Should rings be able to function for low level characters?

[Stoat]

The more I think about, the stranger it seems that only Rings would have a hard level limit coded into their rules.

It seems odd that there would be no restriction on a 9th level character using an 11th level (or even 21st level) sword, or wand, or pair of boots, but that same character would be restricted from wielding an 11th level ring. I'm curious to see how rings are different, and I'm disappointed that WotC didn't address this in the article.

I half suspect that ALL items will have hard level limits in 4E, and we just haven't been told yet.

 

[Lizard]

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

That's not relevant.

There's no reason for one class of magic items to be "always uber powerful".
There's no reason for one type of powerful item to be forbidden to lower level characters when (deep breath) this restriction doesn't apply to other powerful items.
There's no reason for a Great Wall to exist between 10th and 11th level when we've been told that the power curve is smooth.

I am not assuming "Rings do what they do now". I am assuming there's no good reason to have special case rules for rings as compared to other 11th level magic items. If i can give an 11th level sword, shield, armor, or boots to a 10th level character, why not a ring? All 11th level items will be roughly equal; that's the whole point of a magic item level system.

 

[Drkfathr1]

But you are assuming that other magic items won't work the same way, and you're also assuming that you know how the rest of the magic item system will work.

Everyone is getting up in arms over a tiny tidbit without having the full context.

Plus, as has been pointed out, what's so difficult with house ruling around it? I really think everyone is making a mountain out of a mole hill, but then again, that seems to be what happens with every little snippet we get on 4E.

 

[LostSoul]

There's no reason...

Sure there is. It's setting design.

 

[Drkfathr1]

The article did hint that Ioun stones (orbitals) would only function at Epic tiers. So magic rings are definately not the only items with the tier restriction.

I have a feeling that some of the first third party books we may see will include or be focused on alternative magic items...in which case I'm sure we'll see "lesser rings".

 

[Derren]

I don't see why there must be a rule which says that a level 11 PC can use a ring and a level 10 or even level 9 one can't (when the DM gives him one).

When rings are really this powerful so that they need this special restriction then there will be a big balance problem between PCs who have a ring and PCs who don't.

 

[Lizard]

The article did hint that Ioun stones (orbitals) would only function at Epic tiers. So magic rings are definately not the only items with the tier restriction.

I have a feeling that some of the first third party books we may see will include or be focused on alternative magic items...in which case I'm sure we'll see "lesser rings".

Of course, the depends on the "O"GL. Since it merges (by WOTCs admission) the old STL into the "O"GL, it might (as the STL did) include limits on changing the meaning of terms. The STL defined many game terms and did not permit them to be altered. It would not surprise me if the new "O"GL says things like "Magic rings cannot be below 11th level" or the like.

 

[Sadrik]

Wow the wording on this poll isn't biased or anything

Hey, I actually clicked on the wrong one! I was subtley confused by the nuances of the wording

 

[Celebrim]

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?

Heh. Heh.

 

[TwoSix]

Sure there is. It's setting design.

Exactly, and that's reason enough.