How many [Rings]?

[Osvir]

Aawww, that's true. Before I move on with the topic on Rings, I did find this as I was looking for "Hula Hoop Wizards":

That's 105 hula hoops btw

So Ring ideas:
 

One Ring To Rule Them All

- This concept I find interesting. What if there is a Ring in the game that's pretty good on it's own, but if you wear a second (or more) ring you lose some of it's effects? (Or it becomes a cursed ring! "The Envious Ring")

- IF you can only wear one ring: It should be on the left hand because it's closer to the heart/soul~ corny I dunno but we have a pretty big artery going into our left armpit because of this. Power could flow stronger in the left arm?

Traditional Two Ringfinger
- Traditional traditional. One on the left and one on the right. Or?

Too lazy to go through all 10 of em but... can something "unique" and/or "innovative" be done with Rings? Does some races benefit more from rings? Some benefit in other ways? Can rings change appearance like in the Goblins comic? (Ring of Undeath = Makes him look like a zombie)

Cursed Rings? Virtuous Rings? Magic Rings that can shoot some minor spells? (I believe there is a "Ring of Energy Blast" in Baldur's Gate for instance)

What sort of enchantments could trinkets have? And could they be crafted together with swords, staffs, grimoires etc. etc? Could I take a ring and engrave/forge it into the sword hilt of a crafted sword to give it benefits?

Nose ring? Earring? Eyebrow ring? Under the skin Ring(s)? <- Ring (Fantasy-Medieval) Augmentation~

Whilst I'm on the subject.... Magical Tattoos and Seals?
 

 

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 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.

Depends on how delicate it is handled I believe. Simply giving you "+6 Armor" is boring in itself, but what if having 2 Rings had zero effect whatsoever, but when you find that 3rd ring you can summon a Djinni Summoning or gain Invisibility. A little bit more "treasure hunting" in that sense if you have to gather all 3 components before getting the effect.

 

Whilst in Baldur's Gate you just find an unidentified ring and when you identify it "Oh, a ring of invisibility! Lucky~".

Edited September 21, 2013 by Osvir

[Stun]

Depends on how delicate it is handled I believe. Simply giving you "+6 Armor" is boring in itself, but what if having 2 Rings had zero effect whatsoever, but when you find that 3rd ring you can summon a Djinni Summoning or gain Invisibility. A little bit more "treasure hunting" in that sense if you have to gather all 3 components before getting the effect.

 

Whilst in Baldur's Gate you just find an unidentified ring and when you identify it "Oh, a ring of invisibility! Lucky~".

I've played some games that had a variation of this. You were still limited to 1 or 2 rings, but, these rings had 3 or 4 sockets... for gems. And of course, you could find enchanted gems in the game world, each of which had different powers, and then it was up to you to decide which combination of gems you were going to adorn your ring(s) with.

 

Meh... It's an OK concept, but personally it's just a tad too.... "gamey" for my tastes. I'm far more in favor of magic items with pre-set lore and history. Being always able to upgrade every magic item you find has become a grotesquely overused cliche. Lets leave our rings the way they are.

Edited September 21, 2013 by Stun

[Osvir]

I agree Stun. I voted for 4 rings, but I think 2 is really enough.

But I am also challenging the thought of "more than the usual" or "new ways". Which is why I'm exploring variants and various differential values such as "10" rings with a "ring-mechanic" attached to it. This thread is no suggestion, but merely exploration of concepts and vivid and weird ideas. Feel free to explore freely as well :D what would 4 rings be like? 5? 6? 7? What's the downside to having many rings? Does magical trinkets suck on the soul? Maybe you become better focused in one aspect because you have many rings, but other aspects of your character becomes slightly "weakened"?

Ring ideas? Stories? Lore?

Back to the "Must-Have-3-Rings-To-Summon-Djinni" Idea and elaboration thereof (because I'm not talking about "upgrading" a Ring). The Lore could be attached to the complete set, and each Ring could have a "chapter" description. "Only when 3 become 1 will the Djinni beckon" or whatnot. Instead of having 1 Item with 1 Lore you'd have 3 Items with 1/3rd Lore each.

Kind of like Book Hunting in the TES games, only when you have found all 5 Chapters of a History Series will you know the entire tale kind of thing~

- bbl

[Keyrock]

4 rings - 2 on each hand. 

[Nonek]

One Albert.

