Should rings be able to function for low level characters?

[Reynard]

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.

Game balance in an illusionary bugagboo. After all, what are we trying to balnce? One PC against another? Why? Are they going to fight? If the issue is whether the players are going to have equal fun, wouldn't "player balance" be a more appropriate design goal? Are we trying to balance the PCs versus the foes? Doesn't work. Doesn't even exist, in fact. The DM has -- or had, prior to 4E it seems -- all the tools necessary to make a cakewalk or a meatgrinder or anything between the two. 1st level PCs can be given an artifact, and the game can still be fun and not be "broken"; 20th level PCs can have one sword +1 between them, and the same can be true.

Balance really means "boundaries" -- the idea is to play the game within these restrictions so that neither the players nor the Dm need to work or think too hard. If our party is 4th level and there's four badguys after us, then those must be 4th level enemies so the outcome, sans the (continually reduced) element of uncertainty provided by the dice, is easily predicted.

I think 4E is trying to be a lot more of a "game" than any edition of D&D has yet been, and this is not a good thing. Games -- endeavors of entertainment with "balanced" rules and clear goals and endgame conditions -- are not a great model for the fluid, free, uncertain and malleable beast that is an RPG.

 

[AFGNCAAP]

I don't quite like this rule. Though I can understand this ruling because rings in 4E may be potent & powerful things, the access PCs have to magic items of this power is dependant on the DM.

This seems like a rule that will, IMO, only bring ridicule and possibly be house-ruled out really, really quick by quite a few players. Perhaps even to the point where the rule is dropped in one of the future DMGs or the like (or, if you will, is one of the "improvements" made in 4.5).

And (apologies ahead of time if this has already been shared), this sort of idea/rule/mechanic for games has become humor-fodder already. I'm sure I'm not the 1st one to think "Wow, Bilbo, Frodo, Sam, and Gollum must've been at least 11th level..." after reading that info.

If rings are intended to be that powerful, then it's simply a matter of the DM only making them available when appropriate (and providing guidelines accordingly).

Then again, I wonder if rings in 4E are intended to be the catch-all category for magic items. That they could pretty much have almost any sort of power (whereas other magic items abide by "themes" to what powers they offer), and often have some of the most potent ones (like wishes, or the all-stacking deflection bonus, etc.). Still, it's not much to just say "this stuff is best suited for Paragon characters or higher to possess" rather than saying that "You must be at least this level to ride this ride use this item."

I think this rule will simply go out the window IMC. As it is, I still want to use my pseudo-Mandarin villain with a magic ring per digit.

 

[Lord Fyre]

Why? These rules are written on paper, not in stone...

Yes, the one ring per hand restriction was "arbitrary," so I would be find with removing that restriction. But rather, WoTC seems intent on including such random restrictions into the CORE rules.

 

[Lord Fyre]

And (apologies ahead of time if this has already been shared), this sort of idea/rule/mechanic for games has become humor-fodder already. I'm sure I'm not the 1st one to think "Wow, Bilbo, Frodo, Sam, and Gollum must've been at least 11th level..." after reading that info.

Of course, the other side would correctly point out, the One Ring was actually a sentient (and extremely Evil) artifact, so it could overrule any normal game restriction.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Of course, the other side would correctly point out, the One Ring was actually a sentient artifact, so it could overrule any normal game restriction.

Yes, but they'd already be looking like an idiot for even arguing the point, tbh.

 

[Tewligan]

And (apologies ahead of time if this has already been shared), this sort of idea/rule/mechanic for games has become humor-fodder already. I'm sure I'm not the 1st one to think "Wow, Bilbo, Frodo, Sam, and Gollum must've been at least 11th level..." after reading that info.

Oh, god - you just tricked me into reading a furry AND manga-style AND gaming humor webcomic! Damn, you AFGNCAAP - I'll never get laid again!

 

[LostSoul]

Game balance in an illusionary bugagboo. After all, what are we trying to balnce?

We are trying to balance player choices.

If one choice is always the best choice to make, it's unbalanced/broken.

If you can't make a choice that matters because it all depends on what someone else is going to do, it's unbalanced/broken.

Let's say Magic Missile affects all targets in line of sight and does 10d6 damage to each one. If I'm playing a Fighter, the only decent choice to make is to try to keep the Wizard alive until he can cast that spell. That spell unbalances the game because I, playing the Fighter, have no meaningful choices to make.

 

[Lanefan]

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

Now there's some good thinking. And this would allow the level-breaks where the item abilities improve to be set at something other than 11 and 21, if you so desire. You could go further and have it based on class as well...replace "Paragon" above with "Wiz-6/Rog-8/any-10", for example.

Still unsure about the overall idea of level-based magic items, but epochrpg's suggestion is a huge improvement on the design as presented.

Lanefan

 

[robertliguori]

There are many universes that do involve epic, obscenely powerful mostly-self-willed magical rings. There are also many settings in which there are entire arrays of magical items, from hats to boots to goggles, of which rings are simply another type of magic item. Stories that include few, epic, and powerful items are likely to have special magic item rings.

However, as was clearly shown by the example character, D&D 4.0 is not this kind of universe. In 4.0, you can be slathered in magic items; extrapolating from the granted bonuses and the character level, it is clear that moderately-leveled adventurers will have magic items plural. There is not the One Ring in universes like these; at best there is Sauron's One Ring, Aule's hammer, Orome's spear, the Song of Eru, and so forth.

To me, the simplest solution is a limited number of misc. item slots. You want to wear a cape, or goggles, or boots, or a ring or other magic jewelry item? Great! You want to wear all of them? Not so great.

Heck, go whole hog; if you want to include special magic items that don't follow the normal rules for magic items, include a 'special magic item' slot. You can have an uber-ring, or an uber-sword, or an uber-suit-of-armor, and this takes up your designated special slot (or one of your two designated slots at epic levels). There is no need to tie 'special magical item' to 'ring' in a universe that includes low-level gimmicky magic items, and even less to do so in the rules themselves.

The software engineer in me is gnashing my teeth at lots of things I've been seeing in the 4.0 previews. A default setting in which rings and only rings are special magic items is fine and dandy, but there is no reason to encode this design decision in the rules themselves; you can simply make every existing special magic item a ring.

I also like the idea of variable-effect magic items, but I'd go whole-hog and make them percentage-based (possibly via trickiness with dice) rather than strictly tiered. Say, an undead-slaying sword lets you reroll your attack, damage roll, or a saving throw versus undead creatures twice an encounter. A wielder of this weapon would be noticeably better versus undead of any power level, but it would be their own effectiveness (as opposed to the weapon) that would be being leveraged.

 

[Reynard]

Still unsure about the overall idea of level-based magic items, but epochrpg's suggestion is a huge improvement on the design as presented.

I thin k the best answer is to not have things work one way, or not have workings that are tied to one thing. you don't need to differentiate between Rings and Swords. You need to differentiate between Tiered Items, Legacy Items, Static Items and Wonky Items -- and you need to have them all. The mnore versatile the toolset, the more potential playsteyles it appeals to and therefore the more potential customers it creates. There's really no benefit or justification for these kinds of inherent limitations.

"Options not restrictions" is, in fact, the most beneficial mantra for designing a new edition of D&D. What I don't understand, though, is how it can have become so hollow.