Magic rings - being allowed to wear more than one

[scipioafricanus]

I read some threads about potions being annoying and I agree in Skyrim it became ridiculous, sometimes I had 60 + potions in my inventory, one thing I really love is magic rings and it p****** me off that in games you can't wear more than one ring ! I have 10 fingers right ? I'm not saying allowing 10 magic rings is cool but at least let me have 2 !!!!! Rant over.

[Jarrakul]

I haven't played Skyrim, but I think the generally accepted ring count is 2. Why you can't wear 10, or even 20, is rarely touched upon, but I suspect you'll at least get your wish. It would strike me as very odd if Eternity didn't allow 2 rings per character.

[Leferd]

On the fence on this one. Especially for a lower level game, having the power of two magic rings may be a bit too overpowered and unbalanced relative to the level.

[SKahn]

Totally agree. If you need to reduce the power of rings to balance additional slots, that'd be fine. I'd extend this even further and say I'd prefer more armor slots in general: shoulder armor, grieves... bow tie, cummerbund... You know

[Whosdriving]

Cummerbund...? awsome

[Leferd]

Didn't they have cummerbunds in DS3?

[Umberlin]

As much as I wonder why characters in so many games seem oblivious to their other fingers, and even toes (toe rings are a ting afterall), I can, at least, understand that it's typically a gameplay decision meant to keep the enhancement aspects of certain items from going out of control. Actually I'd note the original Guild Wars, in regard to that one aspect, I liked that (even in D&D, depending on the stat) certain statistical advantages granted by items simply would not stack with each other.

 

Regardless, the point is, having to pick and choose it, actually, a good thing.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Umberlin

[HansKrSG]

The reasoning in the IE games to having only 2 rings, are because of a balancing issue in the AD&D system. They justify it to saying that only one ring per hand can have their power active at the same time, so that the magic doesn't interfere with each other. (Or something like this, I have my old AD&D 2nd ed. books here if we need to check )

Now because D&D has been making the standard for such things a long time, the 2 ring limit seems to be the norm. Obsidian could choose to have completely other limits though. My hope is that they justify those limits with something, I like believeability(sp?) in the games I am playing.

[AGX-17]

One ring on each hand should have no penalty, and you get exponentially larger dexterity penalties for each additional ring, up to the point that you need your companions to add or remove them as your fingers are essentially frozen in place. Also incapable of carrying weapons or using items.

[HansKrSG]

One ring on each hand should have no penalty, and you get exponentially larger dexterity penalties for each additional ring, up to the point that you need your companions to add or remove them as your fingers are essentially frozen in place. Also incapable of carrying weapons or using items.

 

I would guess such an effect would only be logical if the rings where broad and wide, and thus made moving your fingers harder for some reason. Having at least 6 rings would be no trouble (3 on each hand) in real life, as long as the rings are of "normal" size.

[Sensuki]

If you watch the stream, you'll hear Josh talking to some of the other staff about magic rings when he's sitting on the couch.

[Calmar]

Two rings per character worked fine to me in the Icewind Dale and Baldur's Gate games.

[Humanoid]

I'd rather do away with rings altogether - was always kind of arbitrary why some pieces of jewelery qualify as being magical and others don't. Loot drops, hey a magic item. Why are two rings okay, a ring plus a necklace okay, but two necklaces, Mr T style, not? Why do I have to pray the loot gods drop exactly 12 rings and 6 necklaces for my party? If we're going to have magical jewelery then I'd prefer to just genericise the slots for all jewelery.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Humanoid

[Kith]

While it was implemented fairly painfully, maybe a system similar to Final Fantasy 14 which gave you a full set of jewellery slots (neck, 2 earrings, 2 bracelets, 2 rings) but each item had a cost associated to equip it and you could only have X poitns worth of jewellery equipped. This would allow plenty of choice in what to wear and add more for the numbers people to figure out the best combinations between having 1-2 really powerful pieces or a full set of 7 weaker items and everything in between.

 

Even more fun if the chosen jewellery actualy shows on the character model in this (presumably ;p) much higher detail outting.