[Messier-31]

Traditional 2 prevents from overpowering, thank you

[Archmage Silver]

Voted two for tradition. No need to break a classic rule, unless you can think of something clever to use in its stead. And game balance-wise I've yet to see a better solution.

[LadyCrimson]

Traditional 2 prevents from overpowering, thank you

I think prevention of overpowering comes more from the design/stats of rings then the number of rings.

 

...at any rate, I wonder, will there really be such a plethora of rings in P.E. to make wearing 8, 10, or more rings a decent "choice" option in the first place? This isn't Diablo ... I'm not really picturing P.E. dropping a ring every other fight for you to mull over.

 

Also, the same could be said about necklaces as rings. People are capable of having more than one around their neck, after all. Granted, 10 thick gold chains or very large pendants probably gets a little cumbersome - not to mention potentially outfit-clashing - but hey, you could.

[Messier-31]

I think prevention of overpowering comes more from the design/stats of rings then the number of rings.

 

Well, sure, but as long as they don't stack! Otherwise that would mean more ordinary rings that do nothing, or next to nothing. Even so, I think that multiple rings with some benefits would make a character over the top really quick. If somebody insists, one could ware many rings on each finger, like 5 at a time. Quick math = 50. So, there still are necklaces. Other trinkets - earrings, maybe? A magical earring would be piratey, ARR!

[teknoman2]

if we take any IE game as an example, it was

armor

bracers

helmet

boots

belt

shield

weapon

amulet

cloak

2 rings

instead of more  rings you can just add

2 earrings

[Labadal]

More than two rings means that you need to make them not as good. With two rings you can give the player more powerful ones.

[BillyCorgan]

First i think "you"re right".. we have ten fingers so... why not... But in game this will be too "cheat mode" if player can hold them ten.

 

So the limit to 2 rings is ok for me, but instead of more rings they can just add 2 earrings (as said by teknoman2). Earing properties should be different from rings... and so... why not. 

[Fearabbit]

The big problem for me is that I hate rings, necklaces and earrings. Not just in games but in real life too, I think they're yucky. And I don't usually like how they look, especially if you wear dozens of them. You know? A guy with 8 rings and three necklaces is someone I'd find inherently unsympathetic. And the first image that comes to mind is that of a slimy rich merchant.

 

I don't want to play such a character. I don't want to be forced to in order to maximize my potential. It's bad enough I have to wear two rings and an amulet in most RPGs. For me there's a huge difference between playing the character I wan lt to play, and playing the same character with jewellery.

[LadyCrimson]

I don't want to be forced to in order to maximize my potential.

So don't be concerned with maximizing your potential if you're roleplaying in that fashion/really dislike jewelry? I don't think I've encountered a rpg where I felt like I *had* to wear rings in order to progress/win - outside of the last difficulty playthru of games like Diablo or something, perhaps, but that's quite different. And even those games you could get away without wearing a piece of equipment or two if you felt like it. 

[Fearabbit]

But I do want to maximize my potential. I just don't want to use jewellery for that. And I don't see why I should have to. Because Tolkien made a book about a magical ring once? So now every fantasy setting needs magical rings?

 

I mean, the answer to the chainmail bikini problem shouldn't be "so don't wear armor when you play a woman', either.

 

I voted for 2 rings, by the way. I can live with that, no problem, but I'd prefer a system without magical rings and definitely wouldn't want one where you can wear 10 of them.

[Sacred_Path]

I don't wear rings, earrings or necklaces IRL either. But that's probably because they aren't magical.

[LadyCrimson]

But I do want to maximize my potential. I just don't want to use jewellery for that. And I don't see why I should have to.

Don't get me wrong, I understand visually not liking an article of equipment. I personally never like helmets (in games) because they almost always look dorky to me, not to mention completely hides the face I might have spent a long time polishing in the chr. creation menu.

 

It's the "shouldn't have to in order to maximize..." thing I don't really get. Should games never have helmets, then, because I shouldn't have to wear one to maximize my potential? Or if someone doesn't like wearing gloves? And so on?

 

But I have a solution! They should just make all equipment have a "disable visuals" option, like some games do with helmets. My entire party will be able to (effectively) fight whilst looking like they're wearing just their boots! ... you probably think I'm joking, but that would crack me up to no end....

[Fearabbit]

Hehe. Yeah I don't like helmets either. In fact, I don't really like armor at all. I certainly wouldn't mind getting rid of it by using a more modern setting - 16th/17th century. I'd love to play as one of the Three Musketeers, basically. I'd love a game full of swashbucklers and magic, absolutist Emperors and political intrigue, and without any magical rings.

