Should rings be able to function for low level characters?

[kinem]

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?

 

[Kunimatyu]

If all rings are powerful, I'm cool with it. It's nice to have one class of items that's explicitly for powerful characters.

I don't need D&D to be a world-simulator, just a framework for a good game, and if a plot calls for a lower-level guy using a magic ring, I'll, uh, just do that and not worry about it.

 

[Lord Fyre]

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?

Rings need to be free to do as the please. Such as: make the character invisible, slide off the wearer finger when least expected, draw the gaze of the Dark Lord, attract Nazgul, etc.

 

[tombowings]

No, level is a purely mechanical and metegame term. In most campaigns meta-game thinking of this type causes people to loose their suspension of disbelief. I believe that characters of all levels should be able to take advantage of all items, magical or otherwise, they know how to use. A ring doesn't seem like something someone has to "learn how to use."

However, we may be missing pieces of the overall picture.

 

[Aeric]

Minimum level requirements for equipment is something that belongs in video games, not D&D. If my low-level players are smart/lucky enough to score a <i>+5 Holy Avenger</i> at 2nd level, then more power to 'em!

 

[Bishmon]

In a different system, I'd be very excited by the idea that rings can only be worn at higher levels.

But in a system where characters have usable magic items on their head, arms, hands, waist, feet, neck, etc., it seems kind of odd to restrict rings. It's like, "Wait, so these other dozen magic items work fine, but these rings are problematic? Do I have chubby fingers?"

I guess I'm pretty ambivalent towards it. I like the idea, I don't care for the execution.

 

[bgaesop]

No, level is a purely mechanical and metegame term.

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.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Where's the "I don't care, because I can easily rationalize such things if I need to" option?

 

[Rechan]

No, level is a purely mechanical and metegame term.

Please. Level has always been present and has an in-game mechanic.

There's an old story in one D&D novel about two wizards casting the same attack spell to see who can shoot farther. Because range of spell = x increment + y/level. The one with the higher level shoots farther.

Or how the guy who casts the same spell every day all day long doesn't get any better at the spell, but the minute he goes out and kills 13 monsters, he suddenly is better at the spell.

The minute there are rules, there is metagamey and arbitrary.

 

[CleverNickName]

Where's the "I don't care, because I can easily rationalize such things if I need to" option?

This.