Masterwork Ring/Amulet

[Burn_Boy]

I'm planning a campaign where, at the beginning, the players are inducted into a "secret" organization of elite warriors to battle whatever evil I eventually dream up. I know, awesome planning ahead right?

Anyway, I want this to be loosely based on Dragon Age Origins and I was thinking about the Joining. If you don't know the plot, here it is in a nutshell. Hideous humanoid beasts called Darkspawn threaten the land. Warriors known as Grey Wardens battle the Darkspawn and help save the world. Grey Wardens are made through a ritual called The Joining where they drink Darkspawn blood and it helps them sense the creatures and their leader, the Archdemon. Anyway, awesome BioWare games aside, I can't rightly send my players out to collect vials of undead or demon puss or blood to have them guzzle... well I could but I won't.

What I was thinking, for my guys, was to have some ritual where they just bleed into a bowl, having it all mix, making them bound by blood or some nonsense, and then giving them either rings or amulets so they can all still be "connected" if the get separated. Thing is, doing so would take up a slot that could be used for a magic item later. I have two work arounds for this and would like to hear your suggestions.

The first is just to say it doesn't take up the slot and be done with it. This, to me, is rather weak though. My next thought is to make the ring or amulet masterwork quality. As far as I know, being masterwork is the only prerequisite for making something magical. This was I could give them the Amulet with the little pool of blood in it, and they could make it that Amulet of Natural Armor they need.

Your thoughts?

 

[Systole]

I don't think you can masterwork things like rings and amulets -- they only have a base value. However, I'm not sure that 'base value' is even a prerequisite for most amulets and rings.

In other words, yes, you can give them amulets and rings that can be turned into enchanted amulets and rings, and I don't think you even have to handwave them as being masterwork. The important thing is making sure that the PCs will eventually have access to an enchanter who can enchant their rings, and also making sure that they don't find umpteen million really great rings during their adventures. You don't want them in a position where a player has three rings to choose from and the Warden ring is the weakest choice, because that's a crappy decision for a player to have to make.

 

[SteelDraco]

The second seems reasonable, though it suggests that the ring itself doesn't do anything magical. Is the vial of blood the important part of it?

What's the draw of having the item in the first place instead of just giving them the power you want them to have? Is it an insignia/symbol of office as well? Decoder ring?

 

[Burn_Boy]

The ring or amulet of blood doesn't have any inherent magical properties. It's merely symbolic of the organization the PCs are "recruited" into. I wanted them to be able to become magic rings to avoid what Systole was saying about discarding it for a better choice of ring.

 

[milo]

As far as I know you can wear as many rings as you want to. If you want 10 rings on each finger go for it, you only get the magic from 2 rings though. As long as it isn't considered a magic ring it doesn't take up a "ring slot".

 

[Burn_Boy]

I know, I just always felt that just waving it off and saying it doesn't take up the slot was kinda cheap.

 

[milo]

Maybe the society has an enchanter as mentioned by someone else earlier in the thread. He enchants the ring or amulet at 50% book price or 75% book price so you can make it whatever you want. I wouldn't get rid of an item that I can get customized to whatever I want at a reduced cost. IMO it would probably be better to go ring than amulet, because there are 2 slots for rings and only 1 for amulet.

 

[paradox42]

I know, I just always felt that just waving it off and saying it doesn't take up the slot was kinda cheap.

This looks like video game thinking to me. The fact is, many, many people in the real world wear multiple rings on the same hand. There's nothing wrong with it, aside from perhaps being ostentatious.

The excuse in games for why you have only one "ring slot" per hand has always been, carrying two magic items that close together causes them to interfere and most likely cancel out- or one overwhelms and suppresses the other. The real reason, of course, is game balance, but that's always been the excuse.

Anyway, practical upshot from the above: if the ring's not magical, then it has absolutely nothing to do with the slot- and doesn't count against it no matter how many nonmagical rings you have. So discard that feeling of being "cheap," it's not becoming of your story.

Now, one thing I'd suggest is that you actually make the rings magical from the get-go. Minor magic, but magic. Here's why. If the ritual happens as you describe, with blood combined in a bowl and all that, does it not make sense that you could take that blood and forge it into the special rings made to signify membership in the group? That's what I'd do if I were making a group with a joining ritual like this. The rings then literally contain the essence of the other members, joined with that of the wearer. Magically, you can do a lot with that.

This, in turn, means that in a magical world, it makes sense that the rings in fact would be magical- with some sort of effect like Status (that works only on the other people who became members during the wearer's own ritual, of course). And since modern magic-item crafting rules allow items to be upgraded, it also makes sense that further powers can be added later, most likely for higher rank within the organization.

 

[Systole]

He enchants the ring or amulet at 50% book price or 75% book price so you can make it whatever you want.

I like this idea. It's a good way to keep the Grey Warden ring relevant at every level.

 

[Salthorae]

This looks like video game thinking to me. The fact is, many, many people in the real world wear multiple rings on the same hand. There's nothing wrong with it, aside from perhaps being ostentatious.

The excuse in games for why you have only one "ring slot" per hand has always been, carrying two magic items that close together causes them to interfere and most likely cancel out- or one overwhelms and suppresses the other. The real reason, of course, is game balance, but that's always been the excuse.

Anyway, practical upshot from the above: if the ring's not magical, then it has absolutely nothing to do with the slot- and doesn't count against it no matter how many nonmagical rings you have. So discard that feeling of being "cheap," it's not becoming of your story.

Now, one thing I'd suggest is that you actually make the rings magical from the get-go. Minor magic, but magic. Here's why. If the ritual happens as you describe, with blood combined in a bowl and all that, does it not make sense that you could take that blood and forge it into the special rings made to signify membership in the group? That's what I'd do if I were making a group with a joining ritual like this. The rings then literally contain the essence of the other members, joined with that of the wearer. Magically, you can do a lot with that.

This, in turn, means that in a magical world, it makes sense that the rings in fact would be magical- with some sort of effect like Status (that works only on the other people who became members during the wearer's own ritual, of course). And since modern magic-item crafting rules allow items to be upgraded, it also makes sense that further powers can be added later, most likely for higher rank within the organization.

I love the idea of a Ring forged from the member's blood that does a status effect, allows easier scry/divination. Combine that with an "in-house" enchanter who will upgrade the ring or add effects like Sending only to other members... awesome.

I'm going to be running an episodic assassin guild game for my Table Top group and these sound like just the ticket!