Should rings be able to function for low level characters?

[Dannyalcatraz]

I voted "no."

I don't like this rule (if rule it is)...it just doesn't jibe with the legends and fiction I've read.

 

[king_ghidorah]

Maybe because adding a sub-mechanic for legacy items adds complexity to learning and mastering the rules. The level limit is a simple mechanic, making ring use a class ability for all character like all other class abilities that unlock at higher levels... like higher BAB, saves, special abilities, etc. in the current rules. That, from a mechanical perspective, is a clean, consistent and elegant solution to the restriction. From a roleplaying perspective, maybe not, but mechanically, if simplicity and avoiding more arbitrary sub-systems are primary goals, this isn't bad.

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.

 

[thatdarnedbob]

No option for "let's wait and see a freaking ring before leaping to judgments about how this is the worst rule ever"? Poll is useless.

 

[The Little Raven]

it just doesn't jibe with the legends and fiction I've read.

Can you please provide some sources for legends and fiction that treat magic rings as trivial items, like D&D does? I can think of one off the top of my head (MythAdventures, where magic items are basically like technology), but I can think of more examples (especially of more weight), where rings are powerful and important than ones where they aren't.

 

[The Little Raven]

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.

Not being able to use a magic ring before 11th level makes more sense than being unable to take Greater Weapon Specialization (a non-magical ability) until Fighter 12th level (even if you meet all the other prerequisites).

 

[Voss]

Not being able to use a magic ring before 11th level makes more sense than being unable to take Greater Weapon Specialization (a non-magical ability) until Fighter 12th level (even if you meet all the other prerequisites).

OK, '3e had bad rules so 4e can have its own share a bad rules too' isn't a good justification either. 3e is just short of 2e in terms of my least favorite edition of D&D . That sort of approach isn't going to convince me.

 

[BASHMAN]

Just curious-- in World of Warcraft, are there items that require you must be X level before you can equip it? I know there are in Everquest, but I am pretty sure the D&Designers were more into WoW.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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

That's option 3, just with a different flavour text.

 

[The Little Raven]

That sort of approach isn't going to convince me.

And your "This doesn't make sense, and I can't provide any reasons for why I'm saying that beyond simply wanting low-level trivial rings" reasoning isn't going to convince me, especially in light of their precedence in mythology and literature.

 

[Voss]

Oh, was I trying to convince you? Sorry. I didn't know.
I was just trying to understand why WotC came up with a rule that doesn't make sense to me.