the DM.

But in this case, I'l say that growth is part of sustaining life, and the nourishment provided by the ring would be as effective in growing up, as it would be in, say, wearing a ring, and working out and building muscle.
 



The ring, according to the DM, does not halt the aging process, but does not provide the necessary elements to *grow* - only to sustain... and, for an infant, that is not good enough. (it does not prevent decay or create eternal life - just is not enough for an infant)

The DM said:
"Sustenence" means "to provide the means to sustain."

The infant needs more than to sustain - it must grow. The infant would simply waste away, since though it would be provided with the means to sustain its existence, it would severely insufficient at providing the means to sustain the child's *growth.*

That's his reasoning... just wondering what y'all think about it and how you would rule...
 

Khayman

First Post
Why not try Murlynd's Spoon? It basically makes pablum for PCs, so why not babies? :lol:

Seriously, the act of feeding an infant is a means to effect an emotional bond. Slapping a ring on it instead of feeding it is the equivalent of turning it over to a 'wire mother' --- you'll end up with a psycho monkey on your hands.

Or a PC. Same thing.
 

Dimwhit

Explorer
The ring provides life-sustaining nurishment. I wonder what your DM thinks would be a sustaining nourishment for a baby that wouldn't also help it grow.

Nourishment that sustains the life of a person would have to contain the vitamins, minerals, etc. that would also allow the body to grow. There is not one without the other, IMO. I think the ring would be an excelleng choice for the infant.

EDIT: Let me put it this way: If your body has what it needs to survive, it also has what it needs to grow, if there is still growing left to do. I just can't see it being otherwise.
 

I think his reasoning is flawed.

"The infant would simply waste away, since though it would be provided with the means to sustain its existence, it would severely insufficient at providing the means to sustain the child's *growth.*"

If the child is wasting away, then its life is not being sustained.

The ring provides "its wearer with life-sustaining nourishment."

Therefore, it provides an infant with enough nourishment to grow.

Personally, your DM is either being an ass or setting up an important story point. I'm not sure which, at this point. :)
 

Storm Raven

First Post
Queen_Dopplepopolis said:
The ring, according to the DM, does not halt the aging process, but does not provide the necessary elements to *grow* - only to sustain... and, for an infant, that is not good enough. (it does not prevent decay or create eternal life - just is not enough for an infant)

That would be a great rationale, if that was the definition of sustenance. It isn't. Try this, for example:

n 1: a source of materials to nourish the body [syn: nutriment, nourishment, nutrition, aliment, alimentation, victuals] 2: the financial means whereby one lives; "each child was expected to pay for their keep"; "he applied to the state for support"; "he could no longer earn his own livelihood" [syn: support, keep, livelihood, living, bread and butter] 3: the act of sustaining life by food or providing a means of subsistence; "they were in want of sustenance"; "fishing was their main sustainment" [syn: sustentation, sustainment, maintenance, upkeep]


1. The act of sustaining; support; maintenance; subsistence; as, the sustenance of the body; the sustenance of life.

2. That which supports life; food; victuals; provisions; means of living; as, the city has ample sustenance. "A man of little sustenance." "For lying is thy sustenance, thy food." (Milton)


Your DM has latched on to a single one of the many definitions of sustenance, does he have reason to believe that the others were excluded when the description was written? Does wearing a ring of sustenance prevent natural healing or recovery from disease and poison? By his ruling, it would, since it apparently doesn't provide anything more than is necessary to keep the body alive, and wouldn't provide additional energy to repair itself.

I'll note, for example, that one of the synonyms for sustenance is "nutriment", which is defined as:

nu·tri·ment ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ntr-mnt, ny-)
n.
A source of nourishment; food.
An agent that promotes growth or development.
 


Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top