Should rings be able to function for low level characters?

[Lurks-no-More]

This is a horrible idea.
Where is the suspension of disbelieve when rings only operate when you reach a specific weapon? Thats nonsense.

I assume you mean level, not weapon...

Anyway, if you can take the discrete power bump at new level and not lose your WSoD*, why would there being a level limit for being able to use a powerful magic iten be any more difficult? "Rings are not toys to be trifled with; they contain great power, and do not respond to the will of weaklings. You have a long way to go before you are able to master this ring, my friend."

*) Willing Suspension of Disbelief. The "willing" part is, unfortunately, often forgotten by people.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

This is an absolutely horrible and cretinous idea. This isn't World of Warcraft, for god's sake, WotC. I don't want to be concerned about "filling my slots", and even bloody worse, I don't want the dreadful idea that magic items only work when you reach a certain level in my game.

As for "willing suspension of disbelief", really, that's a non-point. If your suspension of disbelief is shattered by flaming idiocy, just being "willing" isn't going to make you believe again. Magic items in D&D have never had, nor should ever have, strict level limits. It's particularly stupid with rings, given the obvious LotR business, and it means that you're effectively "not allowed" to create weak rings in any official-compatible product, which is just mind-bending. One ring at level 11 and two at 21 just adds to the stupidity.

I wouldn't mind if WotC suggested that rings start to be awarded at level X, but that they don't work? Screw that. Hopefully a "real magic items done right" book will be one of the things out in the first six months, instead of this junk.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

So does anyone else see why I've lost all confidence in the abilities of the 4e designers yet?

Other than Mourn and the a few others who I know will flame this post so it's on the record this IS NOT MEANT FOR YOU it's meant for the undecided of which neither of us is a part.

 

[hopeless]

One ring lore to mess it all up

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?

This restriction should only apply if the rings were;

a) somehow sentient requiring the wearer to possess great strength of will and knoweldge to even know how to activate them

and

b) are actually artefacts.

However this isn't LOTR and they aren't artefacts so this ruling I consider absurd let alone that bit about "orbitals" named ioun stones that if present inidcate the user is an epic level character!

They ARE going to need to explain themselves before releasing articles and information like that if they're going to be selling 4e and currently they're not only doing this poorly but are shooting themselves in the feet at the same time!

For the record they did say Frodo wasn't an epic character because of the one ring BUT a +1 ring of protection isn't going to need the character to be 11th level just to use it!

 

[Lurks-no-More]

However this isn't LOTR and they aren't artefacts [...]

Stop right there. Do we know that rings, in 4e D&D, will not be powerful, possibly willful, magic items that can only be mastered by someone with great personal power? We don't; in fact, the level limit thing implies something like this will be the case.

For the record they did say Frodo wasn't an epic character because of the one ring BUT a +1 ring of protection isn't going to need the character to be 11th level just to use it!

Again, you are assuming there will be weak-ass rings like +1 of protection in 4e. If they're limiting rings to high-level characters, I'd expect them to be potent.

I think people are thinking about 4e in 3e terms, and that will only lead to confusion.

 

[Stogoe]

Where's the "Should Wizards Stop Beating it's Wife" poll?

This. Also, what Mouseferatu said.

 

[StarFyre]

calm down

I think this change is ok, for the sole reason that it's easily rectified.

Any experienced DM, I am sure, modifies items, makes up their own, and says screw it to the rules for item creation, etc and does what they want for the enjoyment of the game and players.

If we want to give an ioun stone that raises a stat, we can. If we want to give an item that is in a 'slot' that is not defined, we can..as long as the player has space on their body tohold it and space to write it down on their sheet.

You can even give rings whenever you like; or make up fantastic unique rings on the fly, and give that to the players.

Sanjay

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Again, you are assuming there will be weak-ass rings like +1 of protection in 4e. If they're limiting rings to high-level characters, I'd expect them to be potent.

I think people are thinking about 4e in 3e terms, and that will only lead to confusion.

This is interesting, because it makes me want to run a homebrew/non-official setting, because magic items that were common/normal 100 years ago in the FR, say, simply won't exist in 4E, and thus the whole idea that they're from ancient civilizations/ruins will require levels of suspension of disbelief that push my capacity for that.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

I want to see an example ring before I make a final decision but I'm fine with the idea. This isn't the first ability that a character can gain after taking a nap (and leveling up).

There are numerous other item slots for the low level abilities. Want to keep your armor nice and shiny? A belt makes more sense to me than a ring. Between boots, gloves, necklaces and belts there are more than enough items to keep low level characters busy with various low level effects.

And what the undead mouse said.

 

[delericho]

Again, you are assuming there will be weak-ass rings like +1 of protection in 4e. If they're limiting rings to high-level characters, I'd expect them to be potent.

The problem with that is that the power level of an 11th level character potentially varies a great deal, depending on whether or not he has a ring yet. So, do the adventure writers assume that such a character does not have such an item, or do they assume that he has? In the former case, game balance will require that most such characters lack these items, while in the latter it will require that they do - and in effect we'll be back to having required items again.