Jump to content

Rings  

109 members have voted

  1. 1. How many Rings?

    • 1
      4
    • 2 (Traditional)
      65
    • 3
      1
    • 4
      22
    • 5
      0
    • 6
      3
    • 7
      1
    • 8
      0
    • 9
      1
    • 10 (Ten Fingers)
      12


Recommended Posts

Simple poll.

Don't know about you, but this is something I tend to ask myself in RPG's:

"Why can I only have 2 rings?"

I know it makes sense from a mechanical perspective, having 10 Rings in many RPG's would be waaaay overpowered because many Rings do grant pretty hefty bonuses later in the game. It would also take up a LOT of space in the inventory screen (unless a sort of scroll bar of some sort).

But what if Rings only gave small bonuses and/or had "Ring Set"-functions (3 of the same Rings gives a bigger bonus when worn together)?

Nevertheless, I am not advocating for 10 Rings, but more or less just challenging a thought.

I voted for for.... ;P

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

But then, if we're going for more realism, what if the rings don't fit?

A ring sized for my thumb would fall off my little finger and a ring sized for my ring-finger could fall off someone else's thumb (no, really).

 

I think the 'one ring on each hand' approach could be explained by channeling magic to the body via the veins or some Jialong (sp?) channels - only one ring can 'work' on each hand.

Having 10 lower-powered rings would probably make for exhausting ring-management to achieve the same effects as 2 'normal' rings.

 

Having said that - I don't really mind.

  • Like 3

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Casts Nature's Terror* :aiee: , *Casts Firebug* :fdevil: , *Casts Rot-Skulls* :skull: , *Casts Garden of Life* :luck: *Spirit-shifts to cat form* :cat:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I would go with some kind of interference. Makes sense with lots of other kind of energy, so why not with magical energy?

 

It might even be interesting if you COULD wear up to 4 rings on each hand (or 5, with thumb rings? *shrug*), but each additional ring you put on the same hand dampens the effect of all rings on that hand. Kind of like running a bunch of powerful electrical signal cables right next to each other. *shrug*

 

So, if you found a bunch of rings, you could opt for more different bonuses at once, OR for fewer-yet-more-potent bonuses.

  • Like 1

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to post
Share on other sites

But then, if we're going for more realism, what if the rings don't fit?

A ring sized for my thumb would fall off my little finger and a ring sized for my ring-finger could fall off someone else's thumb (no, really).

 

I think the 'one ring on each hand' approach could be explained by channeling magic to the body via the veins or some Jialong (sp?) channels - only one ring can 'work' on each hand.

Having 10 lower-powered rings would probably make for exhausting ring-management to achieve the same effects as 2 'normal' rings.

 

Having said that - I don't really mind.

Hmm, I didn't think about realism really... then we have the question "Does Aumaua have 10 fingers, Orlan?" etc. etc.

 

This is what I thought about:

http://www.goblinscomic.org/01132012/

20120113.jpg

Panel 6 to 8 "Dammit, the rings don't fit!"

 

I agree with possible tedious ring management (10 rings) but still curious about it. Not for realism in any way, but I can't think of any game that has tried it. 2 rings are typical and traditional. Which means that anything but 2 rings would most likely call for "innovative" ring mechanics.

 

EDIT:

Also want to direct some shameless attention to this post:

Permanent Injuries losing a Finger could be something fairly common. Again, not advocating for 10 Rings. I am simply exploring, what I think is, an innovative idea.

Edited by Osvir
Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple poll.

 

Don't know about you, but this is something I tend to ask myself in RPG's:

 

"Why can I only have 2 rings?"

 

I know it makes sense from a mechanical perspective, having 10 Rings in many RPG's would be waaaay overpowered because many Rings do grant pretty hefty bonuses later in the game. It would also take up a LOT of space in the inventory screen (unless a sort of scroll bar of some sort).

 

But what if Rings only gave small bonuses and/or had "Ring Set"-functions (3 of the same Rings gives a bigger bonus when worn together)?

 

Nevertheless, I am not advocating for 10 Rings, but more or less just challenging a thought.

