You mean to say this has not been restored yet? A few points -
a) For those of us old enough to have played BG1 vanilla from the beginning of time, the Ring of Wizardry was always stackable.
b) During one patch the 'bonus' Friendly Arm Inn ring was removed - making the above irrelevant but was so unpopular it was restored in a later patch.
c) I personally never used two rings on the one mage as I always had two mages and preferred to balance the spells out BUT some players did and that was entirely legitimate in BG1 vanilla.
d) In the item description in vanilla it refers to 'HIS RINGS' which is the plural of ring, ergo one might assume without some perverse manipulation of logic that he used more than one...
It is my opinion that if it is okay to make Ankheg Plate non-magical and then ignore the AC stat increase in the 2nd ed ruleset and introduce Katanas that were not in vanilla then out of common courtesy the devs should at least leave well alone something that was intentionally allowed for in vanilla...
Or is that too much to ask?
Lastly this is a perfectly legitimate poll and to say otherwise reeks of conceit... in my humble opinion of course.
Wow, old thread brought back from the dead to continue being totally awful.
It is obviously powerful enough as is for many reasons:
The truth is the way it used to stack was an error. Just like how in BG2 you could erroneously wear two rings of Gaxx (which by the way, there was only supposed to be one of in the game, never mind the fact that duplicate abilities for jewelry are not supposed to stack)
It was the exploit of a bug that allowed you to wear two rings, but two different spell boosting rings that give you different levels of spells would be a different story to my mind. I think by titling the ring "Evermemory" in the Enhanced Edition they pave the way for a secondary ring of Wizardry that covers the BG2 boost which was greater spell levels than 1.
Now, as to whether two different KINDS of rings of wizardry could stack...that's a debate. Currently I can wear an improved cloak of protection AND +1 armor...so it could be treated like that.
But...outside of a few top level items that seem to be exceptions of the rule usually I can't stack a +1 and a +2 item on a character.
By forcing you to spread the rings around between characters it also makes you think hard about what combination of items you really want on each member of your party. Plus as it's been stated numerous times, you don't really need THAT many level 1 spells to be effective.
Especially since adding another caster will give you the same bonus anyway...AND by the time you find the second ring in BG proper you've already hit level 5 or 6 usually.
I can see why it makes soloing a bit different for a straight or specialist mage, but there are other great rings I'd want on most of the time other than giving me more level 1 spells.
In Tutu it was coded like the BG2 ring which was more powerful. But I'm assuming THAT ring will in fact get a new name as I previously mentioned when BGEE comes out either way.
Stacking these rings is really silly and doesn't feel balanced at all. (I included everyone in the thread so that that people who posted ever since this stupid thing started would maybe see a different side to it other than using a bug to exploit power gaming)
@Debaser It keeps coming back because there is a demand for it to be restored... I can understand your point in that it seems stupid to load them both on one mage (hence why I don't) but I don't think it can be called a bug when it was recognised in vanilla, patched and then restored. The simplest thing to do would be to put a hard cap on the number of lvl 1 spells you can learn so the 2nd ring can still be used but will have a negligible effect.
It's not going to go away, I've been reading these forums for months and threads like this just keep resurfacing ad infinitum until those that want something are content. Urgh I only created an account to report a bug.
Why on Earth would it matter if they did? The second Ring of Wizardry is acquired in the mid game at the earliest, at a point when you can easily be sporting ten level 1 spells. If you have twenty level 1 spells per level, the only difference is that your mage is going to be less valuable.
Yes, less. Rather than martialling your superior spells, you're more likely to waste everyone's time by spamming weak spells like Magic Missile, whilst, in the rare occasions that it's actually necessary to cast large numbers of level 1 spells, it's always better to do so with two mages since you cast twice as fast.
The only difference that a stacking ring of wizardry can attain is giving a single mage party a mage who can pull off a Magic Missile every turn or other such nonsense, you will still rest when your party runs out of vital resources, you will still fail to meaningfully contribute to mid-level combats if you rely on level 1 spells (Sleep stops being a gamebreaker at mid-levels and turns into a sometimes food).
