Should rings be able to function for low level characters?

[Raith5]

There's a world of difference between...
...
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.

...

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.

...

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.

1) I think people unhappy with the rule think that it is arbitrary because of all magic items, only rings function in this way. The idea that a 6th level PC is not powerful enough to operate any magic ring but is powerful enough to operate a Staff of Power or sword +5, means that magic works in an inconsistent fashion.

At first glance it does look arbitrary and unnecessary to me.

2) D and D also treats magic swords in a trivial fashion compared to other sources. Maybe the restriction on rings should extend to other magic items?

A far better way of dealing with this would be having some legacy like effects such that ALL magic items get a boost when operated by a powerful character.

3) Wealth requirements are a far softer way of restricting magic items (and allow specific campaigns to make their own restrictions) than the heavy handed idea that some items do not function till 11th level.

 

[SSquirrel]

Honestly I don't mind level restrictions on items, provided the power level is adjusted to match. A ring of protection +1 is, in the long run, pretty weak and should be available immediately if they have them around. A ring of spell storing is pretty darn nice and potentially highly effective, I could see a restriction on something like that.

This is coming from a guy who has always despised racial level limits and arbitrary class restrictions, "No dwarf mage why again?" Level restrictions on items just makes it like another class ability I can't use yet, but MAN when I get there...kinda like when you make your first warrior and start drooling at hitting 4th level to be able to get Weapon Specialization.

 

[Cadfan]

It seems pretty bizarre to me that rings just can't work if the wearer is below 11th level. There are more elegant solutions -- rings require a Use Magic Device check (to 'master' the ring), and most characters below 11th level won't make the roll reliably, for example. This has a much higher level of verisimilitude than rings having built-in level detectors, but serves the same design purpose. I'm sure a dozen other posters could come up with a dozen other methods to control the power of high level items without resorting to something as arbitrarily stupid as "Well, they just don't work! Deal!" I can't believe the designers couldn't, so it makes me wonder why they didn't.

What makes you believe that none of these more elegant solutions are implemented?

In some ways, people's reactions to WOTC previews are a sort of rorshach test.

This is what WOTC wrote.

A starting character isn’t powerful enough to unleash the power of a ring. You can use one ring when you reach paragon tier (11th level) and two when you’re epic (21st level).

So, again. Given that there exist several elegant methods of accomplishing exactly what that says, what makes you automatically conclude that none of them have been used?

Maybe rings are fancy, elaborate magical items which have rituals that must be accomplished before you can attune yourself to them, and those rituals are only available based on level. Maybe rings only function for characters with certain class abilities, that just so happen to have been chosen to arrive at level 11. Maybe rings function like Legacy items in 3e, where you unlock their powers over time, starting from a certain minimum level that happens to have been standardized to 11. Maybe there are entire classes of "super" magical items which overwhelm the mind of weak users- that is, maybe there's an entire system so that things like Holy Avengers and Rings of Whatchamacallits all use the same level restriction rationale in an internally consistent manner. Maybe there is some other elegant and internally consistent explanation regarding the nature of rings and how they affect the mind, which provides a coherent in-game explanation for what was fundamentally a design decision.

Who knows? You don't, I don't. So why assume the worst?

If it turns out that there is NOTHING to explain this, then yeah, it will annoy me for about 5 minutes before I forget about it and move on with my life. But in the meantime, why assume that things will suck when its just as likely that they might be cool? Contrary to what you sometimes here around these parts, optimism and pessimism are not equal but opposite points of view between which one can select only arbitrarily. There are differences. Optimism doesn't rot your heart, for example.

Don't worry, be happy! This trip might be fun!

 

[Voss]

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

Pshaw. The Big Book of Magic Items (or whatever its called) comes out this year, September in fact. Just far enough back to take in feedback for the Core rulebook release. I expect quite a few of the magic item rules to be re-written, superseded or just outright ignored.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

*Reads poll*
*Reads poll again*
*Read the part about "not thinking"*

... okay.
... well.

No. Most defenitely not. While i think of D&D as a fun game, i have just hit a speed bump of fan-hate-i-ness i rather do not want to have anything to do with. I´ll try to ignore this chapter of fan revulsion about tiny preview snippets, because giving poll options where the pollers can help to INSULT THEMSELVES just by voting is crossing a line that´s there for a reason.

It´s just no longer possible to discuss patiently if "level" should be used as a game mechanic for restricting anything. I´m sure these discussions happen somewhere. They just don´t happen here anymore.

 

[The Little Raven]

The idea that a 6th level PC is not powerful enough to operate any magic ring but is powerful enough to operate a Staff of Power or sword +5, means that magic works in an inconsistent fashion.

No, it doesn't. It simply means rings are more powerful than other items.

2) D and D also treats magic swords in a trivial fashion compared to other sources. Maybe the restriction on rings should extend to other magic items?

Magic weapons are incredibly common in fantasy literature. Way more common than rings. Only a few pages into the adventure, Bilbo, Gandalf and Thorin each end up with an artifact weapon, but you only see one magic ring. Drizzt gets a hold of two incredibly magical scimitars, but he doesn't seem to find any rings (and then Aegis-fang, and Catti-brie's bow and that sentient sword... but no rings). The Belgariad has a few magic swords, but no magic rings. Cuchullain had a magic spear. Arthur a magic sword.

D&D made rings some common, cheap, novelty item, when mythology and fantasy literature depicts rings as far more mysterious and powerful.

3) Wealth requirements are a far softer way of restricting magic items (and allow specific campaigns to make their own restrictions) than the heavy handed idea that some items do not function till 11th level.

And it comes up with the problem of everyone having the same wealth, but two characters being completely disparate in power (and thus in effectiveness at that level), because there is nothing to guide your decisions in any way, because they offer no advice on what's good to spend your money on.

 

[Sphyre]

I think it helps make rings higher level items with better abilities. In 3e Forge Ring's prerequisite was caster level 12th. I think making that 'rule' helps emphasize the power of magical rings.

And the "flavor" of the poll is completely one-sided.

 

[Tewligan]

it get's foggy when a character can just suddenly do something they couldn't before.

Like how a wizard can suddenly cast a level of spells he couldn't cast before when he gains a level? Or how a fighter can suddenly make one more attack per round? Or how a cleric can suddenly turn more powerful undead? Or etc. etc.?

 

[king_ghidorah]

Here's where I put money down that rings in 4E aren't what you are thinking of when you think of rings as magic item. In other words, there will be no simple rings of protection +1. That seems the strong implication in the article -- rings will be Something Different and, hopefully, something with a new twist.

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.

 

[Voss]

Here's where I put money down that rings in 4E aren't what you are thinking of when you think of rings as magic item. In other words, there will be no simple rings of protection +1. That seems the strong implication in the article -- rings will be Something Different and, hopefully, something with a new twist.

And yet, for me, and apparently, others, even if they are Something Different, it doesn't help
'You Just Can't Do This' make any more sense.

And of course, there is always the WotC factor in this. This is kind of change that is going to generate a lot of discussion. Even, dare I say, aggravation. So, you know, if they didn't want a lot of reaction to this change, maybe they should have made some attempt to explain it beyond 'You Just Can't?'