[Humanoid]

Just thinking out aloud of course, but I'm starting to think an even tighter restriction would be justifiable.

 

a) One item, and one item only, of magical nature on your body. Ring, amulet, earring, hair tie, whatever - just the one, but ensure they're very interesting effects instead of just boring modifiers. Armour is a tricky issue - my position at the beginning of the project was that it'd be mostly mundane gear which wouldn't cause problems, but that seems rather unlikely now. Still, I'd rather see armour as something special but not strictly magical in the absolute sense - made from an alloy the secret of which has been lost to the ages, or the cliched dragon's skin, etc. Magic weapons on the other hand I don't really take issue with in terms of how they're usually done.

 

Incidental aside: I've never been a fan of any gear of any kind affecting non-combat skills. Both from an in-game immersion perspective ("No, you say? Give me a moment to put on my Obsidian T-shirt." *shuffle shufle* "How about now?"), and from experience of it not playing well in effect. Combat bonuses are less problematic though not particularly interesting, admittedly. With the "single magic item" design, interesting effects to me as things like converting your fire spells to ice damage, maybe damage reflection, increasing odds of enemy panic - stuff that doesn't make sense on regular gear. I might be convinced that a tangentially non-combat related effect, like 'sense lies' might be passable, but something like "Amulet of making people say you're awesome in bed even though you're not*" is probably not okay.

 

Incidental aside two: I'd also like to see the effects of items tied in a sensible way to the nature of the item. A sword of bleeding wounds, fine. A sword of parrying, fine. A sword of damage resistance, no.

 

 

I'd expect some contention over a design like that, so tossing out an alternative:

 

b) The magic of such items is contained in an inherently transferable focus - in your typical stock fantasy setting this will probably be a gem or similar - which you can therefore equip in more than one potential fashion. Whether you'd need to find a jeweler or some sort of craft check to do so I'm not particularly concerned about.

[Hassat Hunter]

I'd say 4 rings.

 

Justification? I have none... It just sounds about the right amount to me.

Of course there should be no 4 overpowered Rings of Kangaxx in the game then though...

[rjshae]

For variety they could give rings primary and secondary powers; with two ring slots for primary only powers and two for secondary only. But I'm fine with just having two ring slots. In the end, it's all about game balance.

[AgentOrange]

The only solution is to learn from Dungeoncrawl Stone Soup, and have a race of cephalopods. No armor unless it is specifically made for you race, but you can wear a bunch of rings on all your extra appendages.

[jivex5k]

You find:

A magic corset of binding.

 

2 rings at max please, and 1 amulet slot.

 

I guess it will hurt the MC Hammer RPers though...sorry guys.

 

 

Seriously though, it's a balance issue to have a crapload of rings.

I'd rather have more powerful rings than 10 semi-powerful ones.

[Qaladan]

The original reason from Dungeons and Dragons of old (besides it being overpowered to have 10 +strength rings on) is that the magic in each ring would interfere with each other. Nah, it doesn't really make much sense considering you could wear a magic amulet under your magic armor.. but I've always gone with it.

 

It's definitely more of a balance issue than anything, and the flavor is left over from the olden times. Stats have historically been extremely important in this type of game (but with some of the things the crew has been saying, maybe that will change. They spoke highly of not wanting "instawin" situations from stats.) so I can understand 1 or 2 rings, max.

[general_azure]

Doh, everyone knows you have only one finger per hand that can support magic rings. It's even named accordingly =P

[Jarrakul]

Azure, you win an internet. That's the most entertaining explanation I've ever heard.

[Jojobobo]

I want 10 rings, 4 amulets and at least 3 toe rings. Bling bling.

[Radres]

You guys must be adventuring like Mr.T in your craziest pen&paper games!

 

[Ignatius]

If the game were balanced around having a ring on each finger, you'd be finding rings every other chest just to validate this gimmick mechanic. Otherwise you'd get to end game and four of your characters still have 23 empty ring slots! And imagine finding a MAGIC ring that increases your armor by... .02

Edited October 18, 2012 by Ignatius