Do you want the ring of wizardry to be able to stacked?

ankheg

1. Because of the item description which clearly states that you can use more of them.
("In the end it was found that his powers stemmed from the several magic rings that he had made for himself.")

2. It's not too overpowered. Most battles will be finished before you can run out of spells anyway. And with two mages they are not less strong anyway since they can cast simultaneously.

3. What will happen in BG2EE with the modified ring of wizardry? And the ring of acuity? Can't we use both? There is two ring of wizardys and one acuity... it would be stupid if we can't use them at the same time! (especially the acuity+wizardy combination)

doomdoomdoom

ankheg said:

1. Because of the item description which clearly states that you can use more of them.
("In the end it was found that his powers stemmed from the several magic rings that he had made for himself.")

That doesn't imply him having or wearing more of the exact same ring. Means he probably had rings for higher level spells as well.

Also, if you're inclined to take everything literally and look for loopholes, what about the description saying it lets "memorize double the amount of 1st level spells". So double of which amount the second ring would be supposed to make? The base or the one already doubled by the 1st ring?

Senash

However, and I hope the devs agree with me, different magical rings should stack. (Such as the aforementioned Ring of Acuity with the Ring of Wizardry)

ankheg

doomdoomdoom said:

ankheg said:

1. Because of the item description which clearly states that you can use more of them.
("In the end it was found that his powers stemmed from the several magic rings that he had made for himself.")

That doesn't imply him having or wearing more of the exact same ring. Means he probably had rings for higher level spells as well.

Also, if you're inclined to take everything literally and look for loopholes, what about the description saying it lets "memorize double the amount of 1st level spells". So double of which amount the second ring would be supposed to make? The base or the one already doubled by the 1st ring?

Thats not important. Either of them would be better than this... Since you get the second one near the ending it won't change too much anyway. If a fighter can have two weapons at the same time it's not fair.

elminster

Senash said:

However, and I hope the devs agree with me, different magical rings should stack. (Such as the aforementioned Ring of Acuity with the Ring of Wizardry)

You could use them both at the same time in BG2. So I doubt that would change.

ankheg

elminster said:

Senash said:

However, and I hope the devs agree with me, different magical rings should stack. (Such as the aforementioned Ring of Acuity with the Ring of Wizardry)

You could use them both at the same time in BG2. So I doubt that would change.

I could use two ring of wizardy in BG1. So they can change this too anytime...

Senash

ankheg said:

I could use two ring of wizardy in BG1. So they can change this too anytime...

I'm pretty sure they won't though. As warriors get better and better equipment, mages and sorcerers should get some too. I mean offensive items, which improve your casting abilities, not just general defensive ones. If these rings wouldn't stack, that wouldn't leave you many other options, especially if you have two or more arcane casters.

marfig

What happened to simple Yes/No polls? *grumbles* Is it really that difficult?

I want to vote No. But not because it's overpowered. It's not. Besides AD&D rules allow for stackable Rings of Wizardy. Just because it's not what the original BG game implemented.

ankheg

marfig said:

What happened to simple Yes/No polls? *grumbles* Is it really that difficult?

I want to vote No. But not because it's overpowered. It's not. Besides AD&D rules allow for stackable Rings of Wizardy. Just because it's not what the original BG game implemented.

In original BG you could have stacked. Thats what I wrote "restore".

Tresset

Not really too much of an issue for me personally. I mean, by the time I got to the second ring my party was max level anyway and Imoen got a grand total of two spell slots from it. Then again... she was a conjurer back then. Hmm... Anyway it was made this way to mesh better with BG2 you could not wear them simultaneously in that either.

ankheg

Tresset said:

Not really too much of an issue for me personally. I mean, by the time I got to the second ring my party was max level anyway and Imoen got a grand total of two spell slots from it. Then again... she was a conjurer back then. Hmm... Anyway it was made this way to mesh better with BG2 you could not wear them simultaneously in that either.

You could.

deltago

I'll go yes, if they restore one of the late game patches that removed the free ring of wizardry outside of the friendly arm inn.

ankheg

And why would they do that?

Chow

I say might as well. A single ring already gives you more first level spells than you'd ever need to cast in a single day - especially if you give it to Edwin or a player character sorcerer. As such, it's already a little bit overpowered, but wearing two at the same time would go right off the scale and cross to hilarious.

marfig

@ankheg, Wow! You completely caught me there. I didn't expect to be lectured on the original game anymore. But you managed to do just that

Thanks for the info. I was convinced it wasn't stackable on the original. Go figure why. Placed my vote

doomdoomdoom

ankheg said:

If a fighter can have two weapons at the same time it's not fair.

