Should rings be able to function for low level characters?

[LostSoul]

We haven't been given a reason -- at least not one which makes any sense. If a 10th level PC can handle the 'power' of an 11th level cloak, why not an 11th level ring? Or are you arguing that some 11th level items are more 11lth level than others, which makes the entire level system pointless?

No, I'm just saying that is how rings work in the default D&D setting skeleton. Maybe there will be some fluff explaining why rings work that way, but if not, I'm sure you can come up with some cool justification - maybe even a cool reason that is its own adventure hook.

Like, I don't know, maybe rings are powered by the souls of all the creatures you've killed. And cloaks are just magical in thier own right.

Adventure hook: A 5th level Warlock who has found a powerful ring is developing a ritual to "activate" the power in the ring, and that ritual involves killing lots of innocent villagers.

(I'm assuming that rituals "break" standard rules. As in, you can only use Second Wind once a day, but a ritual will allow you to use it one more time provided you offer your blood to the blood god.)

 

[Drkfathr1]

So it makes no sense that a 10th level PC can wear that 11th level cloak, but not the 11th level ring. The only way it DOES make sense is if rings are more powerful than their level indicates, so you would ALWAYS want a ring, rather than any other item of the same level.

That is troublesome. And part of the problem so far is that we don't have any more info than we do. At this point I'm willing to give the designers the benefit of the doubt as to how this works....because if not, and there isn't any better explanation worked into the overall magic item system, they will face continued negative backlash from now until eternity!

We'll just have to wait and see! I for one, will remain calm and hopeful in the mean time.

 

[hopeless]

Rings and then what?

You're still assuming that rings will do the same things they do now.

If you need a ring that anyone can use, at any level, it was pointed out in the article, that it would be an artifact.

I guess I'm really curious what effects you're afraid you're going to lose from Rings that won't be available until 11th level? That won't in fact, become the province of some other item? (such as a cloak or necklace)

If it's just the fact that "rings" of any sort just won't function at all unless you're 11th level then I can understand some of the dismay, especially from a story-telling perspective, but it would still be fairly easy to not introduce any "Rings" until that point in a campaign, or have a good story element that explains why the ring finally/suddenly activated.

The problem is that it shouldn't matter, you could just explain it off by saying an artificer has temporarily imbued it with a specific spell and you'll have to pay them to get it renewed for example, why are they altering the system when it isn't necessary?

If all magical items are artefacts then where's the point of adventuring?

Their setting is based on the idea of being points of light in the darkness but no where does it mean making it entirely incompatible to what came before thats why I said its a completely new roleplaying game and not d&d something like this needs more thought put into it and by that I mean getting a grasp on what your customers think and all that I've heard so far makes me think they're basing this on a very limited section to avoid the negative reaction this would receive.

Sorry I'll try and make that clearer, they're throwing all of the books they have on file and are throwing everything behind a new game that either ignores or disregards what they have released before making anything that relates to the previous editions either out of print or worthless except to those running the earlier edition games.

It would have made more sense to keep that compatibility enough to allow a transition.

I suspect I'm looking too much into this, but I'm worried I'm right and that scares me because this is a road I won't be following and whilst that isn't even a drop in their expected windfall, please remember this because this is one time I really hope I'm wrong because I rather not see d&d disappear as all the other now long forgotten games that have come before it.

I was even prepared to buy the r&c and m&w books because I wanted to believe, this shakes my confidence because it sounds like the first step to something far worse...

Pray that I'm wrong thats all.

Take care and all the best!

 

[Felon]

It's been announced that in 4e, magic items that are circular in form and can fit around a person's finger will be unable to function at all - not even weakly - unless that person is at least 11th level. Even the most powerful of item crafters is unable to bypass this restriction.

Is this how it should be?

What an utterly irresponsible person you are.

I think moderators should make a point of closing down skewed polls like this.

Yes, I agree with the decision to have rings act as high-level carrots. No, that doesn't mean I like arbitrary things, because it's not an arbitrary decision.

 

[BryonD]

I think the key importance here is the difference between "accept" and "agree."

I've found people I play with to be very accepting, because they're my friends.

Just as I would be accepting of one of their rationalizations, even if I don't agree with it.

So for you and Drkfthr1 the answer seems to be we all get along fine, as long as we agree with me.

