?

Log in

No account? Create an account
D&D 3E
Magical rings 
7th-Feb-2006 08:34 am
geometry, roleplaying, random numbers, games, 3e
It seems a little odd to me that magical necklaces, bracelets, earrings, crowns, brooches and amulets should all count as "Wondrous Items", and that magical rings should get their own category.

Is there a reason why rings shouldn't be folded into wondrous items along with all the other jewellery, beyond the fact that Tolkien made magical rings iconic? Or why the magic ring category shouldn't be expanded to include other items of jewellery?

I'd appreciate people's thoughts on this.

[cross-posted]
Comments 
7th-Feb-2006 02:28 pm (UTC)
now that you mention it, it would make sense to put them all together.
7th-Feb-2006 02:39 pm (UTC)
That is a very good point. I think a magic jewellery category would make sense.
7th-Feb-2006 05:37 pm (UTC)
A friend just reminded me that Arcana Evolved (Arcana Unearthed) has a nice set of rules. You get feats for the usage type, not the physical type. So you take a feat that lets you create one-use items or charged items, etc.
7th-Feb-2006 08:35 pm (UTC)
We do that in my games -- Craft one-use consumable, craft charged item, etc.
7th-Feb-2006 05:43 pm (UTC)
I would say it has to do with:

1) Virtually every character is able to wear a ring, while not every character will necessarily be able to wear a bracelet or amulet.

2) It has to do with where the item is slotted. A magical scarf would take up the item slot for an amulet, but wouldn't make any sense to put magical scarves under a "Craft Magic Jewelry" feat. Also, based on this logic, bracers, guantlets, and helmets would all fall under the "Craft Magic Arms and Armor" rather than "Craft Wonderous Items", making CMAaA even more useful while making CWI less so.

This makes it an issue of balance, which has to take precident over "realism" in order for the game to function properly.
8th-Feb-2006 05:25 am (UTC)
"This makes it an issue of balance, which has to take precident over "realism" in order for the game to function properly."

That is entirely>/i> subjective to the group.

The whole "item slots" concept is, well, pure crap. As for rings, I believe traditionally they auomatically sized to fit the wearer, as did bracelets, amulets, and all others. If this has somehow changed in DnD 3E, It would make sense then for it to change for ALL categories of magical items, across the board.

I agree with the OP. Rings should be in a jewelry category. Additionally, the "only two magic rings" limitation always bothered me.

But then again, so do hit points, experience levels, fire-and-forget spells, and the list goes on and on...

I wonder how many gaming groups out there actually play DnD without any house rules?
8th-Feb-2006 05:36 am (UTC)
What does sizing have to do with anything?

Item slots and limits on magical items is a mechanical issue to cap the power of characters. This is the same reason most benefits don't stack.

Most of your complaints can be solved, though, either by checking out Unearthed Arcana or by playing World of Darkness instead.

About the only house rule I played with was "no Forgotten Realms shit".
8th-Feb-2006 05:38 am (UTC)
"...either by checking out Unearthed Arcana"

Great book, but it is pretty much a few hundred pages of collected house rules, nothing more.


I'm not fond of World of Darkness.
8th-Feb-2006 05:41 am (UTC)
True, but you're talking about getting rid of the presented mechanics in favor of variants.

Why aren't you a fan of World of Darkness? There's no experience levels, fire-and-forget spells, hit points, et cetera.
8th-Feb-2006 05:45 am (UTC)
Hey chummer, it was sarcasm.
8th-Feb-2006 05:46 am (UTC)
In fact, I haven't talked about "getting rid of" anything, as far as I can tell.
8th-Feb-2006 06:01 am (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that "not liking" most of the fundamental mechanics a system was based on amounted to leaving them put.
8th-Feb-2006 06:58 am (UTC)
You're trolling for flamebait. End of discussion, further comments will not be read.

Happy gamaing!
8th-Feb-2006 07:02 am (UTC)
Trolling would be like claiming something and then later contradicting it on a basis of semantics. But who does that?

Oh, wait ...
8th-Feb-2006 05:40 am (UTC)
And sizing has everything to do with your #1 statement. Why else would folks not be able to wear bracelets or amulets, yet still be able to wear rings?

As far as I'm concerned, anything that can wear a ring can, by rights, wear a bracelet.
8th-Feb-2006 05:59 am (UTC)
Would a creature with tentacles be able to wear a ring and a bracelet on the same tentacles? How thick would such a tentacle need to be? At what tapering angle does this become feasible? Why waste time considering these realistic technical questions? Would a character with no neck have the ability ("item slot") to wear an amulet? If you shoved all of these into a "jewerly category", then how do you compensate for players that want to abuse this by using nose and lip rings in addition to earrings? What about races like Warforged that don't have ears in the first place? I mean, just how far do you really want to take these nuances?

I'm sure when they originally were considering all the different Craft feats, they considered a "Craft Magic Amulet" as well, and then realized how pointless such a feat would be. "Forge Ring", though, withstood such rationale, playtesting, and, if it really was an issue, it would have been taken out for 3.5. To say that it was left in simply because rings are special because of some Tolkienized canon is pretty ridiculous.
8th-Feb-2006 07:09 pm (UTC)
rings are different that other jewelry items bc there are two different slots that they can go in.
idk i think its fine to make any house rules you want but this is just the case bc most toehr types of magical jewelry are more recent creations... 1E didnt have all these earrings of walking on icicles and other unique items.

i leave rings in their own category after i apply the hosue rule that up to three rings can be worn on a hand. this increase in slots makes the small group of item creation more important.
blahblahlbhalbhal

d&d is faulty thats why house rules exist
13th-Feb-2006 03:50 pm (UTC) - Baugar
It's got to do with Narration. A ring represents an oath, a circle. It has Special Symbolism. You've got to know what you're doing, when you make a ring. It's just not the same as goggles or a swag bag. A ring is even a bigger deal than a crown. In Beowulf, the ring is passed on with the throne. In Volundarkvitha, Volund forges a ring for every day that he is apart from his wife. You can't do that with a wizard hat. It just isn't the same. The ring Draupnir drops eight rings of equal weight every tenth night, if I recall. That doesn't happen with Uncle Wizard's Magic Fedora.
Rings are a bigger deal than other items. That's why they get a feat.

That and your average ring is going to be cooler than your average wonderous item anyway.
15th-Feb-2006 01:17 am (UTC) - Re: Baugar
See, I was hoping that people would come up with reasons that don't boil down to "rings are iconic, in Europe and Middle Earth, therefore they should be iconic everywhere."

Why would any of the examples you cite not work with a circlet, or a brooch? As magical feathers are about as iconic in Native American myth as rings are in European myth, should there also be a Craft Feather feat, because magical feathers are such a big deal? What about the massive importance of magical fish in Celtic myth? Chuchulain learned secret wisdom from a magical trout, for example. And there were the magic pigs that would come back to life after being slaughtered and eaten...

And why is a ring of invisibility cooler than a cloak of invisibility? Or a ring of regeneration cooler than a sword that grants its user regeneration?

In short, all things being equal, and without reference to European myth that isn't really relevant to a fantasy world, why is a ring cooler or more important than another item that does something similar?
This page was loaded Nov 20th 2017, 9:08 am GMT.