D&D 3E/3.5 3rd Edition Revisited - Better play with the power of hindsight?

[James Gasik]

I wasn't even looking at the specifics in FRCS. He's a dual-wielding ranger (bows are better, but this is a 3.0 ranger), and not just an elf (-2 Con), but a drow (+2 LA). Charopers would really turn their noses up at that.

Oh you know, they'd get some LA buyoff, a few splat Feats like Two-Weapon Pounce, and some levels in the Tempest Prestige Class and call it a day.

 

[billd91]

But why? I mean seriously. Why not do what AD&D and 5e did and say "at level X, you can make Y attacks". Why tie # of attacks to BAB at all?

Because 3 attacks every 2 rounds in AD&D was even dumber and more annoying than the iterative attack penalties. Fractional numbers of attacks were TERRIBLE. The attack penalties may have been a bit confusing, but at least you had the same number of attacks every round.
So, why not just increase the number of attacks at the same bonus like 5e does? I assume they weren’t ready to make that big a leap from AD&D when they designed 3e.

 

[Yora]

Does anyone have an idea why the item creation feat Forge Ring has a prerequisite of caster level 12th, even though the majority of rings in the DMG can be made with a caster level of 5th or lower?

Sure, unlike other magic items, a character can wear two rings instead of only one. So technically a magic ring is better than any other item with the same enchantment.
But this feat prerequisite is only relevant for characters who make their own magic items, which would almost always be PCs. And a player could always choose to make a wondrous item with the same enchantment as a ring, and make it an item that takes up a space that barely any found item will occupy, like a hat, shirt, or maybe a belt or cloak.

There really seems to be no point in having magic rings be separate from other magic items at all. Why not just have rings be wondrous items?

 

[Alzrius]

And a player could always choose to make a wondrous item with the same enchantment as a ring, and make it an item that takes up a space that barely any found item will occupy, like a hat, shirt, or maybe a belt or cloak.

There really seems to be no point in having magic rings be separate from other magic items at all. Why not just have rings be wondrous items?

I think it plays into the fact that the rules specify increasing the cost of the magic item if it's not built to occupy a body slot that's thematically appropriate (what it calls "body slot affinities").

 

[Arakhor]

Does anyone have an idea why the item creation feat Forge Ring has a prerequisite of caster level 12th, even though the majority of rings in the DMG can be made with a caster level of 5th or lower?

I always assumed that the answer was rooted in Lord of the Rings. If you can forge a cool, magical ring, you're clearly a skilled artisan and living up to the power-fantasy of Tolkien's Ring-smiths.

 

[billd91]

I always assumed that the answer was rooted in Lord of the Rings. If you can forge a cool, magical ring, you're clearly a skilled artisan and living up to the power-fantasy of Tolkien's Ring-smiths.

That's my guess as well. It's more of a prestige kind of thing than your basic wondrous item because, other than there being two ring slots on a normal PC, there's no other real justification for it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That's my guess as well. It's more of a prestige kind of thing than your basic wondrous item because, other than there being two ring slots on a normal PC, there's no other real justification for it.

The problem is the two elements--the rank required to make the ring, and the rank required to take the feat--don't make sense together; you can have a rank required to make a specific ring higher than the feat, but not lower, because it can't happen.

 

[billd91]

The problem is the two elements--the rank required to make the ring, and the rank required to take the feat--don't make sense together; you can have a rank required to make a specific ring higher than the feat, but not lower, because it can't happen.

Sure you can. Just because you need to be 12th level to take the feat doesn‘t mean you need to make all rings at that level or higher. And while an item’s caster level may serve as the minimum caster level when relevant, it also serves as a power rating for the item when determining other effects such as its saving throw bonus or how well it resists dispel magic.
You may think it kind of silly and it may be a bit clunky, but it isn’t totally nonsensical.

 

[Divine2021]

I miss prestige classes

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure you can. Just because you need to be 12th level to take the feat doesn‘t mean you need to make all rings at that level or higher. And while an item’s caster level may serve as the minimum caster level when relevant, it also serves as a power rating for the item when determining other effects such as its saving throw bonus or how well it resists dispel magic.
You may think it kind of silly and it may be a bit clunky, but it isn’t totally nonsensical.

Was there actually any reason to make something at a lower level? Its been so long I've perhaps forgotten. If not, I think I stand by my opinion, but if there was I withdraw my statement.