A second ring of wizardry, if it stacked, would not meaningfully extend a mage's capabilities, and would more optimally applied to two mages anyway. In the face of such inconsequentiality, apathy is the only appropriate response.
You cant wear two rings of protection at same time so i think its fair regarding the rings of wizardry. I do like your analogy though, made me chuckle:)
You cant wear two rings of protection at same time so i think its fair regarding the rings of wizardry. I do like your analogy though, made me chuckle:)
Thanks. :P Fair point but theres a reason for that. Its the same reason why its ok to have two hard drives but an amazingly bad idea to have two firewalls. Rings of protection would definitely conflict and we can understand why, however it is not obvious or ever explained why two rings of wizardry would conflict.
Plus again if you look at the description it mentions them being worn together safely, not the case with rings of protection. This game mechanic actually contradicts the description, that just doesn't make sense. Thats the main reason I object to this type of nerf. Not only does it add irony to the game being called "Enhanced" but it contradicts the lore which makes this game great.
The item description doesn't state that these rings stack. Just that the mage had several rings - they were presumably for different levels and he swapped them around as required.
If you take the item description at face value and insist it means he was wearing all the rings at once and that they weren't necessarily different, I would point out that several rings = more than 2. Meaning he would need to have been wearing more than 2 rings at once, which is specifically disallowed under 2ED rules (and I think all rules subsequent to that).
If you're looking for a real world explanation as to why they don't stack then there simply isn't one. It's a magical make-believe universe with rules defined by the creators. Why can't a mage wear armor? Sure it may restrict spellcasting, but physically there's no reason they can't wear it. And yet it isn't permitted in Baldur's Gate.
It's not overpowered but I don't want them to stuck because it will make the choice "ring of wiz/ring of gaxx" or "ring of wiz/ring of wiz" tougher. No, thank you.
You didn't really touch on why wearing multiple rings of wizardry shouldn't be allowed in the first place with any valid reasons. There are two available in Baldurs Gate and it is evident from the description that it should be possible to wear more than one. To suggest its because its the same item called "Evermemory" doesn't cut it because, as I just typed, the game allows you to obtain two separate ones legitimately. They are obviously two separate items just as a +1 dagger is from another +1 dagger. Also the description suggests more than one Evermemory was made. This is not an exploit, it is an explained part of the game. As for the "it presents more of a challenge" excuse, so would removing the capability of dual-wielding two +1 swords. It would also be nonsensical and pointless, just like the inability to wear two rings of wizardry. There is literally no reason given why wearing two of these rings isn't possible. The description strongly indicates there are meant to be multiples of them and that they have previously been worn together with no ill effect. This makes the question why they are not allowed to be worn together a perfectly valid one.
Now I'm very, very sorry this conversation bores you and you believe everyone whos participated in it to be morons for doing so but then... nobody asked you to join it. You did so of your own accord. Complaining about baring witness to it afterwards is like someone going into a particularly rough gay bar, drinking ten pints, passing out then complaining about waking up in a cheap motel with a cock lodged in their ass. You presumably saw the title before you entered and have voiced your opinion, albeit rather obnoxiously. Do not attack others solely for voicing theirs.
I'm very sorry you're a bit of a condescending personality.
My reasoning is that it's like wearing two rings of Gaxx, which is not supposed to be be possible. Or two rings of protection. Clearly this is how Beta testers felt when it was changed for the sake of gameplay. (And one of them said as much earlier in the thread, this was something voted in as a fix) It is NOT like wielding two magical weapons at all since there's clearly pre-established rules with most magical jewelry and clothing.
I recant that there is a second type of ring of wizardry from BG2 which gives you access to more higher level spells. In TUTU you would only get that ring, so it's a very flux issue insofar as it being "cannon" There are other fantastic rings which have better abilities than doubling up on the same spell caster for level 1 spells for a SECOND time.
