Is there a limit to how many magic rings I can wear? I believe

>>52653505
*each finger.

>>52653505
dms discretion. i would allow players to wear 8-10 rings. thumb rings are kind of dumb and most rings aren't really made to fit over a chunky thumb.

in general ring size is never brought up though. all equipment is one-size-fits-all. maybe the next time i dm i'll be more specific about sizes.

>>52653505
Considering 5e only allows 3 attuned items at a time I'd limit you to 3 unless you decide to chain their magic together and reforge them into a single item or artifact.

>>52653505
>not gold knuckles

File: 448b7f8e025c85d17204b09e17126a39.jpg (13KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 250x250px

>>52653691
But why can't I have more than single ring in a finger?

>>52653726
in order for you to even need to wear more than one ring per finger you would have to acquire at least 9 rings. i'm pretty sure that if you acquire more than 8 magic rings in a campaign there are bigger issues than how you would wear them.

i'd say more than 2 rings on one finger might start to cause some dexterity issues.

>>52653726
I imagine lots of magic rings would be quite clunky and ostentatious; lots of gems and what not.

Holding a sword, staff or anything fiddly might be effected by the sheer amount of rings.

>>52653505
Assuming no particular system...

First I'd personally disallow rings working on other fingers. You've got 2 ring fingers, after all, and magical hats don't work when they're on your foot do they.

Second, only the first magical ring's effect applies; any rings worn on top won't work for the same reason you can't wear two magical hats at once. Similarly, only the first magical necklace you put on will work.

I always thought the one ring to a hand limitation was more of a chakra/magical circulatory system type deal where you just don't have a channel back to yourself for more than one ring

>>52653792
Why would a ring only work on a single finger?

I can easily fit rings on my middle and other lower finger.

>>52653792
See I always like the rule of its actually only the newest ring/necklace that takes effect because then you can use extra magical jewelry as backup stuff just by having the other stuff taken off

File: the Only Ring you need.png (241KB, 852x356px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 852x356px

>>52653505
Why would you need more than one?

>>52653505
1-2 rings: All dandy
3-4 rings: 5% spell failure chance
5-6 rings: 5% spell failure chance & -1 on checks that require dextrous hands (mostly dex checks)
7-8 rings: previous penalties doubled.
9+ rings: +5% spell failure chance & -1 on dex hand checks per ring above 8

>>52653792
>>52653806
These posts pretty much sum up my view on it.


I might allow a skilled user to wear up to four rings per hand, but each hand gets either one passive effect or one active effect at a time.
So, a ring with a passive effect overrides any other ring worn on the hand, but one of four activated rings could chosen to function.
But this would not be normal or average and there would have to be an explanation and justification for it.

>Whys can'ts Is justs haves alls ofs thes powerses?
For the same reason you don't get five artifacts at level one: because we hate you.

>>52653838
I thought a weddingring went on the ringfinger cause they used to believe it was the only finger with a vain straight to the heart
You could link it to that bs

>>52653838
The way I rule it, the magic contained in an item only works when it is
1. Worn on the bodypart it's meant for: boots on feet, hats on heads, etc.
2. Worn by the kind of creature it was intended for (so you can't naturally shape-shift into a centipede and stack boots of speed to go faster than light, although that sounds like a really fun monster concept)
Because that's the way the item was originally crafted.
Now I may seem like a no-fun-allowed DM, but I think I would allow a player to create a magic ring that can be worn on the middle finger and work, or boots of speed that can go on your hand instead of your feet, or that can be worn by a centipede.
It'd just cost extra, especially if you want multiple body parts (hands AND feet), exotic body parts (middle finger, ear...) or multiple possible user-creatures (human AND centipede).
Exotic body parts would be costliest, mostly to address the limited-slots balance issue. Considering there are few magical earrings, we can assume they're hard to make and thus cost more. (I'd also probably give exhaustion to characters completely decked out in magical items, that can't be healthy...)

>>52653848
It definitely sounds cooler, though I personally wouldn't make a mechanical difference between taking off your last ring to use the second-to-last and taking off all your rings and putting the second one first to use it, then putting the others back.

>>52653505
The Mythadventures series had a thicc female wizard who wore an outrageous amount of jewelry. Some people thought she looked a bit gaudy and trashy, but it was later revealed that the reason she wore all them rings was two fold
1. her aesthetic taste totally IS gaudy and trashy
2. She was a sly wizard-batman but with jewelry instead of a utility belt

I always thought that was awesome and decided that arbitrary limits on magic items was lame

If a character somehow amasses 20 magic rings, go ahead and use em all. Pierce your ears, put them on your toes, I don't care. There are better ways to balance that sort of thing than hard limits on equipment slots, I think.

>but anon what's to stop wizards from making one hundred Rings of Protection+1 and becoming invincible by becoming the Lord of Piercings

The same thing that stops people with gold from hiring 1000 mercenaries to just murder fucking everything with crossbows- common sense limitations, time and logistics, dm creativity. I don't know what the magic creation rules for a ring of +1 protection are off the top of my head but I'm pretty sure it's not a walk in the park.

And really, a wizard with a gimmick of 'he has 100 AC' could be a pretty interesting villain, and having the players do the same thing sounds like an interesting segueway into high-level play where fighting things with regular weapons simply isn't a concern anymore.

Sure it's a problem if you have a plot that requires the players to do XYZ and be threatened by ABC, but if you're in a campaign with more freedom, 'The Invincible Four' becoming the invulnerable lords of a castle and the equivalent of the Justice League sounds like a fuckin' RADICAL campaign.

File: 100220.png (123KB, 720x936px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 720x936px

>>52653792
>and magical hats don't work when they're on your foot do they.
red mage would like a word, anon

>>52653505
One per hand, no exceptions. That's been the rule since DnD first edition. Suck it up.

