D&D 5E Let's break the Ring of Spell Storing

[Chocolategravy]

The main value of it does seem to be that it lets you give concentration spells to noncasters, thus letting you layer extra concentration buffs/debuffs. The barbarian is a great candidate for this. Barbs tend to crank up their Con to the max, they're proficient in Con saves, and when raging they take half damage from most attacks. It's also extremely useful for a warlock, who can recharge the ring every short rest.

5 more bless spells a day and freeing up the cleric or paladin's concentration for even more overpowered buffing supposedly balanced by concentration. Oh joy.

 

[Dausuul]

This is a misconception.

Example 1:

Warlock with full complement of spells and a full ring before a short rest casts the spell from the ring and all but one spell (x-1) of his own. Before the short rest, he puts a spell into the ring. Net gain zero. He could always cast x spells without owning the ring, so he is no better off than he was at the start of the day. He cast x spells, he takes a short rest, and he can still cast x spells. No different than if he had no ring at all.

Example 2:

Warlock with full complement of spells and a full ring before a short rest casts all of his spells and one spell from the ring. Before the short rest, he cannot put a spell into the ring. Net gain zero. After the short rest, he has no spells in the ring and he has his full complement remaining. He has so far only gained one extra spell from the ring total (the one he started with at the beginning of the day).

Note: Once a Warlock gets to level 5, he can never store more than one of his own spells into the ring because his own spells have a minimum spell slot level of 3 at that time (although he could get other PCs to store some of their low level spells into it).

The reason it's an advantage for the warlock is that the warlock can take extra short rests much more easily than, say, a wizard can take extra long rests. If you can afford to rest for one hour, you can often afford to rest for two, allowing you to both recharge the ring and recover the slot. At the very least, when the party makes camp, you can take a short rest, recharge the ring, and then go to bed.

There's also the effect on the warlock's nova potential. One of the drawbacks of warlocks compared to other casters is that the warlock has little ability to "go nova" when faced with a major threat. A wizard who unexpectedly finds himself face-to-face with the BBEG can pull out all the stops and burn through spell slots like there's no tomorrow; a warlock in the same situation is stuck with the same 2-3 spell slots she always has. Turning that potential 2-3 spell slots into 3-4 is a big deal.

 

[Dausuul]

5 more bless spells a day and freeing up the cleric or paladin's concentration for even more overpowered buffing supposedly balanced by concentration. Oh joy.

Well, if you don't like it, nobody says you have to give your players one.

 

[billd91]

Well, if you don't like it, nobody says you have to give your players one.

And that's part of the appeal of 5e - returning to the idea that a magic item isn't just a power-up available once the PC has the cash - but an item to be added to the campaign by the DM when he is ready for it to be there.

 

[KarinsDad]

The reason it's an advantage for the warlock is that the warlock can take extra short rests much more easily than, say, a wizard can take extra long rests. If you can afford to rest for one hour, you can often afford to rest for two, allowing you to both recharge the ring and recover the slot. At the very least, when the party makes camp, you can take a short rest, recharge the ring, and then go to bed.

There's also the effect on the warlock's nova potential. One of the drawbacks of warlocks compared to other casters is that the warlock has little ability to "go nova" when faced with a major threat. A wizard who unexpectedly finds himself face-to-face with the BBEG can pull out all the stops and burn through spell slots like there's no tomorrow; a warlock in the same situation is stuck with the same 2-3 spell slots she always has. Turning that potential 2-3 spell slots into 3-4 is a big deal.

Good points.

I do opine that the back to back short rest scenario will be unlikely in most games most of the time (except at the end of the adventuring day which merely sets up either the night, or the next day). One just needs to read the plethora of posts here on the boards about how PCs have difficulty taking a single short rest at times let alone two back to back ones.

I totally get the extra Nova ability, but it is limited to one extra spell per double short rest making it even more difficult for the Warlock player from gaining more with the ring. How often do PCs have 2 unmolested hours to burn between encounters unless it is a single encounter day (in which case, how do the PCs know that it is a single encounter day and the Warlock should nova all of his spells)?

The versatility of the other spell casting classes is easily equivalent to that. The Cleric puts extra healing/restorative spells into the ring, so that the Cleric can focus his main spells on other things like protection or novaing. The Wizard puts extra rarely used but useful spells (like Disguise Self or Suggestion) which allows him to focus his main spells on other things like novaing.

No doubt that a Warlock can in some unique circumstances get in more than a single extra spell per day, but the other casters can mix and match the spells in the ring and save the prep of other spells. That's gotta be at least equally as useful as one or two extra Warlock spells per day.


