Should rings be able to function for low level characters?

[Sir Brennen]

Also, another "I didn't vote in this poll because of the biased options" vote.

 

[The Little Raven]

simple ring of protection +1?

You're operating from a false assumption, since they've made it clear that there's no more weak rings of protection and things like that. Imposing a level/tier requirement could reasonably lead one to believe that they aren't trivial items like 3E made them into.

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.

Except an assault rifle isn't a magical item, so comparing a mundane item in a mundane world to a magic one is a bit silly. An item can measure a person's moral worth (alignment restriction) or their bloodline (race restriction) or their profession (class restriction), but it can't measure their personal power as a hero (level/tier restriction)? That strikes me as far more ridiculous.

 

[jester47]

House ruled: You get 5 magic items.
House ruled: Magic items are classified by function.

Function WotC. Function.

 

[Arkhandus]

And my last point was directed just at the main topic, not the whole Frodo example.

It doesn't make much sense as a rule, and it's horribly, horribly arbitrary. Just another metagaming focus of 4E's design.

I don't need to read the whole article to know that the basic principle itself is silly metagaming nonsense.

There's no way someone would get their hands on a powerful magic item unless the DM just arbitrarily hands it to them. Any significant magic item would be found by someone strong enough to keep it in their possession against any weakling novice adventurers. Or it would be left in the ruins of whoever last owned or created it. Or similar. The thing would almost certainly be somewhere dangerous or in the possession of someone or something formidible compared to characters too low to be expected to acquire it.

Yet those adventurers just might get the Mighty Magic Ring Of Doom, on the off chance that they find it in ruins that have been forgotten about for ages and thus not plundered by mages or treasure hunters. Then what do they do when they find that the Mighty Magic Ring Of Doom is entirely worthless to them?

Try and find someone more powerful to sell it to, and who can thus, most assuredly, just take it from them and fly away/run away/slaughter them all while laughing merrily at their naivete in the grim, dangerous world of the Points of Light? What do adventurers do in 4E when they actually get lucky, through cleverness or just plain luck, and make the big score? Try to hide their newfound treasure and just mope about how dangerous it is to have such a thing and not be able to use it, and how they can't use it yet despite tricking the Fire Giant King and escaping with his prized treasure, the Mighty Magic Ring Of Doom?

Couldn't they at least enjoy their newfound wealth for a bit before someone else finds out about it and tries to take their great prize from them? Couldn't they get some benefit out of actually scoring a great treasure, rather than just a 'level-appropriate bog-standard treasure of balanced mediocrity'?

It's not every day you find a great treasure, even as an adventurer. You should at least have the capacity to get something out of it. If the DM is going to say 'no cookie for you'! after mistakenly giving you access to the item before the 'appropriate level', couldn't he at least have a non-arbitrary reason for it? Like actually realizing that he gave you too good a treasure and wants to ret-con to say that you actually found the Lesser Magic Doodad That Kind Of Vaguely Resembles The Mighty Magical Ring Of Doom Because It's Circle-Shaped But Actually An Amulet.

 

[Lizard]

Except an assault rifle isn't a magical item, so comparing a mundane item in a mundane world to a magic one is a bit silly. An item can measure a person's moral worth (alignment restriction) or their bloodline (race restriction) or their profession (class restriction), but it can't measure their personal power as a hero (level/tier restriction)? That strikes me as far more ridiculous.

So, just to put this in perspective, you'd be perfectly OK with the following:

Only elves can use magical bows. ALL magical bows, not just "The Elvish Bow Of Being For Elves Only."

Only dwarves can use magical axes. ALL magical axes, not just "The Axe What Was Forged By The Dwarf Lords In The Long Ago".

Only evil wizards can use wands.

Only lawful good tieflings between 6th and 12th level can use magical necklaces, except on Tuesdays.

And you wouldn't find any of this arbitrary or odd, or wonder if there might be more elegant ways to achieve the design goals.

I can see why someone might want to make a specific item usable by a race/class/alignment. I cannot see why an entire *class* of items is arbitrarily worthless to anyone below 11th level. Is there something about a round band of metal which rejects low level spells? (A *small* round band of metal. I can make Bracers Of Protection +1 which will work for anyone, it seems.)