 

But I think there's a difference between the time period a fantasy setting resembles, and the fantasy rules it chooses for itself. The former is more bound by reality (or what we've come to think of as the reality of that period), so we expect knights in shining armor when we have a medieval-ish setting. But I see no reason why a game has to have magical rings. The Witcher didn't have them (unless I'm mistaken), and people didn't mind.

 

So... that's what I mean. If the game has to have magical rings, at least keep it at a minimum, but personally I'd prefer a setting where they don't appear at all.

[Pipyui]

Two rings is fine for me, any more than three is just getting too complicated.  Either your team becomes overpowered or the rings individually become worthless.  I suppose you could make a game of stacking particular ring effects, but I don't like the idea.

 

I like rjshae's idea best:

 

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.

[Osvir]

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.

That's actually pretty neat. So basically 2 Rings+1 General Accessory Piece

 

I still want a (singular) "Treasure Hunt!" Item Set where you have to find several items (in this case, 3).

 

Maybe you first read about this item in a Book Chapter (or two), then you find one ring which has a chapter description (with perhaps a clue). Then you find the next piece (another ring), with a chapter description leading to a clue in a book. Then you find the third piece (an earring or neklace... a tattoo maybe).

[JFSOCC]

10 rings makes the most sense to me. Or 1 per finger, in case different species have differing digits.

 

And then space out rings in loot to be rare enough that most people never get 10 rings on their one character.

 

Those with crafting and time and resources might max it out, if they want to so desperately. Play as you wish.

[Osvir]

10 rings makes the most sense to me. Or 1 per finger, in case different species have differing digits.

 

And then space out rings in loot to be rare enough that most people never get 10 rings on their one character.

 

Those with crafting and time and resources might max it out, if they want to so desperately. Play as you wish.

So only 1 character could get a maximum amount of rings in this case? (The others getting perhaps... 4-6 tops)

 

Another idea: Different fingers giving different strengths? Kind of complex, sounds like it could be its own Class with its own Class/Build Mechanics in the way I'm thinking about it (I.E: Rings functioning like a Grimoire, but Rings instead). Might be something to mod in there :D

[Messier-31]

 

10 rings makes the most sense to me. Or 1 per finger, in case different species have differing digits.

 

And then space out rings in loot to be rare enough that most people never get 10 rings on their one character.

 

Those with crafting and time and resources might max it out, if they want to so desperately. Play as you wish.

 

So only 1 character could get a maximum amount of rings in this case? (The others getting perhaps... 4-6 tops)

 

Another idea: Different fingers giving different strengths?  (...)

 

Geez, don't you guys see how much this is getting more and more complicated? Come on, I bet you will have tons of better things to do in a cRPG than to arrange your jewelry on your fingers like some bloody popinjay

[Osvir]

@messier:

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64408-how-many-rings/?p=1372893

This thread is no suggestion, but merely exploration of concepts and vivid and weird ideas. Feel free to explore freely as well :D

I don't think 10 rings is really a good idea~ but is it possible to make it a good idea in some ways? (Regardless if it is for PE or not)

I suppose another way to put this thread is... it's both a thread to explore what's good for PE, and also a thread to explore what can be done that's not been done before. 10 rings has never been done before, neither has 9, 8, 7, 6, 5 (at least not what I know). What would be feasible in a system that allows that many rings? What kind of power would those rings have? Are they "combo" rings? (You've got to have 3 of a "set" to make them "work" efficiently) A Ring Class (Mandarin Class~) that gains power based on the Soul in the Rings? (a Class that borrows power from items)

rjshae's post (2 rings+1 Accessory Slot) is pretty much what I'd like to see. Sounds reasonable. It even makes me think "Male versus Female" at Character Creation. Maybe Women can wear 2 rings+2 Accessory Slots (2 Earrings, for instance). Usually in RPG's there is no difference between men or women apart from Narrative (not that I really mind, but it could add more tactical & strategical choices and options). Could Men get something else? An extra Armor slot perhaps? An extra tattoo at the tattoo parlor?

[Messier-31]

Osvir, I already know what you mean, so thanks for explication. I just stated that IMO this whole idea might be more like a gameplay nuisance than anything good.

 

"It's not a bug, it's a feature!"

Edited September 22, 2013 by Messier-31