Finally, spread the wealth a little. Give it to another caster and you've gotten the same exact benefit. It's redundant, unnecessary, not that powerful by the time you get it, and yes, a bit uninspired leaning to boring now that you mention it.
You are right about the item description, as it doesn't imply anything concerning the rings being identical at all..when I read it, I feel if anything that it's one of a set with different powers and abilities. Especially since there is another type known to exist in BG2.
It's called being analogous. It is AKIN to wearing two rings of Gaxx. Which is not supposed to be something you can do. *EDIT* I apologize Chow you were responding to another post about choice, and you are right in BG1 choosing between the Ring of Gaxx and a ring of wizardry wouldn't occur.
I just think it doesn't even make that much of a difference: a single ring already gives you more Magic Missiles than you would ever need in a day, so adding in the second for the same character would do very little extra. Might as well keep it as it is.
I er, uhm there's no choice for "selling it goes toward funding my venomous dagger purchase". Maybe I should come back when my charname is actually a magic user...
Thinking of a Blade and in that case I guess it'd a be a "no, I don't think it should be stackable".
My memory may be a little rusty after so many years not playing PnP 2nd edition but I remember Rings of Wizardry were not stackable in PNP. You could use different kinds, such as one that adds lvl 1 to 3 spells and the one that added 4th and 5th level spells, but using two of the same kind would not stack their effect.
Of course I can just be remembering some house rule and I'm far from my old books right now
I'm very sorry you're a bit of a condescending personality.
My reasoning is that it's like wearing two rings of Gaxx, which is not supposed to be be possible. Or two rings of protection. Clearly this is how Beta testers felt when it was changed for the sake of gameplay. (And one of them said as much earlier in the thread, this was something voted in as a fix) It is NOT like wielding two magical weapons at all since there's clearly pre-established rules with most magical jewelry and clothing.
I recant that there is a second type of ring of wizardry from BG2 which gives you access to more higher level spells. In TUTU you would only get that ring, so it's a very flux issue insofar as it being "cannon" There are other fantastic rings which have better abilities than doubling up on the same spell caster for level 1 spells for a SECOND time.
Finally, spread the wealth a little. Give it to another caster and you've gotten the same exact benefit. It's redundant, unnecessary, not that powerful by the time you get it, and yes, a bit uninspired leaning to boring now that you mention it.
Oh sorry, did you find that condescending? What can I do to correct that for you? Perhaps I could take a page from your book and direct my message at every single person who was in this topic and inform them they're all wasting their time on expressing their opinion... then express my own opinion. That seems to go down a storm. Everyone loves hypocrisy after all.
The ring of Gaxx is a non-issue. Only one is available without cheating or an exploit that is impossible to perform by accident. If you're doing either of those things then I'm guessing you don't consider fairness an issue. The rings of protection have very good reasons behind them for not wearing more than one both game mechanic and plot related. The ring of wizardry can not claim the same.
Dual-wielding powerful weapons is an ability open to warriors. It can lead to extremely powerful combinations not available to other classes, these combinations of weaponry and armour are valued assets to warriors. Spells replace powerful weaponry for wizards therefore combinations of items that aid spellcasting are the wizards most valued assets.
Recant that all you like, there are two in BG1 which is the issue brought up here and the description indicates multiple instances of the ring were made. So theres a second type of ring. So what? Its a different variation of ring available to the player. Thats it.
The main point here is there is no reason why anyone shouldn't be allowed to wear two rings of wizardry of the same type. Infact the lore openly accepts it should be possible therefore someone should be able to regardless of whether they actually choose to or not. There is no legitimate reason why this choice should be limited. Realistically it is not overpowered in comparison to combinations of items available to other classes and there is no plot or lore related reason to prevent it. If we want to "spread the wealth" as you put it then we can, if we want to hoard it then that should also be an option. There is no two ways about it, this limitation is a step backwards.
In third edition D&D, if you have two armor bonuses, they don't stack.
