Should rings be able to function for low level characters?

[LostSoul]

Uhm...

Just because you don't like the reason for it doesn't mean there isn't one.

 

[Lizard]

Um, maybe you need to cool off a little, but for your information, I am fully aware of what the STL says. Yes, there are a lot of things that are defined in it, but do you really think they are going to arbitrarily begin defining things in 4E that way?

I don't think it's that arbitrary. A key design decision has been made:Rings are t3h uber. You only get one until you're 20th level. Changing that will, to some small extent, break the system -- adding in 'lesser rings' for Heroic characters means HCs are that much more powerful than the system math presumes, which means fights are that much easier, advancement is that much faster, etc. Given the clear intent of making sure third party material is of higher quality and is more focused on being D&D supplements, imposing limits on how far the rules can be changed is perfectly logical.

And if you're not a publisher, why would you care what was in the OGL or the STL?

Uhm...because I'm a freelancer who has worked with many 3x publishers and produced, or contributed to, a couple dozen books? In other words, I care a great deal about the OGL and the STL. (Do a search for "Iron Lords of Jupiter", for example.)

 

[Lizard]

Just because you don't like the reason for it doesn't mean there isn't one.

We haven't been given a reason -- at least not one which makes any sense. If a 10th level PC can handle the 'power' of an 11th level cloak, why not an 11th level ring? Or are you arguing that some 11th level items are more 11lth level than others, which makes the entire level system pointless?

 

[hopeless]

So...

I definately agree with you on WOTC's marketing strategy so far. I think they're giving us too little info and not enough context to go with most of it. I get the feeling that they actually enjoy the uproar that alot of things cause, just so they can come back later and do somewhat of a "bait-and-switch".

You mean lie?
Perhaps a little harsh but so was the cancellation of Dragon and Dungeon so they can assume control over what they see as the rights to d&d after all had they worked with Paizo Pathfinder wouldn't have proven so successful.
As it stands I think they're in for a hiding, what worries me is that they don't able nor willing to understand the difference between a core rule set and a campaign setting please don't make me start on what i think of their definition of "cool"...

What I think we're seeing here with rings is an attempt by them to create a truly new roleplaying game and are using d&d to make it successful by preying on its popularity, however it isn't d&d and that is going to bite them in the end.

By the way if you want to restrict magical items to specific tiers have separate treasure tables so the first set of core rules deals specifically with the Heroic stage the second with Paragon and then Epic ala basic d&d, expert, companion and masters then at least you can enforce this ruling on rings but I recommend reading that version of d&d first to see how they did it, you'll find they didn't disallow rings nor make ridiculous rulings just because thats how they see their precious new game working.

This is dungeons and dragons and what I'm seeing them release is anything but...

Take care and all the best!

PS: Hope to have the worlds and monsters book soon so hopefully that'll make some sense because this doesn't!

 

[Drkfathr1]

You're still assuming that rings will do the same things they do now.

If you need a ring that anyone can use, at any level, it was pointed out in the article, that it would be an artifact.

I guess I'm really curious what effects you're afraid you're going to lose from Rings that won't be available until 11th level? That won't in fact, become the province of some other item? (such as a cloak or necklace)

If it's just the fact that "rings" of any sort just won't function at all unless you're 11th level then I can understand some of the dismay, especially from a story-telling perspective, but it would still be fairly easy to not introduce any "Rings" until that point in a campaign, or have a good story element that explains why the ring finally/suddenly activated.

 

[BryonD]

Where's the "I don't care, because I can easily rationalize such things if I need to" option?

Is it safe to assume that you only want to game with people who accept your rationalization?

 

[Drkfathr1]

You mean lie?

Ouch!

Yeah, I tend to see some of what they've done as lying. Especially when they told us that they were not currently in development of 4E.

That really bugs me, and will always make me second guess any pronouncement they make in the future.

 

[Lizard]

You're still assuming that rings will do the same things they do now.

No, I'm not.

One of the key tenets of the new magic item system is that all items of level 'x' are equivalent in power. If one PC gets an 11th level ring, and one gets an 11th level cloak, neither is getting a bigger edge than the other. DIFFERENT, certainly, but not BIGGER.

So it makes no sense that a 10th level PC can wear that 11th level cloak, but not the 11th level ring. The only way it DOES make sense is if rings are more powerful than their level indicates, so you would ALWAYS want a ring, rather than any other item of the same level.

It doesn't matter what rings do, or if there are no low-level rings, or whether there were low level rings in prior editions or not. It has everything to do with making the 4e model of balancing magic make any kind of sense.

Hell, if the issue is "We don't want every slot available at every level", the limit the *total number* of items by level, not the *slots*. So you might have one "miscellaneous" slot at level 1, which can be a ring OR a cloak OR boots OR gloves -- but only one. Want to put on that ring? Take off those boots.

There are just so many better ways to accomplish the design goal that I am seriously stymied as to why they chose this one, and what it implies for the development process in general.

 

[Drkfathr1]

Is it safe to assume that you only want to game with people who accept your rationalization?

If he's the DM, then yes, I guess that would be a safe assumption. I would hope that we all get to game with people that are very compatible when it comes to such. I know that's not always the case, but thankfully, I've got 7 players that accept my rationalizations.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Is it safe to assume that you only want to game with people who accept your rationalization?

I think the key importance here is the difference between "accept" and "agree."

I've found people I play with to be very accepting, because they're my friends.

Just as I would be accepting of one of their rationalizations, even if I don't agree with it.