Ring of Wizardry too expensive?

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

My father and brother are likely going to be playing a two-person game in June. (Yes, the same 70-year-old father as in my previous thread.)

Since we're going to be running a two-person adventure, I'm looking for ways to help them out a bit without unbalancing things unduly. Both will likely be playing multi-class characters, for instance.

And, since there's a decent chance that my brother will be playing a spellcaster of some sort, I was looking at the Ring of Wizardry, thinking the level 1 version would help out a bit (we're likely playing Castles & Crusades here, but the issue is applicable to all eras of *D&D other than maybe 4E, which may not even have had the ring). Doubling the number of first level spells available helps out a fair bit until level 4 or 5, and then the utility of it quickly drops off a cliff. (Who really cares how many level 1 spells a level 10 wizard has? They'll never use them all up in a given day, even without the ring.)

And then I saw that the first level version of the ring is priced at a whopping 20k in 3E/D20/C&C, meaning it's balanced as being comparable to a carpet of flying, rod of the viper or a +3 weapon. Am I missing something here? Why's a low level ring of wizardry allegedly so awesome?

 

[Celebrim]

My father and brother are likely going to be playing a two-person game in June. (Yes, the same 70-year-old father as in my previous thread.)

Since we're going to be running a two-person adventure, I'm looking for ways to help them out a bit without unbalancing things unduly. Both will likely be playing multi-class characters, for instance.

And, since there's a decent chance that my brother will be playing a spellcaster of some sort, I was looking at the Ring of Wizardry, thinking the level 1 version would help out a bit (we're likely playing Castles & Crusades here, but the issue is applicable to all eras of *D&D other than maybe 4E, which may not even have had the ring). Doubling the number of first level spells available helps out a fair bit until level 4 or 5, and then the utility of it quickly drops off a cliff. (Who really cares how many level 1 spells a level 10 wizard has? They'll never use them all up in a given day, even without the ring.)

And then I saw that the first level version of the ring is priced at a whopping 20k in 3E/D20/C&C, meaning it's balanced as being comparable to a carpet of flying, rod of the viper or a +3 weapon. Am I missing something here? Why's a low level ring of wizardry allegedly so awesome?

Because they are so desirable. One of the biggest limitations on D&D style spellcaster is lack of spell-slots. More spell-slots adds considerable value and utility to a spell-caster. You can prepare and cast Sleep that many more times per day. At high level, you can fill up your utility slots and still have room for extra combat ability.

That being said, do it.

The nicest thing about a Ring of Wizardry is it is a well scaling magic item. It won't give you access to abilities you wouldn't otherwise have. It will increase in power as you grow in power, but it won't ever be overpowered. And old school games played in an old school style are very resilient to making the curve in gear acquisition bumpy. The biggest danger in giving expensive items to a party in most games is that the wealth you are handing out will be fungible. In other words, you certainly can't hand a first level party a 20k item if there is a Wally World Magic Mart they can go to and exchange that item for 20k worth of Christmas tree items. If (almost) the only magic items you are going to acquire are the ones you find, expensive items aren't necessarily unbalancing. So you as a DM are free to give away quirky high value items ahead of the normal gear schedule, knowing that you can slow down gear acquisition to balance against that and that the only impact of the item is probably going to be things you can directly plan for. So long as you know the value and utility of what you are giving away, and so long as you are ok with that, you can allow PCs to acquire character defining awesome items as early as you like. Most things in the DMG are actually safe at low level play, even if they are desirable high level gear.

Things you shouldn't be giving away early include:
Gauntlets of Ogre Power
Girdles of Giant Strength
Any high end wand (wand of fire, for example) particularly with double digit charges remaining
Hammer of Thunderbolts
Vorpal/Sharpness sword
Holy Avenger
Ring of Invisibility
Any no-drawback flight item
High end bracers (AC 2 or better).
Anything that would easily boost a stat to 19 or higher.
Desirable weapons with +4 bonuses or higher. You could possibly get away with a +4 dagger or horseman's flail, but a +4 two-handed sword or longbow or similar best in class weapon should wait until 12th level or higher.
Robe of the Archmagi
Intelligent swords with special purpose

Other than that you are good. In fact, some things that are high desirable turn out to be surprising ok early on. A ring of wishes with 1 wish won't break your game and in fact might help it. A ring of wizardry for 1st level spells is probably fine. A Manual of Gainful Exercise can help mitigate against poor stats. Even certain artifacts could probably fall into the hands of your equivalent of 1st level hobbit and add to your game rather than detract from it.