Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AFGNCAAP" data-source="post: 4011381" data-attributes="member: 871">I don't quite like this rule.  Though I can understand this ruling because rings in 4E may be potent & powerful things, the access PCs have to magic items of this power is dependant on the DM.This seems like a rule that will, IMO, only bring ridicule and possibly be house-ruled out really, really quick by quite a few players.  Perhaps even to the point where the rule is dropped in one of the future DMGs or the like (or, if you will, is one of the "improvements" made in 4.5).And (apologies ahead of time if this has already been shared), <a href="http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=215" target="_blank">this sort of idea/rule/mechanic for games has become humor-fodder already.</a>  I'm sure I'm not the 1st one to think "Wow, Bilbo, Frodo, Sam, and Gollum must've been at least 11th level..." after reading that info.If rings are intended to be that powerful, then it's simply a matter of the DM only making them available when appropriate (and providing guidelines accordingly).Then again, I wonder if rings in 4E are intended to be the catch-all category for magic items.  That they could pretty much have almost any sort of power (whereas other magic items abide by "themes" to what powers they offer), and often have some of the most potent ones (like wishes, or the all-stacking deflection bonus, etc.).  Still, it's not much to just say "this stuff is best suited for Paragon characters or higher to possess" rather than saying that "You must be at least this level to <s>ride this ride</s> use this item."I think this rule will simply go out the window IMC.  As it is, I still want to use my pseudo-Mandarin villain with a magic ring per digit.</blockquote>

Verification