If you have the same ability more than once (if you're a wizard and you multiclass to a sorcerer, for example), those abilities don't stack either; you get the ability only once.
The Ring of Wizardry is the same. It's the same ability granted twice, or the same type of bonus granted again. It doesn't stack.
That's the way it works in BG:EE. You can still equip the Ring of Acuity to benefit from its effects, but the Ring of Wizardry not stacking with itself follows the precedent set by PnP rules and most video games. That it did stack in the vanilla game was an exploit due to a bug that was left unfixed; it wasn't an intended use of the item.
I'm very sorry you're a bit of a condescending personality.
My reasoning is that it's like wearing two rings of Gaxx, which is not supposed to be be possible. Or two rings of protection. Clearly this is how Beta testers felt when it was changed for the sake of gameplay. (And one of them said as much earlier in the thread, this was something voted in as a fix) It is NOT like wielding two magical weapons at all since there's clearly pre-established rules with most magical jewelry and clothing.
I recant that there is a second type of ring of wizardry from BG2 which gives you access to more higher level spells. In TUTU you would only get that ring, so it's a very flux issue insofar as it being "cannon" There are other fantastic rings which have better abilities than doubling up on the same spell caster for level 1 spells for a SECOND time.
Finally, spread the wealth a little. Give it to another caster and you've gotten the same exact benefit. It's redundant, unnecessary, not that powerful by the time you get it, and yes, a bit uninspired leaning to boring now that you mention it.
Oh sorry, did you find that condescending? What can I do to correct that for you? Perhaps I could take a page from your book and direct my message at every single person who was in this topic and inform them they're all wasting their time on expressing their opinion... then express my own opinion. That seems to go down a storm. Everyone loves hypocrisy after all.
The ring of Gaxx is a non-issue. Only one is available without cheating or an exploit that is impossible to perform by accident. If you're doing either of those things then I'm guessing you don't consider fairness an issue. The rings of protection have very good reasons behind them for not wearing more than one both game mechanic and plot related. The ring of wizardry can not claim the same.
Dual-wielding powerful weapons is an ability open to warriors. It can lead to extremely powerful combinations not available to other classes, these combinations of weaponry and armour are valued assets to warriors. Spells replace powerful weaponry for wizards therefore combinations of items that aid spellcasting are the wizards most valued assets.
Recant that all you like, there are two in BG1 which is the issue brought up here and the description indicates multiple instances of the ring were made. So theres a second type of ring. So what? Its a different variation of ring available to the player. Thats it.
The main point here is there is no reason why anyone shouldn't be allowed to wear two rings of wizardry of the same type. Infact the lore openly accepts it should be possible therefore someone should be able to regardless of whether they actually choose to or not. There is no legitimate reason why this choice should be limited. Realistically it is not overpowered in comparison to combinations of items available to other classes and there is no plot or lore related reason to prevent it. If we want to "spread the wealth" as you put it then we can, if we want to hoard it then that should also be an option. There is no two ways about it, this limitation is a step backwards.
Man you are thoroughly unpleasant when you want to make a point, you lead with slight and then try to back it up with your argument. It's not what I would call civil and that's why I wrote back to you in the manner I did.
Lets take a look at your first reply, where you claim I gave no reasons for it's restriction. I in fact gave many, mostly not dealing with my opinion, but grounded in what was said earlier in the thread about the beta testing leading to it's restriction.
Next you have an admin saying to his knowledge there are different rings, and that it shouldn't stack a scant few posts south of mine. And by the way...this goes hand in hand with me telling you prior there are in fact two different rings. (Not an opinion again)
On top of that I bring up how people used to exploit getting two rings of Gaxx in BG2 (which is not supposed to happen), and how rings of protection do not stack.
None of this has to do with my opinion. I just find your obstinate need to be a jerk in this regard to be boring. You can't think of a single more creative ring combination in the entire game?
