Should rings be able to function for low level characters?

[Reynard]

Except the poll frames the restriction as stupid,

To be fair, the restriction -- that is, the class of items called rings being limited by level -- is stupid and arbitrary and another example of "fixing" a problem that never existed in the first place.

The idea of prerequisites -- be it level, ability scores, skills or whatever -- for using magic items is a reasonable one (though I'd personally go for meeting the prereqs as being a way to bypass the HORRIBLE SIDE EFFECTS of the item,m but that's just me) and even has a game related function. But the rule as presented is lazy design.

 

[Raith5]

"There are many magic rings in this world, and none of them are to be worn lightly."

I vote for rings as items for high-level characters. Basically, all rings are like legacy items that trigger at 11th-level. And then that's all the magic you can handle there until you're epic, at which point you can manage two of them.

That works fine for me. I like the notion of one type of item being restricted to high-level characters. And rings fit the bill.

But what they are suggesting is anti legacy in effect. Legacy items grow gradually in power. Under the proposed rules a magic ring has no function until 11th level. The idea that a magic ring grows (or matches) the power of its wielder makes far more sense than this proposal.

I like nearly all of the 4th Ed rule proposals so far, but this rule proposal is weird and arbitrary. Why do they not restrict magical swords till 11th level?

I have no fear of the 'christmas tree' effect, but I was hoping that all magic items would be more special, ie would have either a special effect (or effects) or feed of the power of the user (legacy like effect).

Just saying rings don't work till 11th level is a incredibly unimaginative way of making magic items rare.

 

[JohnSnow]

To be fair, the restriction -- that is, the class of items called rings being limited by level -- is stupid and arbitrary and another example of "fixing" a problem that never existed in the first place.

The idea of prerequisites -- be it level, ability scores, skills or whatever -- for using magic items is a reasonable one (though I'd personally go for meeting the prereqs as being a way to bypass the HORRIBLE SIDE EFFECTS of the item,m but that's just me) and even has a game related function. But the rule as presented is lazy design.

Emphasis mine. Arbitrary I'll give you, but stupid is in the eye of the beholder. The rule as presented is: "You must be a Paragon-level (that is, 11th-level or higher) character to use a magical ring."

However, there's a second rule as well: "If you are Epic-Level (i.e. at least 21st-level), you may exceed the ordinary limits of mortals and simultaneously wield up to TWO magical rings."

Depending on the powers that rings provide, this might make a LOT of sense. Personally, I like it. As I said, I'll admit that it's arbitrary, but it's not, by definition, stupid.

Of course, if you oppose those types of restrictions, you might decide it's stupid. But that's just an opinion.

 

[tombowings]

I highly disagree. I know that in fiction and in real life I can definitely see people "level up." It's just a mechanical way of expressing that they've become more experienced, worldly, and capable. I could definitely see people being unable to harness the powerful forces inherent in a magic ring without having the strength of character that comes from adventuring for years on end.

I didn't vote because the option I like best isn't in there: what someone said in the discussion of the latest Design and Development article of making rings usable by lower level people, just very dangerous.

But the idea of gaining a level and suddenly being able to wear a magic ring is what I don't like. I wouldn't mind to much is it was a suggesting to the DM not to give players rings until 11th level, that would make sense, but it get's foggy when a character can just suddenly do something they couldn't before.

On the other hand, the could have a very good explanation for it, which I wouldn't mind, but I don't want the PHB to say "Character's cannot wear rings until 11th level." As I said, we may not be seeing the whole picture.

 

[Lizard]

I see no point to this.

Magic items already have levels, letting DMs know about when they should start handing them to PCs. Want rings to be powerful? Make the weakest rings 11th level. If a DM wants to give one to a 9th level PC anyway, let him. If a third party publisher wants to write The Compleate Booke Of Wympie Ryngs, let him. Arbitarily declaring "Rings don't work if you're under 11th level" is just plain stupid, and it's so far beneath the skill level, competence, and creativity of the design team that I can only assume we're all misinterpreting what's being said.

Gods help us if the game devolves to "Dude, that magic item will be red to you for another three levels...put it in the bank till then and go look on the AH for something you can use. We're raiding the Temple of Elemental Evil in an hour."

 

[JohnSnow]

But what they are suggesting is anti legacy in effect. Legacy items grow gradually in power. Under the proposed rules a magic ring has no function until 11th level. The idea that a magic ring grows (or matches) the power of its wielder makes far more sense than this proposal.

Well, to be fair, there's an idea that predates Legacy items known as "Covenant Items." Those were introduced in Fantasy Flight's Midnight Campaign Setting, and started out as ordinary items. When a character reached a certain level, the items would manifest powers. Essentially, Fourth Edition Rings sound to me like Covenant Items that have their powers kick in at 11th-level.

The real question here is really "what do rings do?" In Third Edition, there's nothing distinctive about rings. They're just one extra spot to stick any random power. In Fourth Edition, that might be very different. I think it's highly likely they've nailed down something very powerful, and specific, to make finding a "magic ring" truly special. And if they have to restrict them to 11th-level or higher, and reduce the number of them you can have until 21st to make that work, I say "good."

 

[Reynard]

Of course, if you oppose those types of restrictions, you might decide it's stupid. But that's just an opinion.

Yes. I did, however, assume we were beyond the point of having to label every statement as IMO, considering the nature of the medium (the discussion forum).

And I still think it is both stupid and arbitrary. It makes no sense, serves as a pointless restriction that the DM either has to justify or house rule away and flies completely in the face of both the game as it has played for 30 years and the source material (unless you think Frodo was 11th level).

 

[GAAAHHH]

How about this:

Magic rings are limited by level.

Magic circular metal finger adornments (MCMFA ...Catchy...) don't have a level limit.

 

[Raith5]

I see no point to this.

Magic items already have levels, letting DMs know about when they should start handing them to PCs. Want rings to be powerful? Make the weakest rings 11th level. If a DM wants to give one to a 9th level PC anyway, let him. If a third party publisher wants to write The Compleate Booke Of Wympie Ryngs, let him. Arbitarily declaring "Rings don't work if you're under 11th level" is just plain stupid, and it's so far beneath the skill level, competence, and creativity of the design team that I can only assume we're all misinterpreting what's being said.

Gods help us if the game devolves to "Dude, that magic item will be red to you for another three levels...put it in the bank till then and go look on the AH for something you can use. We're raiding the Temple of Elemental Evil in an hour."

This is a really good point. I forgot that magic items will have levels (a really good idea BTW).

I thought the three tiers are a really good shorthand for the various stages of a campaign and even character development/ powers but the use of them to restrict the effects of magic items just looks, well, weak.

 

[Incenjucar]

On the plus side, we now have some pretty obvious ring-jokes.

"Marriage is a responsibility beyond mere heroes."

and

"Polygamy, an EPIC challenge."