SELECTION OF MAGIC RINGS
http://media.wizards.com/2014/images/dnd/articles/XTRALife_MagicRings.jpg
Excellent, those 3 rings all look great to me, woot!
I love them. Now, I am more optomistic about magic items in the DMG. 
I'm also glad there's no 4e style level requirements or GP value. That should always be up to the DM, IMO.
From the Ring of Spell Storing description, do you think anyone who has the ring attuned can cast the spells?
Rhenny-
That's the way I read it! Any Creature! I could see an Int (Arcana) Check to call a specific spell if you did know what was in it though...
Rhenny wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
Hazozat wrote:
As a DM I would allow a non caster to use the ring to cast spells stored within. To recharge it, they would require another creature/person who can cast spells to put new spells in there. Once charged with spells, the ring can be used by any wearer, but the potency (vital stats) of the spells (as per the description) are determined by the caster who placed the spells in the ring.
seti wrote:
seti wrote:
I am really enjoying the way magic items are coming out in this edition.
I am hoping that the attunement requirement on the ring of shooting stars isn't completely uncommon among the other items. Having to attune at a particular place or during a particular time adds nice flavor to an item.
I wish the spell storing ring kept the same spell until replaced. I expect items that grant martial ability will always be on without any further upkeep.
MechaPilot wrote:
In earlier editions you did not have to be a caster to use the ring but you will need a caster with some down-time to put the spells back in. However, the spell cast can only be cast as it was by the original caster so no using all 5 spell levels to boost damage if the spell was cast into the ring using a level 1 spell slot.
rampant wrote:
Thats why the flat plusses should be done away with, between that and attunment limits I think we could avoid the gear treadmill. By nixing the flat plusses you force the items to focus on special abilities rather than +3 or +5 so the items remain a fun extra rather than a have to have to perform at a given level.
It helps certainly, but the way the game is written the things like +2 attack or +2 AC or +3 to DCs are the most powerful and versatile abilities so it becomes much harder to justify keeping a +1 flametounge vs. the +3 sword of bordeom.
Thanks for the responses to my question.
I like how it can be used by anyone, but only charged by a spellcaster. Some co-dependency or limited value for non-spellcasters. Super value for spellcasters.
I never said there was, but part of the problem is that in cases where you do have access to both the one with the highest 'plus' is generally the better choice, which contributes to the treadmill as ell because it makes trading out for the higher plus items attractive.
Maybe if all weapons didn't apply their plusses to attack and damage, or all armor didn't apply plusses to AC, you could still have flat plusses, but the problem is things like all x gives their plus to y.
So for example a bow of trueseeking +3 might have +3 accuracy, but no damage boost, while a bow of Lightning +2 might jolt 2 nearby targets for electrical damage but have no accuracy boost. That might work as well.
I'm really digging the charge system in 5e. I just hope they don't overdo it with the charges. I don't want all my players to be spending charges all the time. I'd rather it mean something 
Also, the spell storing ring is awsome!
rampant wrote:
The resistance rings seem a bit bogus as having 10 damage types seems over the top. For instance is force really a damage type? How is it different than blunt or some other impact? Poison isn't so much about the damage but the effect, which is why previous editions would give a save bonus against poison and not count poison as a damage type.
The attunement rules are pretty cumbersome. In tougher games where revivify gets used a lot re-attuneing becomes pretty annoying. I can see a lot of people ignoring at least part of those rules.
FFSAA wrote:
I'm excited about these because it looks like I can use the entire Encyclopedia Magica in 5E, and the only conversion I'll have to make is "does this item require attunement or not?"
ankiyavon wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
they just past 40K so vecna stuff will be up soon
Well to be more precise it means they probably don't have a crafting system for these magic items. They might have a system elsewhere in the book for adifferent kind of 'magic item', but simply stated without a listed level or a cost stat of some sort the odds are that there's no listed method for a PC to create those magic items. Now admittedly there could be a table elswhere in the book that has all the crafting data, but wizards generally includes such data in the item description as well.
rampant wrote:
I think you can keep bounded accuracy by having magic items that only increase your damage (not your attack roll) and defensive items that say things like "while you are wearing magic item B, the formula for your AC is 10+your wisdom modifer." If you get a better AC from something else, then the magic item is not that useful to you, so you trade it to the local Temple of Pelor for a bunch of vials of healing potion.
Rarity doesn't really translate to power very well. Furthermore it's not granular enough for a crafting system. Yes different item types may have different or at least separate rules for crafting, I just don't think those rules will be in the DMG based off the data from these magic item previews.
As for defensive items consider damage reduction instead of AC, and maybe not every enchanted X applies the bonus to y, maybe a magic sword of speeding +3 applies a bonus to Initiative, while a magic sword of viscious +3 applies 3 ongoing damage with each hit or something. BEcause really the problem with plusses is the part where they all apply to the same thing with a given item type and especially in the cases where they apply to core things like ability scores, accuracy, DCs, saves, and AC.
I get the idea of not putting a GP value on each item so that there isn't an impression that these belong in the "magic K-mart" but at least giving a power level to each, in their own descriptions, would go a long way toward facilitating crafting rules and a price scheme for those that DO want sellable items. Putting on a chart on another page is needless clunky and makes things more difficult each time you release books with more items because this format then necessitates a special table any time new magic items are introduced.
Which leads me to conclude there is no crafting system as of yet.
Timborama wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
rampant wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Huntsman57 wrote:
Huntsman57 wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
@ huntsman57, I hope not actually those kinds of passive universal flat bonuses are a major contributor to boring magic item-itis.
@ Orethalion, what you initially described was the utter absence of a system. As to your more recent attempt, I already mentioned that rarity lacks either a close correlation to power/value of the effect, and the granularity to serve in a crafting system.
Of the two DnD crafitng systems I've seen (3e and 4e), the first was far too dependent on specific spells and the mechanics there of leading to every poorly considered spell becoming a constant use magic item, not to mention it contributed greatly to LFQW, the second was dead boring.
If there is a crafting system They'd be a lot better off stealing from the Tephra RPG than past editions of DnD.
rampant wrote:
rampant wrote:
Oh I think they should have a crafting system, several in fact, one for enchanting weapons, and one for making high quality mundane weapons, same for armor, and maybe ammo as a separate thing? NOt sure about ammo really. It's just that the previews do not show any crafting data so it might not be applicable to these magic items there may be a different category or the system may not be deployed in the DMG1, or it's oddly separated from the actual magic item entries.
I'm rather hoping they'll take their time and implement the crafting system later when the system has had it's shakedown cruise.
Wasn't there a really basic crafting system in the version of the playtest that was bundled with Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle?
It's something they've toyed around with for 5e, so it's quite likely to make an appearance in the DMG.
I’ve removed content from this thread because edition warring is deemed to be forum disruption and is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
You can read how to prevent edition wars here: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/28870729/
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
For the Ring of Spell Storing. You would need to be attuned to the ring to store or cast spells from it, right? So you could have the Wizard and Rouge switch off, but both would need to be able to attune to it (not already be attuned to the maximum). It would take some time and book keeping to switch attunement, but definitely a cool item to have around.
Another good use would be to cast ritual spells and store them to be cast on the fly later. That way you're not expending spell slots or adding the extra 10 minutes.