You answers imply a two way street, but it clearly isn't.

Unless of course you mean that the group will elect to play some other non-4e game for the sake of mutual acceptiveness.

 

[ThirdWizard]

So for you and Drkfthr1 the answer seems to be we all get along fine, as long as we agree with me.

That is actually the exact opposite of what I said.

 

[BryonD]

That is actually the exact opposite of what I said.

Yeah, but what you said ignored the reality of the 4e rules. I didn't.

Prove me wrong.

You are DM and 2 players say that the 4E ring rule completely blows their suspension of disbelief and they would really prefer something else. You agree with them and demonstrate your willingness to go along with your friends by.... ????

 

[ThirdWizard]

Yeah, but what you said ignored the reality of the 4e rules. I didn't.

Prove me wrong.

You are DM and 2 players say that the 4E ring rule completely blows their suspension of disbelief and they would really prefer something else. You agree with them and demonstrate your willingness to go along with your friends by.... ????

Well, just to be clear, I am a firm believer that there's a huge difference between what ruins one's suspension of disbelief in theory on a message board and what does so in an actual game. I have no doubt that most people wouldn't really think twice about such a rule in an actual game.

Having said that, we run pretty much by whatever the majority wants. If the majority hate the ring rules, out they go, and if the majority like the ring rules, in they stay. I predict that our games will run as such: heroic and paragon with 1 ring and epic with 2. This is less about suspension of disbelief, however, and more about us just really liking magic items. (The 2 at epic probably staying due to power issues with mixing and matching rings.)

EDIT: I think everyone at the table has accepted, at least once, something into the game that they would not have gone with themselves. Different RAW interpretation has been the biggest one in 3e. However, we decide what to go with, and we go with it. You're going to get that in any game, though. Heaven knows 2e was full of them. But, it doesn't make the game less enjoyable, even though you'd think it would from reading some threads around here. I've found that people have quite an ability to have fun.

 

[Felon]

No, I'm not.

One of the key tenets of the new magic item system is that all items of level 'x' are equivalent in power. If one PC gets an 11th level ring, and one gets an 11th level cloak, neither is getting a bigger edge than the other. DIFFERENT, certainly, but not BIGGER.

So it makes no sense that a 10th level PC can wear that 11th level cloak, but not the 11th level ring. The only way it DOES make sense is if rings are more powerful than their level indicates, so you would ALWAYS want a ring, rather than any other item of the same level.

It makes sense just fine if it turns out that rings effectively only provide extra magic item slots to characters as they progress. You propose another way of doing it, but this works fine.

It makes sense just fine if it turns out that rings provide a benefit that you can't get from another item, such as being the only way of getting an at-will spell-like ability (like invisibility or feather fall).

And it makes sense just fine if it turns out that a ring has an edge over other magic items. Yes, there is a tenet in 4e that all items of a given level are roughly equivalent in power. But tenets can have exceptions, and in fact most do.

 

[king_ghidorah]

No, I'm not.

One of the key tenets of the new magic item system is that all items of level 'x' are equivalent in power. If one PC gets an 11th level ring, and one gets an 11th level cloak, neither is getting a bigger edge than the other. DIFFERENT, certainly, but not BIGGER.

So it makes no sense that a 10th level PC can wear that 11th level cloak, but not the 11th level ring. The only way it DOES make sense is if rings are more powerful than their level indicates, so you would ALWAYS want a ring, rather than any other item of the same level.

It doesn't matter what rings do, or if there are no low-level rings, or whether there were low level rings in prior editions or not. It has everything to do with making the 4e model of balancing magic make any kind of sense.

Hell, if the issue is "We don't want every slot available at every level", the limit the *total number* of items by level, not the *slots*. So you might have one "miscellaneous" slot at level 1, which can be a ring OR a cloak OR boots OR gloves -- but only one. Want to put on that ring? Take off those boots.

There are just so many better ways to accomplish the design goal that I am seriously stymied as to why they chose this one, and what it implies for the development process in general.

Actually, you may be assuming things work the way magic items currently do. For all we know, rings are tied to paragon path powers and abilities, for instance, and thus the issue is not that they don't work for level 10 characters, but that the can't.

Not that that's what's happening with rings, but that was an early thought about why they would be limited....