Talk:No Evil (5e Equipment)

This could probably do with a name change. Perhaps Ring of No Evil or something? SirSprinkles (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2017 (MST)

The thing is, Ring of No Evil doesn't really make much more sense, and makes it sound more like it actually does anything related to alignment; IMO, the joke works better without it. Knowlessman (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2017 (MST)

Ring of Censorship almost makes more sense, but loses the joke and sounds, eh, kinda political. I think, anyway; been reading a lot of political stuff lately. Knowlessman (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2017 (MST)

How about Ring of Shared Blindness, Deafness, and Muteness? SirSprinkles (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2018 (MST)

...How 'bout no. :| Just a suggestion. Knowlessman (talk) 07:29, 23 January 2018 (MST)

Balance

Maybe this seems balanced at a glance, but consider you can indefinitely blind anything with no save and it lasts indefinitely—and you don't even need an action to do it. If your entire party is going against a tarrasque, or even a much lesser boss monster, using this is a huge boon. Far too huge for an uncommon item, and maybe even too much for legendary. Plus a lot of party members (mainly support) could have one hand covering their eyes while another casts spells or Dodge, all with virtually zero impact on their action economy and little detriment to their effectiveness.

The same thing can be done with inability to speak. Almost any dedicated spellcaster gets nerfed into the ground, and you still have a hand free to beat them senseless.

I'm not sure what the best way to handle this would be. Maybe instead of a bonus action with no save, you can use your action to cast blindness/deafness or a silencing spell of similar level? It could last for its normal duration or until your hand is removed—whichever comes first. - Guy 10:55, 12 September 2018 (MDT)

You could also balance it by requiring the user to cover the respective part with BOTH hands, thus leaving them unable to cast spells or attack. While this would still leave it inordinately powerful, a simple rarity increase to very rare or legendary might help balance it out. Having a save for the target creature would make sense too, though I don't know what the save would be. - JackDragonEther 8:42, 10 October 2018 (MDT)

That is actually a really good idea. Yeah though, still not 100% sure on whether adding a save would be worth it or not; if it's legendary, it should be about right with only that change. Knowlessman (talk) 10:01, 29 February 2020 (MST)

Legendary or not, it involved no counterplay which I find a cornerstone of D&D. Almost every hostile action gives players a chance, whether it be an attack roll vs AC or saving throw vs DC. I feel items like this go against a D&D core aspect. Red Leg Leo (talk) 10:05, 2 March 2020 (MST)

I... had not thought of that. I'd only been thinking about this in terms of one PC basically trading out most of their turn to debuff one enemy; not sure whether to nerf it more just because a mean DM could be mean with it. Knowlessman (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2020 (MDT)

There, it now has more "flavor" than most rings in the list. As for counterplay, the counterplay is to not be a solo enemy, or to have blindsight if you are. This is the kind of thing you put into a campaign knowing that you'll have to plan around it, which is fitting for something with a Legendary rating. Knowlessman (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2021 (MST)