Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Whizbang Dustyboots" data-source="post: 6620497" data-attributes="member: 11760">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 <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?355879-I-m-going-to-DM-my-70-year-old-dad-s-first-D-amp-D-game/page2" target="_blank">my previous thread</a>.)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?</blockquote>

Verification