 

I voted for for.... ;P

 

Interesting post :)

 

I voted for 3 due to the  whole overpowering factor of having too many rings

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will admit that I am moderately irked when I can only wear ONE ring/earring, etc.

 

And, not that I'm suggesting it's wrong for you to NOT be able to, but I think it'd be cool if you could wear two different gloves/bracers/boots. Who says things that are WORN in pairs must always be ENCHANTED in pairs? :)

 

Oh, and obviously, if you CAN wear more than one ring on each hand, you'd still have to have one main ring... you know... to RULE them ALLLLL!!!! And in the darkness bind them!

 

"Hey, what the! Guys! Turn the light out! I was TRYing... to BIND them... u_u!"

 

8)

Edited by Lephys

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm okay with just two ring slots: rings are way cool items, but having just two slots helps distribute the rare finds among the group.

 

It'd be nice to have just one extra slot that accept any item from a list of oddball accessories--a nose ring, thumb piece, earring, undershirt, cod piece, garter, eye piece, wig, ankle bracelet, toe ring, or what have you. Such an accessory slot could perhaps also be used for a spare ring.

  • Like 3

"It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats."

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I thought about:

http://www.goblinscomic.org/01132012/

 

LOL awesome

 

Interesting post :)

 

I voted for 3 due to the  whole overpowering factor of having too many rings

 

'3' hasn't been voted for :? (I can see 2 votes for '2', 1 for '4' and 1 for '8)

 

---

 

I like the idea of interfering rings (did I just say that out loud?) - as Lephys suggested - I guess it depends on how PE rings work as to how much bother it would be to code that in.

If we're going to go for more than 2, then I can't see a logical reason for stopping short of 8 (if we discount thumbs).

Edited by Silent Winter
  • Like 1

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Casts Nature's Terror* :aiee: , *Casts Firebug* :fdevil: , *Casts Rot-Skulls* :skull: , *Casts Garden of Life* :luck: *Spirit-shifts to cat form* :cat:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The poll is totally speciist! 10 rings? How many fingers do orlans have? How many fingers do all variants of godlike have? What if a godlike is half a chameleon (who wouldn't want such a rogue in the party) and only has mitten like hands?

I will not support segregation of any kind, so I voted for 2.

 

 

 

 

Being able to equip many rings will just result in their power being watered down. That's not my preference.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont know how many of you have worn rings in more than a finger of a hand, but if you try and do it, it is uncomfortable to say the least. besides the fact that they impair the movement of the fingers

so 1 ring on each hand is the only practical way to do it. besides it is called ring finger, not because it's a habit of social origin to put rings there but because it is the only finger that can hold a ring without causing problems to the use of the hand

  • Like 2

The words freedom and liberty, are diminishing the true meaning of the abstract concept they try to explain. The true nature of freedom is such, that the human mind is unable to comprehend it, so we make a cage and name it freedom in order to give a tangible meaning to what we dont understand, just as our ancestors made gods like Thor or Zeus to explain thunder.

 

-Teknoman2-

What? You thought it was a quote from some well known wise guy from the past?

 

Stupidity leads to willful ignorance - willful ignorance leads to hope - hope leads to sex - and that is how a new generation of fools is born!


We are hardcore role players... When we go to bed with a girl, we roll a D20 to see if we hit the target and a D6 to see how much penetration damage we did.

 

Modern democracy is: the sheep voting for which dog will be the shepherd's right hand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont know how many of you have worn rings in more than a finger of a hand, but if you try and do it, it is uncomfortable to say the least. besides the fact that they impair the movement of the fingers

so 1 ring on each hand is the only practical way to do it. besides it is called ring finger, not because it's a habit of social origin to put rings there but because it is the only finger that can hold a ring without causing problems to the use of the hand

Moar Goblins... Rings btw... ah! I didn't say that you should put them on your hand ;) (though, not going to lie, I am implying on the fingers ofc).

 

 

Page 1:

20110805.jpg

Page 2:

20110809.jpg

That should be an exotic weapon :p or a perk "You have an extra middle ring finger! You can equip an extra ring!"

