Name Game: If Ya Like it

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

If Ya Like it

then ya should have shut the hell up.

Read Full Article

I think the original "justification" for this was that having multiple magic items in close proximity could foul them up.

The balance perspective is that otherwise you have 10+ rings and an arbitrary number of amulets (as depending on the size of the ring, you could wear multiple per finger) which would be impossible to balance w/o just saying "rings do nothing".

I think it's mostly a balance issue.

You can either have two rings that have decent buffs/abilities, or you can have 10 shitty rings that make up two decent buffs/abilities.

You can only wear rings on your ring fingers, duh.

I always assumed that multiple rings on the same hand would interfere with each other too much, hence the 2 ring limit. A similar question might also apply to amulets/necklaces (why only 1) when it shouldn't be too hard to wear more than one. Again, I apply the same explanation. Also, any explanation will do if it prevents every adventurer from looking like a blinged out pimp...

Oh, that face in the last panel PRICELESS!

As for why, they always explain because the magic in each ring interferes with each other. Bullshit! Tell that to the MANDARIN!

Jandau:
I always assumed that multiple rings on the same hand would interfere with each other too much, hence the 2 ring limit.

This was the D&D explanation at one point (Not sure if it still is). Considering the number of influences D&D had, I wouldn't be surprised if people just ran with that explanation for their games.

Of course, behind the GM's screen, it's solely a balance issue.

I've always wondered why rings get singled out, though. Amulets and other neck slot items can fit a lot on one body part, many of the headgear pieces should not be mutually exclusive, and I don't know about you, but I'd wear two cloaks if I could get benefit from it. >.>

And, since I couldn't help but think of the Konks:

Jokaero Digital Weapons 5 to a hand.

That's the thing. Each ring is not per finger, but per hand. It's only the pointy finger that carries one as that's usually how it activates.

It's why Spidey always runs out of web-fluid...I think?

Zachary Amaranth:

Jandau:
I always assumed that multiple rings on the same hand would interfere with each other too much, hence the 2 ring limit.

This was the D&D explanation at one point (Not sure if it still is). Considering the number of influences D&D had, I wouldn't be surprised if people just ran with that explanation for their games.

Of course, behind the GM's screen, it's solely a balance issue.

I've always wondered why rings get singled out, though. Amulets and other neck slot items can fit a lot on one body part, many of the headgear pieces should not be mutually exclusive, and I don't know about you, but I'd wear two cloaks if I could get benefit from it. >.>

There's a feat that lets you increase the number of magic items you get the benefit of, per type of magic item. So you could wear 3 rings 2 amulets 2 cloaks.

Or even more funny, you can't have 2 of the same rings.

the hell?

I don't have much experience, but wouldn't fill your hand with rings make it hard to grab the sword correctly?

Also, loved that expression XD

fanklok:

There's a feat that lets you increase the number of magic items you get the benefit of, per type of magic item. So you could wear 3 rings 2 amulets 2 cloaks.

Which edition? There have been like 12 now, including the revisions, .5s, etc.

magic rings?
magic rings

Pikeperch:
You can only wear rings on your ring fingers, duh.

+1 Logic

OT: Well as has been mentioned it's probably just due to different flavors of magic not mixing too well.

Then again in Dark Souls they probably just didn't want you to get strong enough to easily take down any kind of enemy.

I did quite like the ring finger explenation though. Makes me imagine that the magic living inside the rings doesn't want to work until you place them properly.

Jandau:
[...] Also, any explanation will do if it prevents every adventurer from looking like a blinged out pimp...

That was the most sensible explanation thus far. Although "Pimp my Paladin" would be quite popular once in a while...

Well if I remember from DnD, magic items don't like sharing room with other magic items. Especially jewelry.

That's why you use magical weapons against magical armor. Also, Ice Resist ring and Fire Resist ring next to each other will amount to a one dead guy who was smashed into small bits. Same reason why you can't wear magical tunic, magical leather armor AND magical plate armor. Or a magical hood under a magical helmet.

Zachary Amaranth:

fanklok:

There's a feat that lets you increase the number of magic items you get the benefit of, per type of magic item. So you could wear 3 rings 2 amulets 2 cloaks.

Which edition? There have been like 12 now, including the revisions, .5s, etc.

3.5 though I have no idea which book, I happened across it one day.

When I raised an issue of this with my GM many years ago. He said I could, if I didn't mind having my hands blown off by the mingling powers of many rings on one hand. So, probably balance issues.

I got something for an uncharted comic:

Suddenly, enemies.

I like the Warhammer explanation of how Magic Items work. Basically a person can only have one magic item of a given type (Weapon, Armor, Talisman, Arcane, etc), having more than one of a certain type will inevitably cause the head of the bearer to explode in a spectacular and gory fashion.

I don't know about anyone else, but I only have one ring slot... because the other ring equipped will break if I take it off. I would also imagine that having too many rings on would interfere with the whole wielding massive weapons thing. Some of the rings do look pretty bulky

saregos:
I think the original "justification" for this was that having multiple magic items in close proximity could foul them up.

