Should rings be able to function for low level characters?

[Lizard]

I know it seems to be too much to expect people to read the entire article, but is it too much to expect them to read the half-dozen posts that point out that the One Ring is an artifact and artifacts don't follow the same rules as "normal" magic items?

Or since you want to bring up Gandalf and LotR in general, how about the fact that every ring bearer that says anything about wearing a ring of power says that it's not something taken lightly, and requires a good deal of personal power to master?

I must have missed where WOTC got the Tolkein license. Care to point this out to me?

 

[Arkhandus]

Fine. Would it be better to mention the correlation between magic items requiring specific levels in 4E to the same exact thing having been used in MMORPGS like Everquest for, oh, a decade or nearly as long? And probably used in MUDs/MUCKs/MOOs even longer, I would guess (though I've only played a few of those before).


And you can't tell me Frodo was an 11th-level Hobbit before he left the Shire. Maybe 4th-level or something, since he was an odd one, but not so strong or famous as some of the other Shirefolk at the time. Bilbo at least had a short bit of perilous adventuring before he came across Gollum and the One Ring, but not Frodo.

Also, it makes little sense that if there's some wierd magical law of the entire Multiverse, that somehow ring-shaped magic items can't work for anyone without a vast amount of experience, that artifacts are somehow exempt just 'because'. Not every artifact is deity-made.


Also, I can't read the whole article. I'll never sign up to the DDI. Viva la paperbacks!

 

[JohnSnow]

And you can't tell me Frodo was an 11th-level Hobbit before he left the Shire. Maybe 4th-level or something, since he was an odd one, but not so strong or famous as some of the other Shirefolk at the time. Bilbo at least had a short bit of perilous adventuring before he came across Gollum and the One Ring, but not Frodo.

Also, it makes little sense that if there's some wierd magical law of the entire Multiverse, that somehow ring-shaped magic items can't work for anyone without a vast amount of experience, that artifacts are somehow exempt just 'because'. Not every artifact is deity-made.


Also, I can't read the whole article. I'll never sign up to the DDI. Viva la paperbacks!

*SIGH*

The entire article is posted on ENworld in the first post of this thread.

In case even that's too much for you, I'll quote the relevant line - again...

From the Design and Development article on Magic Items, there's this:

And before you get started about how Frodo sure as hell wasn’t epic, let's be clear: the One Ring was an artifact, not a magic item any old spellcaster could make. Artifacts follow their own rules.

And no, it's not that Tolkien has to follow D&D rules, but Logan Bonner has a very good point. The One Ring is an artifact, not an ordinary magical ring.

Complain if you want, but at least READ the freaking article first!

 

[The Little Raven]

Complain if you want, but at least READ the freaking article first!

Or, at least, don't repeat the same thing that was debunked by like 6 people already in the same thread.

 

[Deep Blue 9000]

The same why I can defend not giving a +5 vorpal longsword to a 2nd level fighter. But, of course, I'm operating from the assumption that rings will be powerful items, just like some spells are powerful and subject to level restrictions, as well as some feats that require level as an arbitrary requirement next to the four other requirements it throws at me (like Greater Weapon Specialization, which requires Fighter 12, no matter if you meet all the other requirements first).

Is a rule saying "2nd level fighters can't weild +5 vorpal longswords" the only way to prevent it from happening? It's not! That's the whole point! A non-arbitrary rule can accomplish the same result. We can keep items level appropriate without slapping "requires level 11 or higher to wear" on it.

Unless you like arbitrary, you cannot logically support this rule. I guess there's nothing really wrong with liking arbitrary rules but there are a lot of people in this thread who like this rule and I doubt many of them prefer their rules to be arbitrary.

 

[The Little Raven]

I must have missed where WOTC got the Tolkein license.

So, they have to have the license to be inspired by it's usage of magic rings, which also mirrors the treatment of rings in most fantasy: powerful items, rather than the trivial tokens that 3rd Edition turned them into?

Or they have to have the license for me to point out to someone, who was using LotR as justification for rings being accessible to weak characters, that by the very standards of the text he's citing, you do have to be powerful to use them?

 

[Lizard]

And no, it's not that Tolkien has to follow D&D rules, but Logan Bonner has a very good point. The One Ring is an artifact, not an ordinary magical ring.

Complain if you want, but at least READ the freaking article first!

Which just makes things worse...I can see a sentient, self-aware item refusing to grant its powers to some nobody...but a simple ring of protection +1?

This is like saying that if you give an assault rifle to a 12 year old boy with no combat training, the gun will refuse to fire. It might be very dangerous to the user and others, it might be aimed very poorly, but it's not going to say "You can't pull the trigger, you're not skilled enough!"

I eagerly await the inevitable apologia where we're told how this makes the game More Fun, and if you had ninth level characters with magic rings in 3.5, you Weren't Having Fun.

It's a shame, because, other than that ring idiocy, the rest of the article was the best news I've heard about 4e.

 

[The Little Raven]

A non-arbitrary rule can accomplish the same result.

If your sole intent is a gamist one, then no rule you apply can be non-arbitrary. If you raise the price simply to make them harder to get, that's just as arbitrary as setting a tier/level requirement on it.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Unless you like arbitrary, you cannot logically support this rule. I guess there's nothing really wrong with liking arbitrary rules but there are a lot of people in this thread who like this rule and I doubt many of them prefer their rules to be arbitrary.

I think people like this rule because it suggests that rings are going to be something special, and not like other "standard" items. And as it suggests that rings will be different, and we don't have all the rules information yet, you cannot logically claim it's merely arbitrary (or moreso than any other rule in a game system, as Mourn points out.)

 

[Jasperak]

Stupid Rule.

What about earrings?