It was never intended to stack, and it's always been a loophole. Yes fighters can dual wield. Because they train in weapons. Mages can teleport! You don't see me complaining about that?
Hypocrisy would involve me wanting a double-standard here. Which I don't. My only opinions expressed centered around how people want to view an uninspiring loophole as cannon to the game.
(As well as to your aggressive demeanor)
I did in fact tag everyone in this thread, because I figured it would resolve itself faster if people who initially defended such a loophole were forced to talk it out with others who positioned facts from beta testing results to intended play mechanics...etc. Not so you could be small.
Man you are thoroughly unpleasant when you want to make a point, you lead with slight and then try to back it up with your argument. It's not what I would call civil and that's why I wrote back to you in the manner I did.
Lets take a look at your first reply, where you claim I gave no reasons for it's restriction. I in fact gave many, mostly not dealing with my opinion, but grounded in what was said earlier in the thread about the beta testing leading to it's restriction.
Next you have an admin saying to his knowledge there are different rings, and that it shouldn't stack a scant few posts south of mine. And by the way...this goes hand in hand with me telling you prior there are in fact two different rings. (Not an opinion again)
On top of that I bring up how people used to exploit getting two rings of Gaxx in BG2 (which is not supposed to happen), and how rings of protection do not stack.
None of this has to do with my opinion. I just find your obstinate need to be a jerk in this regard to be boring. You can't think of a single more creative ring combination in the entire game?
It was never intended to stack, and it's always been a loophole. Yes fighters can dual wield. Because they train in weapons. Mages can teleport! You don't see me complaining about that?
Hypocrisy would involve me wanting a double-standard here. Which I don't. My only opinions expressed centered around how people want to view an uninspiring loophole as cannon to the game.
(As well as to your aggressive demeanor)
I did in fact tag everyone in this thread, because I figured it would resolve itself faster if people who initially defended such a loophole were forced to talk it out with others who positioned facts from beta testing results to intended play mechanics...etc. Not so you could be small.
You're going to give me a lecture on civility after telling, quite literally, a whole list of people that they're wrong, you're right and that they should study your list of easily counterable points and then feel silly for even discussing the subject. Is it possible they could have valid points and making a declaration of "I'm right, you're wrong" to a whole list of people could be perceived as a dick move? Nah, didn't even occur to you. Is berating people for making points about a subject they feel needs discussing then turning round and making points about the same subject hypocritical? I'll give ten points to anyone who can guess the answer. I'm not even sure what to call that kind of brazen arrogance. Thats amazing. You are amazing. You make me want to contact a team of scientists to study you just incase you're some kind of rosetta stone for curing megalomania. Thats how in awe I am. The idea I have to justify being sarcastic about that kind of blatant ego masturbatory session is frankly laughable.
Actually I didn't state you gave no reasons, I stated you gave no valid reasons. Beta testers aren't always right about everything and admins are entitled to put across points for their side of the discussion just like everyone else. Yes there are different rings, that doesn't mean all of them are different. The question isn't if they were meant to stack or not, the question is why shouldn't they. On a side note most admins don't object to free inquiry and discussion and I don't think that one would either.
I also stated I know theres different rings so theres a big sign you just scanned through and then typed a reply. Maybe you missed the part I said "So what?". If you could scroll up and actually read what I typed instead of guessing that would be awesome. I'm not even sure why you bring up rings of gaax. Everyone knows theres only supposed to be one in BG2 which isn't the case with the rings of wizardry in BG1. Ring of Gaax isn't even BG1. Its a complete non-point. It has no relevance whatsoever. Rings of protection shouldn't stack for obvious reasons but even if that were not the case there is no hint in the description they can be worn together. The rings of wizardry description outright says they can be and that many were made.
Theres two rings of wizardry in BG1. Is it a glitch? No. Is it a cheat? No. Its in the game. There are meant to be two in the game, there are meant to be many in Faerun. Is there any reason in the lore why you can't wear them? No. Would it be overpowered? No. So what good reason is there to not be able to wear two? Is there any valid reason whatsoever? Take a wild guess.
