Should rings be able to function for low level characters?

[Darkness]

Rings: This slot has changed quite a bit. 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). And before you get started about how Frodo sure as hell wasn’t epic, let's be clear: the One Ring was an artifact, not a magic item any old spellcaster could make. Artifacts follow their own rules. 3.5 Equivalent: Rings.

I wonder why they didn't use something like a Will Defense prerequisite instead of a strict level/tier limit.

Head: These items increase your mental skills or enhance your senses. Helmets, circlets, and goggles all fall in this category. Another major subcategory here includes orbitals, such as ioun stones. If you see someone with an orbital, it’s a good bet you’re dealing with an epic character. 3.5 Equivalents: Face, head.

Looks like these thingies will either be really really rare/expensive or have a level/tier limit as well.

 

[RigaMortus2]

"item slots" (another MMO term).

Actually, you are 100% wrong on this. The term "item slots" dates back to previous editions of D&D, way before the first MMO (or MUD really) was ever invented. I know I've seen/used this term for a LONG time, long before MMOs.

 

[RigaMortus2]

In any event, these kinds of silly restrictions are likely be a "deal breaker" for me.

Why? These rules are written on paper, not in stone...

 

[vagabundo]

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.

Just an idea I am toying with, IMO the realms should be awash with magic items, I mean the market should have tanked a long time ago with the way the 3e magic creation rules work. But that is another thread entirely.

I'd suggest that you either:
-Allow 3e style rings in your FR game, but the characters in the game are unable to create them, they can only find them in tombs and ruins. The spellplague and weave changes do not make it possible for that type of magic item to be created in that way anymore.

-Declare that some magic items have changed with the weave changes. The powers of the rings are much harder to access now and include any other changes that have occurred with magic items. So you may have inherited that ring of protection +1 from your great grandfather, but since the spell plague it has become a ring of shadows (enabled the hide in plain sight and a concealment bonus) or something similar from the 4e DMG.

 

[delericho]

Tough? Seriously.

If that were Wizards' attitude, and they were unwise enough to come out and say so, then come June they would enjoy not receiving my money.

Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series. Fantastic novels.

Awful novels, but that's another rant for another day.

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.

Thing is, what you have described is, in D&D 3.5 terms, a Weapon of Legacy. Despite a poor implementation, WoL is a really strong concept. If 4e were going in the direction of making many, or better still most, magic items into WoL-style items, I would be absolutely delighted. But that's not what they're doing.

Instead, they're pruning the Christmas Tree of one or two minor branches, while providing us with a playtest Gnome with more items than I have ever seen on a PC in actual play (even at 20th level, characters had the 'big six', and a couple of extras), and adding a restriction to a particular item slot that may or may not be a good thing, but certainly doesn't by itself implement the concept of an item that grows with the character who wields it.

 

[kenmarable]

My opinion on this "stupid" change is... I don't know what rings do, so I'm not jumping to conclusions and condemning the whole thing.

From the sounds of the article, it's not just "if it goes on your finger, you have to wait until 11th level." From the sounds of it, rings are tangibly different than a glove in what sort of magic they do which are in turn tangibly different from a cloak, etc. Sounds like the "guidelines" they had in 3.x that certain magic items should be for certain things is a more solid rule. Rings only do certain things. Cloaks only do certain things. Perhaps what rings can actually do are powerful enough that a lower level character can't control that much magic. Easy to add in a rule for "misfire" effects rather than "can't find the on switch", but I certainly don't know what's already in there and what 4e rings will do.

Without more information I don't really see much point in voting in an obviously biased poll.

 

[drothgery]

FWIW, most of the rings under 15,000gp in the DMG (which is only about 1/3 of them; rings are certainly high-level items in 3.x with few exceptions) are

- Rings of protection, which likely don't exist any more (AC bonuses go in the armor/clothes slot, save bonuses -- as per old-school rings of protection -- go in the amulet/cloak slot)
- Minor rings of skill bonuses, which also likely don't exist any more (at least, SWSE went on agressive campaign to eliminate most ways of getting a +X to a skill short of gaining levels)

So I'm not sure what the big deal is.

 

[kenmarable]

Thing is, what you have described is, in D&D 3.5 terms, a Weapon of Legacy. Despite a poor implementation, WoL is a really strong concept. If 4e were going in the direction of making many, or better still most, magic items into WoL-style items, I would be absolutely delighted. But that's not what they're doing.

Here here! WotC's Weapons of Legacy and Malhavoc's intelligent magic item level before it and Bastion Press' other intelligent magic item level rules before THAT are a great idea. I do hope they work that into 4e somehow, especially for implements/weapons. It is far more interesting to me for a signature item to grow in power with the character, rather than ditching each one every time you find something with a higher bonus.

"I know Sting has been a trusty blade, but, hey, this other one is a +3! Guess I'm selling Sting at the next town."

 

[Maggan]

I'll probably allow wearing rings 1 tier earlier...
... with terrible, dreadful costs.

Sounds like a good plan.

/M

 

[Festivus]

If all rings are powerful, I'm cool with it. It's nice to have one class of items that's explicitly for powerful characters.

I don't need D&D to be a world-simulator, just a framework for a good game, and if a plot calls for a lower-level guy using a magic ring, I'll, uh, just do that and not worry about it.

My sentiments as well. If you don't like the rule, then change it in your own game.