Should rings be able to function for low level characters?

[Silent Cartographer]

OMG, nerf my uber twinkage!!!

 

[Mistwell]

This poll wins my personal "Most biased poll wording of the month" award!

If you are looking for an objective measure or people's opinions, running a push poll where you call one thing "arbitrary", and another position "I don't want to think", isn't the best way to achieve that goal.

 

[Imban]

Only when viewed through rose-colored glassed, I'd say.

"You can only use two magic rings, despite having 10 fingers, because the auras conflict" is not blatantly arbitrary, but using the "one cannot use the rings unless they already have some considerable amount of power" explanation is blatantly arbitrary? I think not.

If the latter if arbitrary, then the former is equally arbitrary.

They're both arbitrary, but the older one is consistently applied over all items. You can no more wear ten rings than gauntlets over silk gloves, a helmet over a skullcap, four amulets, two cloaks, two shirts, or goodness knows what other nonsense. I'm technically reserving my opinion for the final results but honestly, this is exactly one of those changes I was talking about that's very difficult for homebrewers to deal with, because it very strongly limits the design space for magic items, where in previous editions, D&D's design space for magic items allowed for pretty much any conceivable magic item - heck, there was room for pretty much any magic item from all the fantasy novels I've seen, as long as you could figure out what its powers were in the source material. This likely holds true for most of D&D's other inspirational sources.

And while we haven't seen the artifact rules yet, relegating every single item concept that doesn't fit the new and narrow guidelines to artifact status means they either won't see play or they will and game balance will be up a creek because everyone is equipped with crazy stuff for which the rules are "anarchy woooooooooo!"

 

[Wormwood]

Congratulations on the worst wording of any 4e poll to date.

 

[kinem]

This poll wins my personal "Most biased poll wording of the month" award!

If you are looking for an objective measure or people's opinions, running a push poll where you call one thing "arbitrary", and another position "I don't want to think", isn't the best way to achieve that goal.

I was just trying to add a little humor. I highly doubt that the wording actually influenced any votes. People understand the idea of the poll. Note that the anti-restriction position (which is obviously the one I support) is a bit exaggerated too; only sentient rings would actually 'do as they please'.

 

[Lackhand]

Convinced me not to vote.

I'll probably allow wearing rings 1 tier earlier...
... with terrible, dreadful costs.

It will also not come up, since I imagine that the expected wealth and monsters-who-might-reasonably-have-it-on-hand (heh), as well as mysterious benefactors and other such treasure carriers... won't have rings 'till I'm good & ready for the party to have 'em.

 

[booboo]

I was just trying to add a little humor. I highly doubt that the wording actually influenced any votes. People understand the idea of the poll. Note that the anti-restriction position (which is obviously the one I support) is a bit exaggerated too; only sentient rings would actually 'do as they please'.

try in the future to be funny in your post not poll descriptions ok

 

[The Little Raven]

I was just trying to add a little humor. I highly doubt that the wording actually influenced any votes. People understand the idea of the poll. Note that the anti-restriction position (which is obviously the one I support) is a bit exaggerated too; only sentient rings would actually 'do as they please'.

Except the poll frames the restriction as stupid, and people who support the idea of the restriction as wanting arbitrary things. Hence the "Should WotC stop beating their wives?" reference comes up, since it's, quite honestly, a bad poll.

As for influencing votes... I'm not voting on this poll, specifically because it's a bad one.

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

ah one more new thing that goes aginst all other editions .yay u just have to love warcraft inspired magic item limits whats next ,can i even use a twohanded swored before im 10th level. better not give em any ideals.

 

[WyzardWhately]

It's silly on the face of it. If there's some great reason for it (A real reason, not a rationalization), then I might be convinced. Incidentally, the argument that the one-ring-to-a-hand rule is just as arbitrary doesn't hold water. If your position is that that rule is silly, then why do old silly rules justify new ones?