How many [Rings]?

[Osvir]

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

[Silent Winter]

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.

[Lephys]

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.

[Osvir]

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/

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 September 21, 2013 by Osvir

[BruceVC]

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

[Lephys]

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!"

 

Edited September 21, 2013 by Lephys

[rjshae]

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.

[Silent Winter]

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 September 21, 2013 by Silent Winter

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Ten rings, like the Mandarin.

[Hormalakh]

One ring to rule them all....

[Leferd]

Anything other than two would just be silly.

[Jajo]

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.

[Tuckey]

One ring only. But make it uber awesome.

[teknoman2]

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

[Osvir]

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:

Page 2:

That should be an exotic weapon 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 September 21, 2013 by Osvir

[Fluffle]

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.

[Sacred_Path]

I vote for magical hula hoops.

[Osvir]

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 September 21, 2013 by Osvir

[LadyCrimson]

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....

[Jarmo]

2 for women, 3 for men.

 

...

 

 

no.. actually I want 4 for each finger, 40 in total.

10 is just as arbitrary as 2, just let me wear all the rings I find.

[Leferd]

I vote for magical hula hoops.

*processes*

 

...

 

...

 

Brilliant!

 

But only one hula hoop.

[BruceVC]

 

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).

 

 

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

[Osvir]

@Leferd: Only... one...?

 

EDIT: Tempted to ask to rename thread into "How many [Hula Hoops]?" 

Edited September 21, 2013 by Osvir

[Leferd]

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

[Stun]

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 September 21, 2013 by Stun