Should rings be able to function for low level characters?

[Lizard]

"Options not restrictions" is, in fact, the most beneficial mantra for designing a new edition of D&D. What I don't understand, though, is how it can have become so hollow.

It was the mantra for 3e as well -- though I think it was phrased as "consequences, not restrictions". Wanna wear plate armor as a wizard? You can -- but it hurts you.

IAE, 3e offered far more freedom vs. 2e than, it seems, 4e is offering over 3e. This might be intentional -- freedom is hard to balance, and even harder to code into an online tabletop that is supposed to be released in six months and which is, so far as we can tell, still vaporware.

Anyone who remembers the character generation program which came with the first 3e PHB, and what was *supposed* to happen to it, and what *didn't*, will probably be justifiably wary of the success of the Digital Initiative which is supposed to be a main selling point of 4e. We have been there, and we have done that, and we have bought the T-Shirt. (Hint: Everything they're promising for DI? It was promised for 3e -- 8 years ago.)

 

[robertliguori]

It was the mantra for 3e as well -- though I think it was phrased as "consequences, not restrictions". Wanna wear plate armor as a wizard? You can -- but it hurts you.

IAE, 3e offered far more freedom vs. 2e than, it seems, 4e is offering over 3e. This might be intentional -- freedom is hard to balance, and even harder to code into an online tabletop that is supposed to be released in six months and which is, so far as we can tell, still vaporware.

Anyone who remembers the character generation program which came with the first 3e PHB, and what was *supposed* to happen to it, and what *didn't*, will probably be justifiably wary of the success of the Digital Initiative which is supposed to be a main selling point of 4e. We have been there, and we have done that, and we have bought the T-Shirt. (Hint: Everything they're promising for DI? It was promised for 3e -- 8 years ago.)

How about 'mechanically interesting options, none of which are universally optimal, with meaningful in-world consequences, not restrictions'?

For instance, in 2e, if you're a non-elven arcanist, you can't wear armor. In 3E, you can wear armor and suffer extreme mechanical penalty, or keep Mage Armor up and not.

What I'd like to see is a system where it is conceivable that a primary-wizard (with the right training) would want to go into battle armored. Perhaps if ASF was implemented similarly to caster level checks? You have a caster level of 10, no ASF, you need to roll 10 on a d20+10 (aka, you don't roll). You have an ASF penalty of 5? Well, most of the time, you cast without penalty. That 25% of the time the roll comes up less than 10? That's the CL at which your spell is cast (or, if its a level 6 or higher spell, isn't cast.) If you only need to cast spells at a minimal CL, then wearing armor can be an optimal choice.

Such decisions are inherently more complicated than simple "This works best, so I'll do it." general optimization, but are more rewarding when you can spot an unorthodox solution which is nevertheless best for the singular problem at hand.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

wow, that poll is biased.

 

[Scribble]

Overall, I'm not too broken up by the whole thing... But I'm forced to wonder, why just do this with rings? Why not put a level on all magic items in general? (dependent upon the item and not the type?)

What is it about rings that made them decide to do this? Are they the most common? Or did all of the effects generally fall into what an 11th level character should do realm?

I'm confuzzled.

 

[hopeless]

Selling Sting!!!

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."

You want to sell an ancient elvish weapon that detects orcs and goblins?!
Hmm a +3 blade might seem more powerful but what about that detection ability after all the most common enemies you're likely to find on your travels from Elrond's place to Lothlorien seems to be a trip through Moria... that weapon come in handy indeed (as would that mithril vest talk about stoneskin!!!) especially as a light in dark places!
Now I wonder what Gandalf's sword does since he found it in the same cache Sting was recovered from...

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

My problem is that idea that items are restricted by Slot seems very much like an MMO idea - from World of Warcraft specifically.

MMOs had this type of restriction more than a decade before. This isn't something taken from WoW.

 

[mneme]

What a crappy poll...

The point about magic rings in LoTR is actually in favor of this change. With the exception of the One Ring, we never see a non-major power wielding a Ring.

But, of course, the real reason for the ring restriction is to normalize the game's complexity. In 3E, at first level, you've got comparatively few options (ie, powers). As you level, your options grow more numerous -- but you could still change this by decking your character out like a christmas tree ornament. By contrast, in 4E, the number of item slots is saner -- a slot each for attack, AC, and resistance, plus special defense/offense (arms), movement (feet), manipulation (hands), senses (head), and waist. Which is still a lot. Stripping out the Ring slot lets them do something special with it (no more Rings of Feather Fall!, as useful as those are when Bad Things Happen), and also remove yet One More Thing for the players of low level characters to worry about.

Near as I can tell, the idea is that the game changes in relative power and complexity from lower to higher levels, but stays more or less otherwise the same -- restricting some item slots is part of that "relative complexity" bit.

 

[SlagMortar]

Near as I can tell, the idea is that the game changes in relative power and complexity from lower to higher levels, but stays more or less otherwise the same -- restricting some item slots is part of that "relative complexity" bit.

I think this hits the nail on the head. Earlier in the thread, someone suggested looking for the reason designers made this rule. I think it is as simple as this:
All characters have the big 3 slots (implement, armor, cloak/amulet).
1. Heroic tier - 5 open slots for fun items
2. Paragon tier - 6 open slots for fun items
3. Epic tier - 7 open slots for fun items

My opinion is that a designer sat down and said, "How do I implement a system where the number of slots increases as you go up levels? " They wanted the "Christmas Tree" to grow with the character. The answer they came up with is to make rings more powerful and to restrict their use based on tier.

This is the only explanation that I can come up with that answers the question of "Why does the rule prevent a 10th level character from using an 11th level ring, but does not prevent an 11th level character from using a 30th level ring.

 

[am181d]

However, we may be missing pieces of the overall picture.

I assume it will make sense when we see the mechanics behind rings. The rings in the PHB (or the DMG or wherever they're going) won't be the sorts of magic items you'll want to give to a low level character.

As a DM, if I want to create a specific magic item as a ring that lower level characters can use, I don't see how the rules can stop me. (And if anyone DOES don't tell me, because it will be a strange and exciting surprise.)

 

[Scribble]

I assume it will make sense when we see the mechanics behind rings. The rings in the PHB (or the DMG or wherever they're going) won't be the sorts of magic items you'll want to give to a low level character.

As a DM, if I want to create a specific magic item as a ring that lower level characters can use, I don't see how the rules can stop me. (And if anyone DOES don't tell me, because it will be a strange and exciting surprise.)

Possibly.... I'm still confuzed as to why they didn't make all magic items have level dependencies... as opposed to just the ring slot...

Or maybe a "choose this many slots at this level.. this many at this level... etc..." if you wanted to mess with the slots... Just why rings?