 

 

Would a pair of brass knuckles with ring slots work though? ;)

 

The poll is totally speciist! 10 rings? How many fingers do orlans have? How many fingers do all variants of godlike have? What if a godlike is half a chameleon (who wouldn't want such a rogue in the party) and only has mitten like hands?

I will not support segregation of any kind, so I voted for 2.

 

 

 

 

Being able to equip many rings will just result in their power being watered down. That's not my preference.

Let's just say 10 fingers means "on every finger"~~

Edited by Osvir
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you question the "one ring per hand" rule, why do you vote for a "one ring per finger" rule?

 

I mean who says I can't wear more than one ring on one finger?

 

Restricting one ring to one hand is the same mechanism as restricting one ring to one finger.

Just as it is possible to wear multiple ringes on one hand you can wear multiple rings on one finger.

 

So yeah I vote for 100 rings.

  • Like 2

"Loyal Servant of His Most Fluffyness, Lord Kerfluffleupogus, Devourer of the Faithful!"

 

ringoffireresistance.gif *wearing the Ring of Fire Resistance* (gift from JFSOCC)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you question the "one ring per hand" rule, why do you vote for a "one ring per finger" rule?

 

I mean who says I can't wear more than one ring on one finger?

 

Restricting one ring to one hand is the same mechanism as restricting one ring to one finger.

Just as it is possible to wear multiple ringes on one hand you can wear multiple rings on one finger.

 

So yeah I vote for 100 rings.

Ah, but what about ringmail? ;)

Edited by Osvir
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have any philosophy on the merit or non-merit (or mechanics) of multiple rings in games, but while I'm used to 2 rings from many many other games, I tend to prefer ... 4.

 

Mostly because that number gives me more "phat loot" satisfaction with a bit more gear decision-making/gear customization (vs. only 2) without yet becoming over-burdensome to my brain. I think having to decide which 8 or 10 rings I wanted to equip every time I found some new rings would drive me mad. So...4's a good number.... :p

  • Like 1
“Things are as they are. Looking out into the universe at night, we make no comparisons between right and wrong stars, nor between well and badly arranged constellations.” – Alan Watts
Link to post
Share on other sites

I vote for magical hula hoops.

*processes*

 

...

 

...

 

Brilliant!

 

But only one hula hoop.

"Things are funny...are comedic, because they mix the real with the absurd." - Buzz Aldrin.

"P-O-T-A-T-O-E" - Dan Quayle

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is what I thought about:

http://www.goblinscomic.org/01132012/

 

LOL awesome

 

Interesting post :)

 

I voted for 3 due to the  whole overpowering factor of having too many rings

 

'3' hasn't been voted for :? (I can see 2 votes for '2', 1 for '4' and 1 for '8)

 

---

 

I like the idea of interfering rings (did I just say that out loud?) - as Lephys suggested - I guess it depends on how PE rings work as to how much bother it would be to code that in.

If we're going to go for more than 2, then I can't see a logical reason for stopping short of 8 (if we discount thumbs).

 

 

:lol: you were right I didn't make my selection, its now fixed

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Animating a grimoire slam with multiple hulas might put the animation budget over the top. They only have $4 million to work with afterall.

"Things are funny...are comedic, because they mix the real with the absurd." - Buzz Aldrin.

"P-O-T-A-T-O-E" - Dan Quayle

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything other than two would just be silly.

Dungeon Siege 1. Only game I ever played that let you wear more than 2. It let you wear 6. It wasn't silly. And it wasn't overpowered either. No, it suffered from a different problem. It made rings redundant and mundane, because in the dev's attempts to keep balance, Rings became nothing more than a stacking game. And extensions of your armor.

 

Literally. There were no truly cool ring enchantments, like Invisibility, or Djinni Summoning, or Wizardry or anything like that. Nope, instead you'd just find a bajillion vender-trash rings that all gave you +6 to your armor, or +10 to your health, or some other soulless, inimaginitive crap like that. But it had to be that way. Because your character can wear 6 of the damn things, after all. 6! Could you imagine being able to wear 6 rings of Elemental control? Or 6 rings of Wizardry? It would destroy every build.

Edited by Stun
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...