Name Game: If Ya Like it

[Leels]

If Ya Like it

then ya should have shut the hell up.

Read Full Article

 

[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".

 

[Daystar Clarion]

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.

 

[Pikeperch]

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

 

[Jandau]

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...

 

[otakon17]

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!

 

[Something Amyss]

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:

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Jokaero Digital Weapons [http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Digital_weapon#.TrvyMVbJeAo] 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?

 

[fanklok]

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.

 

[Ruwrak]

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



the hell?

 

[Tuqui]

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

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

 

[teh_Canape]

magic rings?
magic rings

Spoiler

 

[Ulquiorra4sama]

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.

 

[SidingWithTheEnemy]

[...] 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...

 

[Abedeus]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Veloxe]

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.

 

[Roserari]

I got something for an uncharted comic:

Suddenly, enemies.

 

[RejjeN]

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.