Name Game: If Ya Like it

[burningdragoon]

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

 

[RJ Dalton]

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.

 

[Abedeus]

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.

 

[WanderingFool]

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.

 

[Mr. GameBrain]

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.

"Ironman! U mad?"

 

[Canadamus Prime]

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.

 

[weirdee]

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?

 

[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?

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

 

[BehattedWanderer]

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'.

 

[putowtin]

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

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

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

 

[DTWolfwood]

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

 

[ravensshade]

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!

 

[Ohlookit'sMatty]

Best rings ever!

-M

 

[geizr]

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).

 

[search_rip]

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

As far as I remember Mandarin's rings aren't magical they were made with Makluan alien technology... anyhow, yeah as many said before is a balance issue

 

[scorptatious]

Well I think normally rings would only fit on your ring finger. Unless they're custom made of course.

 

[otakon17]

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

As far as I remember Mandarin's rings aren't magical they were made with Makluan alien technology... anyhow, yeah as many said before is a balance issue

Yeah, I know they're not magical, but I couldn't pass up mentioning a villain whose major source of power comes from the 10 rings he wears.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

It probably comes from the old D&D rules, where wearing more than one magic ring on each hand caused them to interfere with each other. Of course, the system sticks around because it really helps the game balance.

 

[dancinginfernal]

I started out Dark Souls on Wednesday and it has made my life miserable.

But I can't stop playing it, it's so good. I've also had this complaint with other games, but the "conflicting powers" argument makes sense enough.

Saints Row 3 has no excuse though. :C