The tone and name calling in this thread needs to stop now or I will shut it down. This is the only warning I am giving. I won't name anyone specifically.
The tone and name calling in this thread needs to stop now or I will shut it down. This is the only warning I am giving. I won't name anyone specifically.
Aosaw summed it up well enough for me in regards to stacking.
In regards to the description, the fact they took the "bonus" ring out of circulation may point to the fact that it was intended to be a unique item description.
Alone its pretty powerful, stacked it would be more powerful than one, or maybe two werebears.
Comments
a) For those of us old enough to have played BG1 vanilla from the beginning of time, the Ring of Wizardry was always stackable.
b) During one patch the 'bonus' Friendly Arm Inn ring was removed - making the above irrelevant but was so unpopular it was restored in a later patch.
c) I personally never used two rings on the one mage as I always had two mages and preferred to balance the spells out BUT some players did and that was entirely legitimate in BG1 vanilla.
d) In the item description in vanilla it refers to 'HIS RINGS' which is the plural of ring, ergo one might assume without some perverse manipulation of logic that he used more than one...
It is my opinion that if it is okay to make Ankheg Plate non-magical and then ignore the AC stat increase in the 2nd ed ruleset and introduce Katanas that were not in vanilla then out of common courtesy the devs should at least leave well alone something that was intentionally allowed for in vanilla...
Or is that too much to ask?
Lastly this is a perfectly legitimate poll and to say otherwise reeks of conceit... in my humble opinion of course.
Wow, old thread brought back from the dead to continue being totally awful.
It is obviously powerful enough as is for many reasons:
The truth is the way it used to stack was an error. Just like how in BG2 you could erroneously wear two rings of Gaxx (which by the way, there was only supposed to be one of in the game, never mind the fact that duplicate abilities for jewelry are not supposed to stack)
It was the exploit of a bug that allowed you to wear two rings, but two different spell boosting rings that give you different levels of spells would be a different story to my mind. I think by titling the ring "Evermemory" in the Enhanced Edition they pave the way for a secondary ring of Wizardry that covers the BG2 boost which was greater spell levels than 1.
Now, as to whether two different KINDS of rings of wizardry could stack...that's a debate. Currently I can wear an improved cloak of protection AND +1 armor...so it could be treated like that.
But...outside of a few top level items that seem to be exceptions of the rule usually I can't stack a +1 and a +2 item on a character.
By forcing you to spread the rings around between characters it also makes you think hard about what combination of items you really want on each member of your party. Plus as it's been stated numerous times, you don't really need THAT many level 1 spells to be effective.
Especially since adding another caster will give you the same bonus anyway...AND by the time you find the second ring in BG proper you've already hit level 5 or 6 usually.
I can see why it makes soloing a bit different for a straight or specialist mage, but there are other great rings I'd want on most of the time other than giving me more level 1 spells.
In Tutu it was coded like the BG2 ring which was more powerful. But I'm assuming THAT ring will in fact get a new name as I previously mentioned when BGEE comes out either way.
Stacking these rings is really silly and doesn't feel balanced at all. (I included everyone in the thread so that that people who posted ever since this stupid thing started would maybe see a different side to it other than using a bug to exploit power gaming)
Hell, I've probably made worse.
It keeps coming back because there is a demand for it to be restored... I can understand your point in that it seems stupid to load them both on one mage (hence why I don't) but I don't think it can be called a bug when it was recognised in vanilla, patched and then restored. The simplest thing to do would be to put a hard cap on the number of lvl 1 spells you can learn so the 2nd ring can still be used but will have a negligible effect.
It's not going to go away, I've been reading these forums for months and threads like this just keep resurfacing ad infinitum until those that want something are content. Urgh I only created an account to report a bug.
Yes, less. Rather than martialling your superior spells, you're more likely to waste everyone's time by spamming weak spells like Magic Missile, whilst, in the rare occasions that it's actually necessary to cast large numbers of level 1 spells, it's always better to do so with two mages since you cast twice as fast.