>>52653869
A cursed ring of invisibility that makes you a magnet for incorporeal assailants, slowly twists your mind and body, and works as a beacon for a very powerful lich is NOT a useful ring.

>>52654223
Ah shit. Another Myth fan! Also Masha wasn't thic...she was fucking fat!

>>52654857
It is if you're Sauron.

>>52654883
Not my fetish, I didn't know there was a distinction

But yeah, Mythadventures is one of those things I'm surprised /tg/ doesn't talk about more

>>52653505
i generally give the players magical-item-points that represent how much passive magic they can load onto their bodies

you could wear 10 weak ones or 1 strong one and handing out magical items is more comfortable that way

File: casuals.jpg (74KB, 636x636px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 636x636px

>>52653792
>not using magical hats as kneepads

>>52653505
Oh god this reminded me of a character I had that was allowed to have 9 rings of something that added 1d6 fire damage to a fire attack and one ring of fireballs

>>52653726
Ring avulsion.

>>52655047
It's probably because Puns, like the people who tell them, are insufferable.

>>52655150
>not liking puns

don't you ever respond to my posts again

>>52653505
>3.5
You can wear as many rings as you can fit on your hands, but you can only benefit from two at a time because magic item slots.

File: firework-safety-pic.jpg (24KB, 382x480px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 382x480px

>pic related

>>52653726
Notice it's a woman doing NOTHING that has so many rings. Adventurers have far more strenuous things to do than play hand model. They can't keep multiple rings on a finger and handle a hafted unbalanced weapon that requires them to grip with the fingers, or draw arrows quickly and efficiently, or any other number of activities that actually include work.

In anima beyond fantasy there is a rule about if you wear too much magic items at the same time they might start failing and stop working for a while or to and if you go beyond that you will get a penalty to all actions initiative and saves getting worse each day and after a week of that you start to hallucinate and other things

>>52653505
As much fucking rings you can fit in those fingers anon. You could have so much rings that people would believe you are wearing gauntlets.
But, if this is D&D, or fucking Diablo, you can only use two at the same time, the others won't do nothing. Unless it's 3.5 and you're an artificer with a feat, then you can use 4 at a time, because you are such a scoundrel!

>>52653505
AD&D says max of two rings total.

>>52653505
No, but you may consider wearing magical earrings or necklaces with the same effects for style points

>>52653505

One ring per hand, unless you have the Brass Knuckles feat, which allows one ring per finger.

>>52653505
I kinda want to make a game system where gold, silver, and other precious minerals / materials are valuable because they are the only materials that "hold" magic. You can enchant an Iron sword, but the magic "fades out" like it was an incandescent bulb running at 4x wattage. Aluminum, Copper, Silver, Gold, and Platinum, though, those, once enchanted, hang on to their enchantments for a good long time... comparatively, but they are still just as heavy and fragile as the real thing... so, iron plate armor would weigh about 50kg, and could hold a weak enchantment for a few minutes, gold plate armor would weigh 123 kg, but the sky's the limit on it's enchantment value and the contained magic would last a lifetime, as long as nobody gets through the magic and punctures the soft, malleable metal underneath.

And no, magic that makes the materials lighter would not exist.

1 per hand
1 around your dong, a literal cockring

>>52653505
In 5e, you can wear 3 rings! Even all on the same hand, or even the same finger, if you please!

Attunement at least gives a reason why you can't just wear twenty-one rings.

File: 1481521534259.jpg (213KB, 800x797px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 800x797px

>>52653505
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMDDdj_M0js

File: 5a9796bfd832a7b34ad29358321b1729.jpg (218KB, 760x596px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 760x596px

>>52653771
>>52656242
Just pay a dwarf to make a ring of not beign hindered by rings.

>>52658099
>Gold Plating

>>52653505
Magic items in such close proximity would fuck up one another's spells.

>>52661606
>>52658099

duh

This is a reason for all those cool filigree and adorned pieces of art that barely qualify as clothing to exist as ppowerful heirlooms!

Miku's a sluuuuuuuuuuuut!

File: rings.jpg (38KB, 460x292px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 460x292px

>>52653505
>Is there a limit to how many magic rings I can wear?

Of course, as long as there is physical space on your fingers, they'll work.

The real question is, are magical rings (often the strongest of magical items in many mythologies and settings) so commonplace that you'll ever have more than one or two?

When magic is everywhere, it loses it's mystery and charm. Everyone knows that low magic settings are best.

>>52653838
Doesn't matter. It's called a ring finger for a reason.

>>52655047
>Not my fetish, I didn't know there was a distinction
While thickness does generally classify as being overweight, it still implies a womanly curvaceousness, i.e. most of the fat being in the chest, hips, and thighs

File: 1434903124474.jpg (8KB, 236x219px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 236x219px

>>52653505
depends on the setting
if i recall correctly, one explanation for being unable to wear multiple rings on a single hand was that they'd interfere with eachother.
it's a perfectly reasonable explanation, but otherwise i don't see any particular reason to limit it, although you should definitely start taking penalties to DEX checks involving fine coordination when you have enough rings.

the better question to ask here is where are you going to get all those rings? we're not exactly playing sonic the hedgehog, here.

so if you have enough rings to fill each finger and then some, either what the fuck is your DM doing OR what the fuck are YOU doing?
if your DM's showered your group in a ridiculous amount of magical items - enough that a party member can safely equip more rings than any average party would have players and presumably still have enough left over to equip the rest of the party - then he's making some serious fucking mistakes and should probably dial back the loot a bit.
if he isn't, then that means you're hogging magical items like a shitty little niggler trying to powergame rings of all things, and i'd have to request that you kindly remove all but two of your fingers so that you may be that much more capable of practising restraint.