Should rings be able to function for low level characters?

[RigaMortus2]

Which just makes things worse...I can see a sentient, self-aware item refusing to grant its powers to some nobody...but a simple ring of protection +1?

Oh, do you have the 4E DMG in front of you now? I didn't realize they had +1 rings in there. Glad you confirmed this for us.

 

[vagabundo]

Here here! WotC's Weapons of Legacy and Malhavoc's intelligent magic item level before it and Bastion Press' other intelligent magic item level rules before THAT are a great idea. I do hope they work that into 4e somehow, especially for implements/weapons. It is far more interesting to me for a signature item to grow in power with the character, rather than ditching each one every time you find something with a higher bonus.

"I know Sting has been a trusty blade, but, hey, this other one is a +3! Guess I'm selling Sting at the next town."

I agree with this 100%. I want my magic items to be magical and special. At the moment my PCs sell them by weight. They could not care less.

Some WOL rules included by default would be a big plus to me.

 

[Toryx]

I like the idea of limiting magic item use to power levels of character. Limiting only one type of magic item (aka rings) to cl power level? That strikes me as rather arbitrary and a little silly. I understand and rather like the concept that rings are more powerful than other types of magic items, but I think if they were going that route with one item type, they should have done it across the board.

Personally, I always thought the limitation of only one ring per hand was pretty lame. But I love the idea of a magic item being too powerful and even dangerous for someone of lesser ability to wield, and I'd certainly use that sort of home rule in any campaign I run.

 

[RigaMortus2]

This is a horrible idea.
Where is the suspension of disbelieve when rings only operate when you reach a specific level? Thats nonsense.

And what do you say about the current restriction in 3E with wearing more than 2 magic rings at once?

 

[TwoSix]

Yes but here we are not talking about specific magic items, but about an item location. If the item goes around a neck, anyone can use it even if it's uber-powerful; but if around a finger, only 11+ level people can use it even if all it does is change color 1/day.

Yes, but we're also taking about item slots being used as a shorthand for "siloization of abilities." It doesn't have to be a ring. It could be gloves, or a headband, or magic socks. "Ring", in this case, just means "collection of powerful abilities that shouldn't be available to low-level characters."

Now, one could argue that these siloed abilities should be the guideline for how items are divided, as I believe Monte Cook has. Characters could be restricted to one movement enhancement item, one attack boosting item, and so on. But that's certainly just as metagamey as the ring restriction. It's also harder to track, to boot. It's easier to conceptualize that a character can only wear one pair of gloves at a time, than "Sorry, you can have gloves of climbing, or boots of climbing, but they both won't work at the same time." And while the concept of siloing the abilities also seems metagamey, you have to admit it's better than "I have gloves of extra damage, boots of extra damage, an amulet of extra damage, a sword of extra damage, ...".

 

[RigaMortus2]

This is not an acceptable answer to the question of, "Why make this pointless and restrictive change?"

That is easy to answer... For game balance reasons. I am sure there are multiple ways to handle game balance with regard to whatever they are doing with magic rings, but this seems to be the idea they settled on.

So now that you have your answer to "Why make this pointless and restrictive change?", what is your other problem with it? Just that you prefer another method or no method at all? Remember, as of right now, we have no idea what they are doing for magic rings, so if WotC feels they are going to be powerful enough to warrant a level restriction (just like spells have level restrictions, and feats, and prestige classes/paths/talents/feats/just about every other aspect of character advancement), why knock them for it when you don't have all the complete info about the subject?

 

[Lizard]

What makes you believe that none of these more elegant solutions are implemented?

Uhm, because the marketing boys who approve every scrap of pre-release 4e information would have to be idiots to let something out which implied the ring rules were about as sophisticated as something a 14 year old could cook up in their basement in 1979?

But in the meantime, why assume that things will suck when its just as likely that they might be cool?

Nearly 43 years of living on this planet.

Contrary to what you sometimes here around these parts, optimism and pessimism are not equal but opposite points of view between which one can select only arbitrarily. There are differences. Optimism doesn't rot your heart, for example.

No, just your brain.

Like Ben Franklin said: Always expect the worst. That way, if it happens, you are prepared, and if it doesn't, you are pleasantly surprised.

 

[Lizard]

Wouldn't it be easier to just assume that such items (low level rings, in this case) never existed in the first place?

Why limit possibilities by deciding rings must be high level items?

According to R&C, the focus of 4e was supposed to be "Options, not restriction" -- but now we get "ALL rings are UBER magic items which can ONLY be used by 11th level characters." I don't see a lot of options there.

I see the design goal -- it's like having helms only be 20th level in WoW, or not being able to get a mount until you're 40th level. It's a way of adding a special reward for reaching a new tier. "Now you can use rings!"

The problem is, in D&D, you don't need that crap -- you get enough reward from leveling up. You get Cool New Spells, not just a higher level version of the same spells you've had since Day One. You also get expanded power in the game world, something which can never happen in an MMORPG. So the attempt to make reaching certain levels 'special' by expanding the range of magic items is just plain silly and seems like a pure sop to the MMORPG crowd. Unless someone wants to tell me why a Ring of Warmth or a Ring of Animal Friendship were game-wrecking munchkin tools...

 

[BASHMAN]

Wouldn't it have been easier to make rings have a different function with each Tier? Maybe Heroic characters can only utuilize a ring's minor ability, but a Paragon can use major abilities, and the EPic characters can use eldrich abilities...

Example-- Ring of Fire Protection
Heroic-- Whenever saving vs. a fire effect roll 2d20 and use the better result
Paragon-- 1/Encounter-- an immediate action to take half damage from a fire effect
Epic-- Resist 5 Fire. 1/Encounter-- take no damage from a Fire effect

Note the lack of + in items-- those only contribute to an arms race known as the Christmas tree effect.

 

[Lizard]

Not being able to use a magic ring before 11th level makes more sense than being unable to take Greater Weapon Specialization (a non-magical ability) until Fighter 12th level (even if you meet all the other prerequisites).

And again, quoting one bad rule to justify another bad rule just doesn't work.

(WS and GWS should have been fighter class powers, not feats. A class-only feat breaks the 3e design model, which is (properly) mostly ability based. But that's another thread.)