The only difference that a stacking ring of wizardry can attain is giving a single mage party a mage who can pull off a Magic Missile every turn or other such nonsense, you will still rest when your party runs out of vital resources, you will still fail to meaningfully contribute to mid-level combats if you rely on level 1 spells (Sleep stops being a gamebreaker at mid-levels and turns into a sometimes food).
A second ring of wizardry, if it stacked, would not meaningfully extend a mage's capabilities, and would more optimally applied to two mages anyway. In the face of such inconsequentiality, apathy is the only appropriate response.
You cant wear two rings of protection at same time so i think its fair regarding the rings of wizardry. I do like your analogy though, made me chuckle:)
Plus again if you look at the description it mentions them being worn together safely, not the case with rings of protection. This game mechanic actually contradicts the description, that just doesn't make sense.
Thats the main reason I object to this type of nerf. Not only does it add irony to the game being called "Enhanced" but it contradicts the lore which makes this game great.
If you take the item description at face value and insist it means he was wearing all the rings at once and that they weren't necessarily different, I would point out that several rings = more than 2. Meaning he would need to have been wearing more than 2 rings at once, which is specifically disallowed under 2ED rules (and I think all rules subsequent to that).
If you're looking for a real world explanation as to why they don't stack then there simply isn't one. It's a magical make-believe universe with rules defined by the creators. Why can't a mage wear armor? Sure it may restrict spellcasting, but physically there's no reason they can't wear it. And yet it isn't permitted in Baldur's Gate.
I'm very sorry you're a bit of a condescending personality.
My reasoning is that it's like wearing two rings of Gaxx, which is not supposed to be be possible. Or two rings of protection. Clearly this is how Beta testers felt when it was changed for the sake of gameplay. (And one of them said as much earlier in the thread, this was something voted in as a fix) It is NOT like wielding two magical weapons at all since there's clearly pre-established rules with most magical jewelry and clothing.
I recant that there is a second type of ring of wizardry from BG2 which gives you access to more higher level spells. In TUTU you would only get that ring, so it's a very flux issue insofar as it being "cannon" There are other fantastic rings which have better abilities than doubling up on the same spell caster for level 1 spells for a SECOND time.
Finally, spread the wealth a little. Give it to another caster and you've gotten the same exact benefit. It's redundant, unnecessary, not that powerful by the time you get it, and yes, a bit uninspired leaning to boring now that you mention it.
@karnor00
You are right about the item description, as it doesn't imply anything concerning the rings being identical at all..when I read it, I feel if anything that it's one of a set with different powers and abilities. Especially since there is another type known to exist in BG2.
Thinking of a Blade and in that case I guess it'd a be a "no, I don't think it should be stackable".
Of course I can just be remembering some house rule and I'm far from my old books right now
The ring of Gaxx is a non-issue. Only one is available without cheating or an exploit that is impossible to perform by accident. If you're doing either of those things then I'm guessing you don't consider fairness an issue. The rings of protection have very good reasons behind them for not wearing more than one both game mechanic and plot related. The ring of wizardry can not claim the same.
Dual-wielding powerful weapons is an ability open to warriors. It can lead to extremely powerful combinations not available to other classes, these combinations of weaponry and armour are valued assets to warriors. Spells replace powerful weaponry for wizards therefore combinations of items that aid spellcasting are the wizards most valued assets.
Recant that all you like, there are two in BG1 which is the issue brought up here and the description indicates multiple instances of the ring were made.
So theres a second type of ring. So what? Its a different variation of ring available to the player. Thats it.
The main point here is there is no reason why anyone shouldn't be allowed to wear two rings of wizardry of the same type. Infact the lore openly accepts it should be possible therefore someone should be able to regardless of whether they actually choose to or not. There is no legitimate reason why this choice should be limited. Realistically it is not overpowered in comparison to combinations of items available to other classes and there is no plot or lore related reason to prevent it. If we want to "spread the wealth" as you put it then we can, if we want to hoard it then that should also be an option. There is no two ways about it, this limitation is a step backwards.
