Should rings be able to function for low level characters?

[Drkfathr1]

I really don't understand the uproar, I think some are over-reacting, and we have to keep in mind that we're still only getting snippets of info. We're not seeing the full picture yet.

Rings are just being made more powerful, they're going to be doing things that they didn't do in previous editions.

The effects we're probably used to with rings in 3.5 and earlier editions will be taken up by other objects. I'm sure our "Rings of Protection" and "Rings of Warmth" will become the province of other types of items, so we won't be losing anything, just changing what does what.

 

[TwoSix]

It is a rather silly rule. So much so that I doubt that any amount of justifying theycan do will be enough.

Whats even more retarded is that gm's who want their players to have a magic ring they can use will have to give them artifacts!

Or they can just make a house rule.

Or you can make lower-powered rings, and allow 1 at heroic, 2 at paragon, and 3 at epic.

Or you can make an item that looks like a ring, but uses the gloves slot.

Curse those designers who take our options away.

 

[Reynard]

Curse those designers who take our options away.

Rather, curse those designers that come up with random, arbitrary changes that serve no purpose other than to allow them to say, "Look, we're designers. We designed!"

 

[FourthBear]

Rather, curse those designers that come up with random, arbitrary changes that serve no purpose other than to allow them to say, "Look, we're designers. We designed!"

I really don't think that even the ring rules are either random or arbitrary. The intent appears clear: they wish to define rings as powerful items with power that cannot be harnessed by just anyone and they also wish to control the frequency of use of rings by characters at the various tiers. While the design may be crude and clumsy, I don't think it's random or arbitrary.

 

[Lizard]

If you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one.

True. But at least try to please *someone*.

OK, hands up, all you longtime 3x DMs! Who among you said "Gee, I don't know if this 20,000 gp magic ring is suitable for my first level players! I know not to give them a 20,000 gp magic sword, or 20,000 gp magic wand, and I've read the wealth/level guidelines and looked at the sample NPCs, but I'm still just so confused about this ring! If only there were some rule, which applied only to rings, which would keep me from giving a too-powerful ring to my players! Furthermore, it would be a lot simpler if ALL rings were really powerful, instead of some being weak and some being strong -- but only rings. I don't have a problem with weak swords and strong swords, weak armor and strong armor, or weak wands and strong wands, but rings? Rings just throw me! When they make a new edition of D&D, I really hope they do something about rings, and only rings, so that they will not confuse me so!"

So. Who said this? Mourn? How about you?

 

[Drkfathr1]

True. But at least try to please *someone*.

OK, hands up, all you longtime 3x DMs! Who among you said "Gee, I don't know if this 20,000 gp magic ring is suitable for my first level players! I know not to give them a 20,000 gp magic sword, or 20,000 gp magic wand, and I've read the wealth/level guidelines and looked at the sample NPCs, but I'm still just so confused about this ring! If only there were some rule, which applied only to rings, which would keep me from giving a too-powerful ring to my players! Furthermore, it would be a lot simpler if ALL rings were really powerful, instead of some being weak and some being strong -- but only rings. I don't have a problem with weak swords and strong swords, weak armor and strong armor, or weak wands and strong wands, but rings? Rings just throw me! When they make a new edition of D&D, I really hope they do something about rings, and only rings, so that they will not confuse me so!"

So. Who said this? Mourn? How about you?

But you are assuming that rings in 4E will do the same thing they do now!

 

[Derren]

But you are assuming that rings in 4E will do the same thing they do now!

I think you are missing the point. Why do rings need this special level restriction and other items don't?
Because rings are so powerful? When they are clearly labeled as being powerful then no DM will give them to low level characters anyway. It works with other items, so why not with rings?

 

[TwoSix]

I think you are missing the point. Why do rings need this special level restriction and other items don't?
Because rings are so powerful? When they are clearly labeled as being powerful then no DM will give them to low level characters anyway. It works with other items, so why not with rings?

So if they're so powerful that DMs won't give them to low-level characters, then what's the problem with restricting them to higher-level characters? What does it change?

All it does is remove low-level rings, which just lessens the Christmas Tree Effect that has all y'all up in arms.

 

[Talislan]

So. Who said this? Mourn? How about you?

This bit I liked.

Anyway...My two penneth after reading a little more. This is the main part I read about rings that stuck in my head - "not a magic item any old spellcaster could make". I like this a lot, and it may be just be a personel preference but why should the humble ring be so easily crafted by all and sundry?
You see, its relatively easy to understand that in general bigger items can hold more magic. Its a logical action of the human brain to put bigger with 'contains more energy', (i'm not saying this is correct just an unfortunate side effext of the modern civilized education system) so why not say in order to access the imbued power of this tiny little item your character needs to have the experiential knowledge of what it would take to enclose so much energy in such a small thing?

What I really don't understand is the rant about having to make rings artefacts, or the displacement of the ring to artefact status if character = < lvl 11. Why until this lvl (roughly) should I actually need such a thing unless it is plot specific? (I am not saying why I should need such a thing in 3.x because I think that is quite clear to us all) Why shouldn't this magical ring be a treasured reminder of how I finally managed to slay the 'X' (insert own preferred suitable monster/villain/plot defining experience)?
Again it may be just a personal thing but I've always seen magic items as 'artefacts' of my adventuring. Make people work for their special little bonuses I say.
...

I got lost in this little rant somewhere (not to say disallusioned) so I am going to finish with something very unpopular to try and bring it back to base.

4e is a new game. Yes it is based on the old but it is a new game. If you don't like the new rules, and can't be bothered to 'house rule around them', then play the old game. That's what you did for 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.xe, isn't it?

T.

 

[Imban]

But you are assuming that rings in 4E will do the same thing they do now!

That seriously doesn't matter at all. His point is that it's a level 12 item and his party is level 6; the reason it is likely not appropriate to give out is obvious regardless of whether rings are wondrous items by any other name or actually staves or what.

I have a feeling that rings will be more in the "actually staves or what" category in 4e, and thus that definition of a ring would not allow for rings below level 11 that made sense. (I'm not sure why this would imply a restriction on having two but maybe it makes sense.)

Based on current knowledge, my favored choice in house-rule "fixes" for this, sight unseen but assuming the designers did this because they have a new design for rings as opposed to their being drunken monkeys, is to open two ring slots from level 1 as Generic Wondrous Item slots, and then upgrade one to being able to be the new type of ring at levels 11 and 21.

It's not like Generic Wondrous Items are particularly hard to create, even on the fly, either, which makes this my ideal houserule choice. I played that most random magic item powers were essentially interchangable in 3e, so it's as easy as just not allowing the ones that are offensively stupid to your group: "Belt of Battle? Wavestriding Boots? Don't you mean Ring of Battle and Ring of Water Walking?" yes, "Eyeglasses of Giant Strength! Boots of Intellect!" heck no.

EDIT: I will note that my bias in house-rules and magic items is towards everyone wearing 10 glowing magic items that provide permanent stat bonuses.