Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Imban" data-source="post: 4013415" data-attributes="member: 29206">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 &quot;actually staves or what&quot; 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 &quot;fixes&quot; 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: &quot;Belt of Battle? Wavestriding Boots? Don't you mean Ring of Battle and Ring of Water Walking?&quot; yes, &quot;Eyeglasses of Giant Strength! Boots of Intellect!&quot; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Imban, post: 4013415, member: 29206"] 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 [b]obvious[/b] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification