Should rings be able to function for low level characters?

[Wormwood]

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.

Wouldn't it be easier to just assume that such items (low level rings, in this case) never existed in the first place?

 

[Reynard]

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.

This is not an acceptable answer to the question of, "Why make this pointless and restrictive change?"

Of course everything comes down to "just change/house rule it". The fact is, gamers don't *need* published products atall. We want them, sure, but there's a point at which the workload inherent in making the game do what we want it to do, excising and revising the stuff we don't like, makes the game, whatever the new shiny bits we like might give us, more trouble than it is worth.

When you start stacking up all the rules/fluff/flavour changes you'd have to do to 4E to turn it back into D&D, you realize just how arbitrarily and fundamentally different it is than any previous edition. And if it isn't D&D, or doesn't "do" D&D, what's the point of calling it D&D.

 

[Reynard]

Wouldn't it be easier to just assume that such items (low level rings, in this case) never existed in the first place?

Not if you have been playing in the setting for 25+ years and you know, and have campaign history, that such things did in fact exist. You're other choice is to simply "re-boot" and that is not an acceptable solution for some people, particularly those that have campaigns connected by legacy, generations, etc...

 

[Wormwood]

Not if you have been playing in the setting for 25+ years and you know, and have campaign history, that such things did in fact exist. You're other choice is to simply "re-boot" and that is not an acceptable solution for some people, particularly those that have campaigns connected by legacy, generations, etc...

Retconning away a minor magical item is not a campaign reboot. Not in the least.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

The game "math" assumes only the 3 "primary" items. Weapon/Implement, Armor and Defense Enhancer. These will always be the critical factors for character power. They will affect the outcome of every single encounter of the characters.

Other effects are different. How powerful is flying? Against a non-ranged warrior, it's very potent. But then, flight seems be relegated to late Paragon, so I guess most monsters without abilities to counter flight will be obsolete by then, anyway.

Items that grant short-term benefits (like once per encounter or 3/day, gain a +x bonus to attack/damage/defense) certainly help a character, but the help is situational, not constant. Characters that have a lot of them will certainly fair a little bit better in certain situations, but not constantly. It can turn the tide of close battles, but on the overall scheme, the effect is a lot weaker than constant benefits.
That doesn't make them useless or powerless. An item that allows you to treat on water is pretty cool and can help in a lot of non-combat encounters. But only very few real combat encounters.

Imagine a Ring of Fireball (a little bit boring, I admit) that grants you the ability to, once per encounter, shoot a fireball equal to a 11th level Wizard. In addition, you can douse or create normal flames as a swift action. That can be a powerful item. But for its wearer it means a oppertunity cost (do I cast Fireball or make my weapon attack?). From a flavour perspective, this item is still pretty impressive, and maybe it's right that its only useable by high level characters. Weaker characters would just burn themselves with it.. (and obviously, a 11th level fireball is inappropriate for 5th level characters anyway...)

 

[Engilbrand]

"You're other choice is to simply "re-boot" and that is not an acceptable solution for some people, particularly those that have campaigns connected by legacy, generations, etc..."

Tough? Seriously. The edition is a reboot. I think that idea has been pretty obvious for a while. The basic assumption of the game is that magic has changed drastically and things aren't as they were. I like the idea that certain magic items require more experience and knowledge to use. Especially the idea that more abilities unlock as time goes on.
Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series. Fantastic novels. In the beginning, he has a sword that does some stuff. It's cool, but nothing great. As time goes on, though, his understanding of its power and his own power continues to increase and he becomes better at mastering the abilities of the sword. If handed off to a random person, it would be little better than a really sharp sword. Handed off to a powerful warrior who knew what it would be capable of, it would be a lot more impressive.
We don't know how powerful rings are going to be. They might be incredibly powerful. Why should only 11th level characters be able to use them? Because they've reached an understanding of the way magic works and they've improved themselves to the point where their bodies can handle the innate magical abilities of the ring. By 20th level, the body can act as a conduit or something that can actually harness the power of 2 rings.
Does this mean that rings that used to work for someone no longer do? Absolutely. They have to come to grips with the new way that magic works within their own bodies. That might take a few levels. Besides, I like looking forward to having new things opened to me.

