Talk:Arcane Ring (5e Equipment)

Balance Concerns

Hey Justsomedndplayers! I saw this item pop up in the "Changes for all equipment" link at the bottom of the 5e Equipment page, so I figured I'd try and take a crack at fixing some of the problems that you and Geodude671 clearly disagree on quite adamantly. When I first saw this article, I had some of the same issues with it that Geodude671 had: the description was a little strangely worded and could've used some improvement, the fact that the DC for crafting the item didn't have a designated skill check, etc. I'm not saying that your item is a complete train wreck or that your work sucks, but there were some minor problems with it that needed to be reworked so that the item made more sense to the community on this wiki. I went ahead and did some work on the page so that some of these issues might be resolved, but if you don't like how I've edited the page, I'll be more than happy to revert my work. If that ends up being the case, however, I'd like to continue helping to work on this item so that this item doesn't continuously face the issues it is right now. --Hobogre (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Now that I can actually read it, I feel the item as it is currently is a bit too powerful. I will shortly edit the page to reign it in: the common rarity ring will be reduced to 2-3 points, and 4-10 points will be uncommon rarity. ::Also, I feel it does require attunement. Also also, the item might need a different name: neither the monk nor the mystic are arcane classes. Geodude671 (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Also also also: why does this need its own rules for crafting? Why can you not just use the magic item crafting rules in the DMG? --Geodude671 (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

If anyone's wondering how I got the numbers that I did, the common ring gives enough points to give an extra 1st-level spell slot for a sorcerer. The uncommon ring gives enough for two extra slots: a 1st-level slot and a 2nd-level slot, and so on, with the legendary ring giving an extra slot for each level below and including 5th. --Geodude671 (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Apparently I did not explain my reasoning adequately enough. I feel that the way JSDP had it, the item is too powerful because you can get the equivalent of 3 extra 2nd-level spells per day from a common rarity item, three 3rd-level spells and two 1st-level spells from the uncommon rarity item, three 4th-level spells, one 3rd-level spell, and two 1st-level spells from a rare rarity item, and no cap on the number of points the very rare rarity ring can give. Additionally, I feel that the item does not need its own crafting rules, and that the crafting rules in the DMG are sufficient. My version of it, I feel, is more balanced because it gives the equivalent of only a few extra spells per day; there's a reason casters get fewer spells per day in 5e than they do in 3.x. If you do not find this explanation adequate, please explain in what part you feel it is lacking, and why you feel my version is underpowered. --Geodude671 (talk) 04:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

when i created the item, i didn't want it attune-able and or restricted to certain classes.i designed it to be utilized by a point feature. or to give a person thoughts on multi-classing without required so much downtime doing nothing but waiting; and in my Personal preference for a simple crafting system to get the item and go. rarity of item is common because of its easily found in the the start of 2 points. its fair enough to allow point users who burn through said points in a prolonged encounter to have some sort of buffer for wanting to go all out in a fight if they are alone, or are put in a situation where they will have to do it, but need that extra help.

The rarity of the item found with different points was a fine edit, with a dc range i feel is fair enough to be do able yet not crit only. Item name, could be renamed to like..Count Ring, or Reserve ring. in which if it was renamed, i would then add the option for people to put their points into the ring up to a certain point. so they can use those in reserve if they for some reason are not always in combat. the spell slots are not heavily considered. if they burn through the points or spell slots then wish to transfer over points to spell slots they can. otherwise, this just provides a decent reserve of points they can utilize. this is not meant to purely follow srd, this is homebrew. your edits Geodude671 i feel are bias and unnecassary vs Hobogre who is trying to help the item. when i have edited my own item, or put up something. more likely than not you for some reason decide your way is right, and just put up the tag to flag it. Additionally this item is always up for the gm/dm to make their own interpretations or ruling on. not just the dnd-wiki community. your reasons have justification to follow SRD but this is Homebrew, and things can be less restricted. Personally players in my games ask if they can get an item, show me it. and i approve,adjust in game, or Unapprove the item.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justsomedndplayers (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

The class restriction was because those are the only classes that use point systems. I suppose you needn't be a member of one of those classes to use the ring, it would just do nothing for you. Part of the reason there is a point system in the first place is so that members of that class have to manage their resources, and it's intended that they can't go all out in a single encounter without being hampered in subsequent fights. I get what you're trying to do: it reminds me of 3.5's Ring of Wizardry, and I feel my version of it maintains the spirit of the item while still keeping the resource management. If you want it to be easy to obtain, going by the DMG crafting rules, it costs 100 go to make the lowest rarity version of the item. If you want to use your version of the item in your own home games, then feel free; no one's saying you can't. But one of the chief complaints people have with this wiki is its vast swathes of overpowered, broken, and/or poorly-designed homebrew content (if you were wondering about my stance on this page specifically, I do feel it is too strong as is, and the crafting is a little wonky), and I'm trying to help fix that by balancing content that needs it.

"the item is always up for the gm/dm to make their own interpretation or ruling on" "You can just houserule around it" is not a valid defense for poor design.

In what way do you feel my edits are "bias"? I find this a bizarre accusation. I am trying to help make this better, the same as you and Hob. --Geodude671 (talk) 05:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Their are classes besides monk, sorcerer, and psionics that are homebrew such as boxer, who have harmonic/arcane boxing styles. which cost points to add an element, or to do defenses or reactions. There are also feats that allow for you to gain points from one of those classes, or others. The players will naturally burn through their spells, and points. regardless of what this item gives them. i made the item work a certain way because i wanted it to be that way. also never saw that item. i made the cost higher for that fast access, its like express or speed passes, you pay more for that benefit.

Houserule's are always valid, a gm/dm can decide whether they want to allow homebrew or not; custom items,backgrounds, classes,items ect. I called it bias Geodude671 because you watered it down to match points to spell slot value.

Here is a request then. stop editing the arcane ring, make your own variant of it, calling it Point Ring/ Varient Arcane ring. it will end the edit war as some call it. i just want to keep it in line with my vision of it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justsomedndplayers (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

Why do you feel my version is "watered down"? The legendary version of the ring more than doubles the number of points a level 20 sorcerer or monk gets. As for your boxer class, I feel like it encroaches too much on the monk's territory, as they are both unarmored martial classes that fight primarily with unarmed strikes. But that's neither here nor there, and is a discussion for another time.

As for the higher cost aspect of the item, money quickly becomes meaningless in 5e; in my West Marches game my Lv4 wizard has nearly 1,500 gp after only two sessions, and that's after spending money on scribing spells and other equipment. Were I a sorcerer, I could craft a ring that more than doubles my number of sorcery points available, with a Common magic item! If you want to attach some sort of cost to the ring, I think you should find something other than money. Perhaps they need to refuel it with their stamina, and they have to give up the benefits of their long rest to recharge the ring?

I don't want to make a separate page for my version. I've proposed revisions and deletions for classes and races for being too similar to official content; I don't like redundancy.

As for your accusation of bias: I don't think that word means what you think it means. From context I think you're trying to accuse me of editing in bad faith? (I'm not, btw) --Geodude671 (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

So after about a week, i have edited the item once again, but this time, i did put a disclaimer. and looking at previous edits, i feel it brought it down to much. so i adjusted the range to be more balanced in my view. now that its been adjusted. further editing beyond this should not be done unless placed in the discussion page relating to why your editing, or what your editing. --Justsomedndplayers (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)