If you have the same ability more than once (if you're a wizard and you multiclass to a sorcerer, for example), those abilities don't stack either; you get the ability only once.
The Ring of Wizardry is the same. It's the same ability granted twice, or the same type of bonus granted again. It doesn't stack.
That's the way it works in BG:EE. You can still equip the Ring of Acuity to benefit from its effects, but the Ring of Wizardry not stacking with itself follows the precedent set by PnP rules and most video games. That it did stack in the vanilla game was an exploit due to a bug that was left unfixed; it wasn't an intended use of the item.
Man you are thoroughly unpleasant when you want to make a point, you lead with slight and then try to back it up with your argument. It's not what I would call civil and that's why I wrote back to you in the manner I did.
Lets take a look at your first reply, where you claim I gave no reasons for it's restriction. I in fact gave many, mostly not dealing with my opinion, but grounded in what was said earlier in the thread about the beta testing leading to it's restriction.
Next you have an admin saying to his knowledge there are different rings, and that it shouldn't stack a scant few posts south of mine. And by the way...this goes hand in hand with me telling you prior there are in fact two different rings. (Not an opinion again)
On top of that I bring up how people used to exploit getting two rings of Gaxx in BG2 (which is not supposed to happen), and how rings of protection do not stack.
None of this has to do with my opinion. I just find your obstinate need to be a jerk in this regard to be boring. You can't think of a single more creative ring combination in the entire game?
It was never intended to stack, and it's always been a loophole. Yes fighters can dual wield. Because they train in weapons. Mages can teleport! You don't see me complaining about that?
Hypocrisy would involve me wanting a double-standard here. Which I don't. My only opinions expressed centered around how people want to view an uninspiring loophole as cannon to the game.
(As well as to your aggressive demeanor)
I did in fact tag everyone in this thread, because I figured it would resolve itself faster if people who initially defended such a loophole were forced to talk it out with others who positioned facts from beta testing results to intended play mechanics...etc. Not so you could be small.
I'm not even sure what to call that kind of brazen arrogance. Thats amazing. You are amazing. You make me want to contact a team of scientists to study you just incase you're some kind of rosetta stone for curing megalomania. Thats how in awe I am.
The idea I have to justify being sarcastic about that kind of blatant ego masturbatory session is frankly laughable.
Actually I didn't state you gave no reasons, I stated you gave no valid reasons. Beta testers aren't always right about everything and admins are entitled to put across points for their side of the discussion just like everyone else. Yes there are different rings, that doesn't mean all of them are different. The question isn't if they were meant to stack or not, the question is why shouldn't they. On a side note most admins don't object to free inquiry and discussion and I don't think that one would either.
I also stated I know theres different rings so theres a big sign you just scanned through and then typed a reply. Maybe you missed the part I said "So what?". If you could scroll up and actually read what I typed instead of guessing that would be awesome. I'm not even sure why you bring up rings of gaax. Everyone knows theres only supposed to be one in BG2 which isn't the case with the rings of wizardry in BG1. Ring of Gaax isn't even BG1. Its a complete non-point. It has no relevance whatsoever.
Rings of protection shouldn't stack for obvious reasons but even if that were not the case there is no hint in the description they can be worn together. The rings of wizardry description outright says they can be and that many were made.
Theres two rings of wizardry in BG1. Is it a glitch? No. Is it a cheat? No. Its in the game. There are meant to be two in the game, there are meant to be many in Faerun. Is there any reason in the lore why you can't wear them? No. Would it be overpowered? No. So what good reason is there to not be able to wear two? Is there any valid reason whatsoever? Take a wild guess.
In regards to the description, the fact they took the "bonus" ring out of circulation may point to the fact that it was intended to be a unique item description.
Alone its pretty powerful, stacked it would be more powerful than one, or maybe two werebears.