First, that's a terrible analogy. Fighter has to get necessary skills to be able to do that with any kind of advantage. Not just slip on a ring and be able to cast a ridiculous amount of spells regardless of anything else.
Ring of protection would be a better example. And they don't stack. Don't even stack with enchanted armor even though they could at least give the saving throw bonus that armors don't.
And second, yeah, poor mages are so underpowered in comparison to fighters in AD&D, it's not fair... riight

Anyway, I would solve this by removing the first ring from the game completely. There should be only one copy of a unique item, and there would be no issue to discuss

Tresset

Sorry @ankheg @elminster I just booted up my BG2 and tested it. The rings were not stackable. If I knew how I would take a screenshot that shows the inventory console yelling at me for trying to put 2 of them on Aerie.
Edit: I'm talking about 2 rings of wizardry here... I missed the Acuity ring bit...

LadyRhian

I'd be up for them introducing a different ring of Wizardry. One that doubles second level spells, or third level spells. In the Pen and Paper books, the two best rings of Wizardry Double either first through Third Level Spells or 4th and 5th Level Spells. While I don't necessarily propose introducing those, a different Ring that doubled a different level of spells wouldn't go amiss.

marfig

Tresset said:

Sorry @ankheg @elminster I just booted up my BG2 and tested it. The rings were not stackable. If I knew how I would take a screenshot that shows the inventory console yelling at me for trying to put 2 of them on Aerie.

Hmm... this is how I remember the game to be. Hence my surprise when @ankheg corrected me.

However we do have a conundrum here: It's the Infinity Engine that is stopping you from stacking the rings. That's the BG2 engine on BGEE. On BG1 the rings were stackable (I'm trusting @ankheg and @elmister on this). So what shall prevail? The engine or the game?

Tresset

It was interesting how the same ring had a completely different function in BG2. All of a sudden instead of doubling level one slots it adds a single slot to, I believe 5, 6, 7, and possibly 8. That was far more useful in BG2 than double lvl 1 slots would have been.

ankheg

Tresset said:

Sorry @ankheg @elminster I just booted up my BG2 and tested it. The rings were not stackable. If I knew how I would take a screenshot that shows the inventory console yelling at me for trying to put 2 of them on Aerie.
Edit: I'm talking about 2 rings of wizardry here... I missed the Acuity ring bit...

Maybe you used some kind of mod or fixpack. I've just tested it myself. You can!

ajwz

Why don't people put joke polls in the off topic forum and leave this forum for proper polls?

elminster

Tresset said:

It was interesting how the same ring had a completely different function in BG2. All of a sudden instead of doubling level one slots it adds a single slot to, I believe 5, 6, 7, and possibly 8. That was far more useful in BG2 than double lvl 1 slots would have been.

Its one extra 5th, 6th, and 7th level spell.

Tresset

@marfig It was stackable in the original, and that is a very interesting point you made. However the original also placed a limit on how many slots you could get at any one level of spells. As I said before; the second ring almost did nothing for me because of this fact since Imoen was my only mage and she could only gain a grand total of two additional slots. One way or another there is a strong precedent for a limit to this thing... (notice I didn't vote yet. This is because I don't think it had much of a "former glory" to begin with. Otherwise I would say restore it.)

ankheg

elminster said:

Tresset said:

It was interesting how the same ring had a completely different function in BG2. All of a sudden instead of doubling level one slots it adds a single slot to, I believe 5, 6, 7, and possibly 8. That was far more useful in BG2 than double lvl 1 slots would have been.

Its one extra 5th, 6th, and 7th level spell.

Yeah. Ring of Acuity with 2,3,4 was somewhat similar in power with the original. (ok not with wild mages:))

Tresset

@ankheg I don't mod my BG, Fixpack though... Only Kevin Dorner's. (spelling?)

ankheg

Tresset said:

@marfig It was stackable in the original, and that is a very interesting point you made. However the original also placed a limit on how many slots you could get at any one level of spells. As I said before; the second ring almost did nothing for me because of this fact since Imoen was my only mage and she could only gain a grand total of two additional slots. One way or another there is a strong precedent for a limit to this thing... (notice I didn't vote yet. This is because I don't think it had much of a "former glory" to begin with. Otherwise I would say restore it.)

You are wrong again. The slots was not visible but they where there. Try it.

ankheg

Tresset said:

@ankheg I don't mod my BG, Fixpack though... Only Kevin Dorner's. (spelling?)

Possibly. I know that Baldurdash doesn't change it.

Tresset

@ankheg OMG!!!!! WOW!
Speechless!

Edit: I never noticed that... Now I must decide which one I should vote for I guess. Honestly I see both sides of the coin here. Magic missile was possibly the most potent spell (for what it did) back then...

ZanathKariashi

Yeah, max lvl Edwin with 2 rings of WoZ could memorize a ton more spells then could fit in the memorization page.

Tresset

@ajwz Not trying to start trouble or anything here, but I don't think this is a "joke". I think this is something people have a genuine interest in and it does seem very relevant to the game. Now being a forum noob I may not know the definition of "joke poll" but I do know the definition of joke...