The balance perspective is that otherwise you have 10+ rings and an arbitrary number of amulets (as depending on the size of the ring, you could wear multiple per finger) which would be impossible to balance w/o just saying "rings do nothing".

I remember playing it in D&D that you couldn't have that much magical energy being channeled through your body. This allowed me to justify epic feats like Extra Magic Item Space. You could train your body to channel magic from items through you more efficiently.
But yeah, it's purely a balance issue.

RJ Dalton:

saregos:
I think the original "justification" for this was that having multiple magic items in close proximity could foul them up.

The balance perspective is that otherwise you have 10+ rings and an arbitrary number of amulets (as depending on the size of the ring, you could wear multiple per finger) which would be impossible to balance w/o just saying "rings do nothing".

I remember playing it in D&D that you couldn't have that much magical energy being channeled through your body. This allowed me to justify epic feats like Extra Magic Item Space. You could train your body to channel magic from items through you more efficiently.
But yeah, it's purely a balance issue.

Imagine Green Lanterns could use more than one ring.

Oh, right, it happened, and the guy went completely insane.

Abedeus:

RJ Dalton:

saregos:
I think the original "justification" for this was that having multiple magic items in close proximity could foul them up.

The balance perspective is that otherwise you have 10+ rings and an arbitrary number of amulets (as depending on the size of the ring, you could wear multiple per finger) which would be impossible to balance w/o just saying "rings do nothing".

I remember playing it in D&D that you couldn't have that much magical energy being channeled through your body. This allowed me to justify epic feats like Extra Magic Item Space. You could train your body to channel magic from items through you more efficiently.
But yeah, it's purely a balance issue.

Imagine Green Lanterns could use more than one ring.

Oh, right, it happened, and the guy went completely insane.

Actually I think the insanity started before he wore multiple rings.

Now, whenever I play a game with magical rings, im going to imagin my PC is flipping people off when he fires fireballs at them.

If everyone was able to wear 10 magic rings on their hands, then we'd have loads of Mandarins walking around causing mayhem!

And everyone knows how hax Mandarin is.

image
"Ironman! U mad?"

I never really gave it any thought I always just rolled with it, but yeah I imagine it's mostly for balance. If you could equip multiple rings you could essentially make yourself invincible.

fanklok:

Zachary Amaranth:

fanklok:

There's a feat that lets you increase the number of magic items you get the benefit of, per type of magic item. So you could wear 3 rings 2 amulets 2 cloaks.

Which edition? There have been like 12 now, including the revisions, .5s, etc.

3.5 though I have no idea which book, I happened across it one day.

What's it called, the Ironic Hipster feat?

weirdguy:

fanklok:

Zachary Amaranth:

Which edition? There have been like 12 now, including the revisions, .5s, etc.

3.5 though I have no idea which book, I happened across it one day.

What's it called, the Ironic Hipster feat?

Additional Magic Item Space, it's an epic level feat.

I've always put it down to 'more than two sucks you into a void', or 'each ring has a complicated gesture, and they can't remember' or 'we didn't want to look like a pimp about to slap someone'.

Pikeperch:
You can only wear rings on your ring fingers, duh.

thumb rings?

OT lovely comic as always, but would have loved to have seen your take on Drake McDreamy Face

Because, let's be honest, how many people with more than two rings do you hold in high regard?

saregos:
I think the original "justification" for this was that having multiple magic items in close proximity could foul them up.

The balance perspective is that otherwise you have 10+ rings and an arbitrary number of amulets (as depending on the size of the ring, you could wear multiple per finger) which would be impossible to balance w/o just saying "rings do nothing".

So wizards can never slow clap i take it :tf: XD

eh you should use the Jhaarnnan Hands granted.. you still can still only have 2 rings active at a time.. but you could equip alot more of them!

Best rings ever!

-M

I would say that it's a combination of tradition and game balance. Most people don't wear more than one ring on a hand, and they usually wear it on the ring finger. However, this is not a strict limitation. There are rings for the other fingers and the thumb, and there are rings that are designed such one could place more than one ring on a finger. Consequently, you have a multitude of people who do not adhere to this restriction. But, because the usual fashion norm is only one ring per hand, this is an easy assertion to make.

As far as game balance, this is simply a matter of balancing all powers and items against one another. One could easily redesign any game system such to allow more than 2 rings equipped, however, this would be substantial work to balance all other items and powers against the fact more than 2 rings are allowed. Why go through all that work when the mechanics of just having 2 rings is already known?

There is no actual rule or law imposing the limitation other than what is desired for the structure of the game system. The idea that the magic items interfere is a fiat of the system, not a natural law. One could simply redefine the system without magic items interfering and impose different limitations to obtain the desired overall game balance. However, this leads to what is probably the essential reason: it's easiest to just copy the existing systems which impose the 2 ring limitation because the work and effort to balance the system has already been done under those conditions(game developers are very short on time to really do much innovation).

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here