Ring of Sustenance and Growing Up

[Presto2112]

I agree with the masses that the ring should sustain the infant and allow it to grow specifically from a pure nutrient point of view. But this magical crutch will be a big problem at some point; the child will not learn to eat. If no one teaches you how to do something, how is someone that's not even been alive but a couple months supposed to figure it out? They can't. And if the ring is ever stolen later in life, the baby may starve to death because it doesn't know how to eat.

As others before have said, very interesting character idea.

There is also a lot more to raising a child than just keeping it fed.

Almost all of which could be provided for by a Wizard with Create Wondrous Item and a casual reading of a parenting manual.

To name a few, there's bathing/keeping the baby clean,

Decanter of Endless Lukewarm Water, and a Diaper of Holding.

mental development,

Just let him wander around the wizard's tower (DON'T TOUCH ANYTHING!)

irregular sleep schedules,

The Ring of Sustenance partially covers this.

allergies to everything, continual sicknesses (colds, fevers, etc.),

Periapt of Health.

and a constant demand for attention.

Homonculus nanny.

It just depends on how into these aspects of raising an infant you want to get into.

Again, a child raised by such a wizard / sorcerer / whatever would be SERIOUSLY screwed up in the head, but it IS possible.

 

[Lasher Dragon]

One thing I find funny is that everyone has talked about changing the diaper or what to do with waste - as far as I am concerned, if the baby isn't eating/drinking, then it isn't producing waste.

 

[KarinsDad]

Hmm, I'm going to have to disagree with the people who are saying bringing a baby along is a really bad idea. In the real world maybe, but not in the D&D world.

In D&D I think a baby is almost small enough to count as an object.

Well of COURSE if you are going to create house rules like infants are objects as opposed to creatures, then you can easily take the baby along.

No need for a special container, just sling him on your backpack. He won't take damage that way.

What were the rest of us thinking? Roleplaying for real as opposed to metagaming roleplaying house rules.

 

[sullivan]

One thing I find funny is that everyone has talked about changing the diaper or what to do with waste - as far as I am concerned, if the baby isn't eating/drinking, then it isn't producing waste.

I left that out because of the DM ruling that the Ring of Sustenance wasn't such a good idea. Though you have a good point there.

P.S. Infants on breast milk very rarely have bowl movements. As infrequent as once every 10 days. So with a wet nurse or gender-bent "dad" if you are willing to mop up or Presdigitation the excess moisture periodically from the BoH or whatever diapers aren't even a nessesity. If you put then on a gruel diet though get ready for the stinkies.

 

[Tiew]

Hmm, ok, not count as an object then. Let's say small enough to be kept easily in a magical container. The rest of my argument still holds reasonably well I think.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Kill the baby now and have him True Ressurected when you retire to raise him properly.

I can just see the first night ambush now...
"What was that sound? Did someone say something?"
"Quick get the baby in the Bag of Holding!"
"Oh my gods Jimmy, it's a wizard coming!"
"Maybe he won't use an area of effect spell!"

Also, don't forget that a bag only contains 10 minutes of air. Even if you rule a baby uses less air, that ain't long. So you're traversing dungeons with a baby out hoping that no traps wlil hit him. And then at every combat, best win initiative so that you can stuff the baby in. And, that's easy. Try stuffing him in at around 4 months when he's actively not wanting to go in there and crying up a storm because he wants to be fed now.

For an intrigue campaign it might work, but for a typical gung ho adventuring party, I just can't see an infant surviving for very long.

I suppose I'm not really one to talk. A PC of mine tried to teach a young boy to become a fighter. [Note: said boy was found in some ancient ruins with no memory of his past.] We brought him with us to an old castle to find out it was overrun with undead and barely made it out without the boy dying. We then let him stay in the city under the care of some people we knew there while we adventured.

[Personally, I rule that the Glove of Storing cannot hold creatures - that they arn't items - but it doesn't explicitly say that, so its up to the DM to decide.]

 

[Victim]

Kill the baby now and have him True Ressurected when you retire to raise him properly.
]

Brilliant.

 

[Eldragon]

I guess I'm one of the rare few who agree with the DM on this one. The ring provide sustinence, not enough for a growing child. My thought have been summed up by others preceding me, I will instead dwell on another issue:

An adult is constantly burning the food energy that the ring provides, a growing child is converting that food into body mass. If someone where to subsist entirely off of a ring of Sustenence or eating food created from Create food and Water, their entire body would consist of mass create magically. Since Create Food and Water does not have an instantaneous duration, the food and water can be dispelled. Sure would be a shame if someone who spent their entire life eating magically created food and water were hit by a dispel magic...

Of course, I am taking the issue a bit to the extreme, far more than the ruleset was designed, but it could lead to some funny situations.

 

[the_bruiser]

Let me make the appropriate disclaimers: IANAD (dietician), YMMV, and i'm sorry i'm sorry i'm sorry i'm sorry i'm sorry i'm sorry i'm sorry i'm sorry i'm sorry i'm sorry I'm really not intending to start a flame war . Obviously a decent number of the community finds this discussion to be reasonable, so maybe I'm on crack.

So let me just say that I'm 100% sure that nobody in my campaigns would ever rule this way. Sustenance isn't really a game-defined term, as many of you have pointed out, so this is one of those (dangerous!) situations where we're forced to consider intent.

My interpretation of what the ring means: "Hey, when wearing this, pretend like you get all the food you want." I'll admit that that is a judgment on my part, but on a personal confidence level of how likely I feel my interpretation to be 'right', I'd put this up there around 95%. I.e., I view many of you to be unreasonable in this. I'm only slightly less confident that my view of this is 'right' than I am that I understand what the fly spell means by 'up', even though 'up' isn't a defined game term.

Again, err, sorry. I'm trying to find a balance between my shock at this discussion and trying to be respectful, so err, sorry .

 

[Storyteller01]

Ummmm... is it me, or is there way too much discussion along the 'create mass magic items and live the kid to his own devices' line of thought? And I thought the 'TV babysitter' was bad...!!!

As for bringing the baby along, anyone read Lone Wolf and Cub. Cub may be somewhat sociopathic (all the enemies comment on his peaceful eyes when he sees combat and death), but hay...