But the problem with the Warlock nova argument is that it makes the Warlock more potent than he normally is, but that's nowhere near making a Wizard more potent than he normally is. Warlock nova-ing tends to be subpar in the first place.

A single Wall of Force in the ring by the Wizard, locking down a super tough foe while the PCs attack other foes or recover from a beating, or blocking a passageway so that 30 foes cannot reach the PCs, does so much more than a single extra single target nova (or even two in a given day) by a Warlock. Most of the non-damaging nova spells in the game get a saving throw every round, so a Warlock nova often means either just some more damage (which can be done a lot of different ways by a lot of different classes), or it means that one foe is delayed a bit. It's not really that impressive when discussing nova spells of level 5 and lower.

The real game changer spells in D&D are ones that change the entire paradigm of the encounter (Fog Cloud for attack protection, wall spells to seal off foes, mass heals to restore the party, fireball to seriously damage multiple foes, entangle/web to change action economy, etc.). Warlock (mostly) single target spells are not in that "shake up the encounter" ballpark.

Warlocks do get a few game changers (damage with the Fiend patron, Evard's with the Great Old One patron, slow once a day), but they are always bringing a few types of knives while the Wizard is bringing the swiss army knife.

From the perspective of the party, an extra spell or two a day by the Warlock is a fairly minor addition unless the adventurers are going for many days where they blow through all of their spells (in which case, they have more problems than this ring is going to help with).

From the perspective of the player, sure, this is a great item for a Warlock. I just think that due to versatility, it is an even greater item for other spell casting classes.

The Wizard with the ring can have the Cleric put a Healing Word in it so that he can wake up any unconscious PC. The Warlock can only do that at lower levels (or if he limits himself to invocations in the ring instead of spells).

 

[Boarstorm]

I feel like we're neglecting the fact that the warlock can toss in a 3rd level spell (for instance), and the cleric can toss in an emergency cure wounds or two. (Or whatever)

A party with multiple casters can give non-casters (or limited spellcasters) a lot of additional options.

 

[TheGogmagog]

And that's part of the appeal of 5e - returning to the idea that a magic item isn't just a power-up available once the PC has the cash - but an item to be added to the campaign by the DM when he is ready for it to be there.

I suspect (but don't know for sure) that when starting at 10th level you will get one rare, two common magic items or something like that rather than x amount of gold to go shopping with. Of course it would be up to DM discretion to restrict choices.

 

[KarinsDad]

I feel like we're neglecting the fact that the warlock can toss in a 3rd level spell (for instance), and the cleric can toss in an emergency cure wounds or two. (Or whatever)

A party with multiple casters can give non-casters (or limited spellcasters) a lot of additional options.

Yes, but this can happen for other casters as well. But once a Warlock gets to level 9, this is no longer an option for him (unless he either only puts invocations in the ring, or only puts other PC's spells in the ring).

I suspect that most DMs will not hand out such a rare ring to the party (assuming that the group even gives it to the Warlock) in the level 5 to 8 range.

 

[TheGogmagog]

The way the ring is worded, none of the attributes of the spell (including range) matter at all, as the spell's effect does not occur at the time. You just have to be "touching the ring as the spell is cast." You aren't casting the spell on the ring.

No such limitation.

Sorry, I just now read the description, and was going off of details in this thread.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?370699-Preview-3-Rings

Having read it though, I see there is nothing prohibiting range self. I don't see where it says the attributes don't matter though and could still see an argument for not allowing it. Has there been a declaration about general vs specific rules in 5e. Sorry, I just got started in 5e, and should probably lurk more before posting.

By your interpretation the suggestion that was dismissed earlier in the thread, where the wearer readies an action to make a touch attack if the BBEG casts a spell, would successfully steal the spell?

 

[KarinsDad]

Sorry, I just now read the description, and was going off of details in this thread.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?370699-Preview-3-Rings

Having read it though, I see there is nothing prohibiting range self. I don't see where it says the attributes don't matter though and could still see an argument for not allowing it. Has there been a declaration about general vs specific rules in 5e. Sorry, I just got started in 5e, and should probably lurk more before posting.

All of the attributes matter (range, duration, etc.). It's just that the "slot level, save DC, attack bonus, and spellcasting ability" attributes are as per the original caster and the rest of the attributes are as per the creature wearing the ring.

By your interpretation the suggestion that was dismissed earlier in the thread, where the wearer readies an action to make a touch attack if the BBEG casts a spell, would successfully steal the spell?

No, that was pure humor.

But, not everyone read it that way.