We accept a lot of silly things in the name of game balance. It's part of the designer's job to make sure that these things slap us in the face with their silliness as little as possible. A fiat "Rings don't work if you're under 11th level, that's that" is basically taking the player's head and slamming it into a brick wall labeled "Balance" over and over and over, then tattooing 'Game' on the inside of his left eyelid and 'Balance' on the inside of his right eyelid in glowing neon ink, so he sees it while he sleeps.

"It was just as stupid in prior editions" isn't really much of an excuse. Weren't they supposed to be FIXING problems, instead of just making new ones?

 

[Rechan]

So, just to put this in perspective, you'd be perfectly OK with the following:

Only elves can use magical bows. ALL magical bows, not just "The Elvish Bow Of Being For Elves Only."

Only dwarves can use magical axes. ALL magical axes, not just "The Axe What Was Forged By The Dwarf Lords In The Long Ago".

Only evil wizards can use wands.

Sounds a lot to me like Dwarves and Elves only being able to take levels in Dwarf and Elf.

Or how Dwarves couldn't cast magic, only had a 50% chance of benefiting from magical items, and could only take levels in fighter, thief, cleric, or a dual combination.

Or how druids couldn't use metal items (aside from sickle, scimitar and dagger) or metal armor; if they did, they lost their abilities for 24 hours. Or how paladins had to be LG, monks had to be lawful, druids had to be neutral, and bards and barbarians had to be chaotic.

 

[bgaesop]

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?.

Who says those exist anymore?

 

[The Little Raven]

So, just to put this in perspective, you'd be perfectly OK with the following:

There's a world of difference between...

Restrictions that arbitrarily limit items to particular characters, regardless of power level (thus relegating that magic item to being used by 1 person out of the 5 in your party).

and

Restrictions that arbitrarily limit items to all character of a particular power level (thus, allowing that magic item to be used by all 5 members of the party, since they're all assumed to be the same power level).

So, you're saying you have no problem with a non-sentient item looking into someone's heart (or whatever you'd find their alignment) and judge them worthy/unworthy, but have a problem with a class of items being powerful enough that you must have a degree of personal power to wield it? That strikes me as the definition of arbitrary.

And you wouldn't find any of this arbitrary or odd, or wonder if there might be more elegant ways to achieve the design goals.

Can we get beyond the "arbitrary" argument? We've already made it clear that any restriction is arbitrary, because it all serves the gamist function of preventing characters from getting certain benefits before you intend for them to do so.

I cannot see why an entire *class* of items is arbitrarily worthless to anyone below 11th level.

Maybe because all the powers they provide are level 11 powers or higher? That's why level 6 spells were always worthless to a wizard below 11th level, since he couldn't use them.

Is there something about a round band of metal which rejects low level spells?

Well, there's something about rings that have them more tightly entwined with mythology and literature than most other items, and only D&D treats them in such a trivial fashion.

"It was just as stupid in prior editions" isn't really much of an excuse. Weren't they supposed to be FIXING problems, instead of just making new ones?

What I'm saying is that it was horribly implemented in previous editions, and this implementation is far better because it directly addresses what they want it to do, rather than trying to dance around it with things like wealth-by-level requirements and high prices.

 

[Stoat]

If the rule is what it appears to be, that is, a hard "no character below level 11 can use a ring," I don't care for it.

It is, however, unlikely to come up in any game I run. If rings are tremendously powerful, I would likely only place them in a higher level game. If I want a lower level character to use a ring, that should be one of the easiest house rules evar.

I am somewhat concerned that this will lead to the "elixir effect" where drinkable magic fluids in small vials aren't called "potions" because "potions" only duplicate the effects of spells of 3rd level or lower.

I anticipate some sort of official "lesser ring" by 2009.

 

[Deep Blue 9000]

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.

Heh, well, actually I would say this rule is not arbitrary from a gamist perspective but is arbitrary from a RP perspective (is that the opposite of gamist?) Arbitrary means unsupported. But there is a good gamist reason for this change: we don't want low level characters with high level items.

The problem is that in character, there is no reason you can't use the item. You don't need more magical knowledge or martial skill or whatever. You need a purely artificial construct, levels, which your character has no conception of.

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.)

I'm going to bold that part because I agree 100%. However, it is not the issue, and that's why people defending this rule are wrong. There are methods of making rings special without printing "requires 11th character level to equip" on them. I like rings being special but hate the clumsy way they are doing it. What's wrong with making rings legacy items? Now everyone is happy.

As for your point about not having all the information, how about I just claim that what they have presented is definitely arbitrary.