My 8th level Fighter can't use the ring he just found. Whatever. It looks neat, so he wears it. Certain people may look at him differently because the recognize that it's magic and they know that magical rings are a sign of a powerful person. His group goes on a few more missions and they find themselves in a bit of a bind. He's level 12. The party needs to sneak around a corner, but the Rogue was severly injured a little while ago and can't. The party suddenly realizes that they can't see the Fighter. He's turned invisible and has no idea why. He goes around the corner and does whatever he needs to.

Then again, with level limits like this, I would advocate that characters can't identify something until they reach its level. The 6th level Wizard may have recognized some form of magic in the ring, but he couldn't identify its properties because the magic tied into the ring was unlike what he was used to seeing. This seems a lot more interesting than the party finding a ring and handing it to the Wizard who just looks at it and says, "Ring of Invisibility. Here's the command word. The Rogue should take it."

 

[vagabundo]

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.

All the better for the PCs to go hunting around old ruins in FR, if they can come across a ring that cannot be made anymore.

Or in FR the old weave magic that powered all the magic items changed around the spell plague and minor rings all lost their powers or changed so low-level characters cannot access the power.

I'm tempted to give time limits on magic items:

- 10 years for a potion
- 10yrs (+ 10yr/+1) for enchanted swords/armour
- 50 years for wondrous items.
- ...
- Forevar for Artefacts.

 

[davethegame]

Biased wordings aside, there should also be the option for "Depends on how Wizards explains it in the rules."

A lot of rules are arbitrary if taken in a vacuum.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Wouldn't it be easier to just assume that such items (low level rings, in this case) never existed in the first place?

No, it really wouldn't, because it's not just rings, it's a very large percentage of items that aren't weapons or armour that are different now. Rods, staves and wands operate entirely differently, too, though perhaps they still have some of their old attributes. It's just such a significant change in how things work, and it's a "hardware" change as it were (as opposed to "software" i.e. people, spells, etc.) that it feels really really odd to me. It may not be a "reboot" for you, but really, for me, the FR was ALL about the ruins, about the ancient magic and so on, and when modern magic and ancient magic work in entirely dissimilar ways to the point where ancient stuff can't exist in a 4E campaign, or you have to assume items which didn't exist in the past now exist en masse, well then it's not that the FR (for example) is of zero interest to me, but it is less comfortable/interesting. And why would I want to operate in a setting which isn't comfortable/interesting? I, mean, that's reasonable isn't it?

I'd be much more comfortable with an entirely new setting where I can assume such items have always existed, and that that's always how it has been, so that's probably what I'll do.

Vagabundo - I really don't like the idea of decaying magic in the FR, that flies in the face of what I find interesting, because in all truly ancient ruins (my favourite dungeons, when I'm using dungeons), virtually all the magic would be dead.

I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't do it, but the idea has zero appeal for me.

 

[Celebrim]

This is a silly change.

1) It's primarily a restriction on the DM, not on the player. Afterall, it is the DM who is primarily responcible for the design and placement of treasures. So, now the rules are going to tell me that, "DM's can't design rings which work on characters below 11th level." Hogwash.

Ring of Jumping: The wearer gains a +1 bonus to his jump skill per character level of the wearer.

2) And if it doesn't actually tell the DM, "He can't.", then the alternative is it tells the players, "The DM and the players abide by a very different set of rules, designed to screw the players."

3) It further discourages ongoing campaigns from adopting the new ruleset.

Once again, 4E brings the biggest change between any two additions. Is there anyone still arguing that it does not? The difference is so huge that 4E is practically a new game, and that raises the bar somewhat higher. Rather than trying to convince me that 4E fixes the problems with a game I like, they must convince me that 4E is a better game on its own merits. The 'D&D' branding is almost meaningless. So far, they just aren't doing it. Instead of convincing me that 4E fixes problems I'm actually having, it tells me that I have problems I never knew I had (and certainly never complained about), and gives me 'fixes' seemed likely to create problems of thier own.