Ring of Sorcery (New Item)

[Li Shenron]

I think allowing it to hold more than one spell would be an invite to overpower the sorcerer.

I agree. Keeping it 1 spell per ring it, and given the high prices suggested, would be ok IMHO, since the Sorcerer would still be limited to 2 Rings of Sorcery. It's difficult to pinpoint a balanced price, except that it should be between a Wand and Staff...

 

[Mac Callum]

Also, I think forge ring requiring 12th level is just one of those rules that does not make since to me. YMMV.

Probably a cultural artifact left over from Tolkien. Powerful Wizards like Gandalf had staves, but only Sauron and the Elves could forge the Rings of Power.

Personally, I like the high level requirement for the Rings - but think that the simple Rings, like Invisibility or Sustenance cheapen the whole category. I like Rings of Elemental Command. Rings that make the wielder veritably rumble with power.

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

But, doesn't the ring of wizardry essentially give the wearer the additional feat extra spell slot also from Tome and Blood?

I know that not all feats are created equal, but I see no reason this item shouldn't be as available as Rings of Wizardry.

After all, if it were a ring he could use at most two of them, precluding him from using other magic rings. For this he gets, what? Two extra spells he can cast?

So, instead of having a ring of invisibility, he has a sorcererous ring of invisibility.

Instead of having a ring of protection +4 he has a Sorcererous Ring of Mage Armor.

Heck, depending upon the spells he would be likely to put in such a ring, it might just be better to buy the other rings outrights and switch back and forth between them.

Well, it's true you could get extra wizard spells with that feat... However, there are many ways for a wizard (or any caster for that matter) to get extra slots. Most straightforward of which is increasing their primary casting stat?

Wheras, Sorcerors gaining extra spells known - I've only ever seen that in the Tome and Blood book - with, IIRC, some conditions to the feat. It's certainly not a common mechanic. As an item it's even better than a feat. Use it until you don't want it any more, then sell it to buy higher level versions. IME, Mage armour and Invisibility are great at lower levels, worth less as you go up....


What I was getting at, is having played a sorceror before and seen a few in action, I think this is one of the most attractive items I've ever heard of. I'd sell my own mother to get hold of as many as I could!

In a 'free purchase' environment I could see this causing some problems, especially with unslotted items and/or combined epic cash levels. Could be a bit awkward. If it's 'just rings' - the limit is 2 (or 3, with that silly elven hand thing) then it does limit it to 6 * 9th level spells.

I'd definitely consider adding these to a campaign (in fact my stealing fingers are getting itchy!) but I'd bump them into the minor artefact category and agree with the player in advance what spells they were getting/wanted. IMO, it'd be one of those powers my crunchy players could make break without careful monitoring.

 

[Thanee]

Personally, I like the high level requirement for the Rings - but think that the simple Rings, like Invisibility or Sustenance cheapen the whole category. I like Rings of Elemental Command. Rings that make the wielder veritably rumble with power.

The problem is, once you start with custom items, you can duplicate almost any other item creation feat with CWI.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Eccles]

In a 'free purchase' environment I could see this causing some problems, especially with unslotted items and/or combined epic cash levels. Could be a bit awkward. If it's 'just rings' - the limit is 2 (or 3, with that silly elven hand thing) then it does limit it to 6 * 9th level spells.

I'd definitely consider adding these to a campaign (in fact my stealing fingers are getting itchy!) but I'd bump them into the minor artefact category and agree with the player in advance what spells they were getting/wanted.

Steal away...

And it was to avoid the level 20 sorceror with a huge number of high level spells scenario that I was considering limiting the rings to 4th level spells.

9 level spells would certainly qualify as an artifact, I'd agree. Although knowing me, I'd probably trade off 'artifact' for "hugely important cultural item that evil group X would kill you for"...

 

[Marshall]

No spells over level 5 ( those are likewise hard to get/research for wizards ). Created with "create wondrous item" (headslot) or "create staff and wand" (staff). Staves created in such a way do not have charges of their own, cannot be charged and are entirely powered by the sorcerer's magical energy

So they're Rods

But seriously, what you have here is a specific item that functions exactly as a one-spell, uses/day staff(as PS so brilliantly pointed out). Or to be even more specific, a staff where the user has the Master Staff feat from the ELH. Some may claim that that is justification enough to make the item Epic, I would point out that Master Dorje(SP?) from the Psionics book which is essentially the same feat is NOT epic...

All in all, I'd price it as a staff spell and put on the limitation that its "Ring Only"
Tho, I'd treat it more as a spell-storing item, where its made to hold an X-level spell and you can replace it by casting a new x-level spell into it.

 

[Krafen]

Well I think the idea is that a sorcerer would not create one for himself since it requires the spell that is in it for the creation. So why would a sorcerer PC create an item that already gives himself a spell that he already knows.

A sorcerer can create an item that requires a spell she does not know, as long as the spell is on her spell list, if she uses scrolls or charges from a wand of the spell to fulfill the "one slot per day" requirement.