Only Allow Wearing One Ring Of Its Kind

[Shtopit]

So if you find two rings of rF+, you can only wear one.

Why?

The largest benefit is imho that mutations that replicate equipment would become more important. In general, mutations as a source of bonuses would be more significative, and make the mutation roulette more incisive.

Added benefits:

-Artifacts would not be subjected to this rule, and so become more relevant
- More inventory room! Unless you instead carry spare armour of rN, rF, rP, rC, but then you still have...
- Less swapping in combat!
- Autopickup has fewer existential crises!

In addition, I would have rF, rC, and rP rings turn into spell enhancers, and make rings of fire and cold disappear. Maybe rings of rN too, but necromancy is pretty powerful on its own.

And, while we are at it, remove elemental weakness from fire dragon and ice dragon armour.

[tasonir]

I'm fine with two rings at once. It's fairly rare that you would ever run into this, though. I assume the limit wouldn't apply to octopodes, in any case, or that they have a limit of 4 or something.

I do think some reform on rF/rC and fire/ice would help, although I wonder about simply merging them into one ring slot might make them too strong. How about protection from X stays the same, and enhancers lose the resist and weakness, and simply do spell enhancement to their school? 1 simple effect, seems easy. If you think putting both on one ring isn't too powerful, then sure, but that's going to be a strong ring.

Would totally love to see fire/ice dragon armor lose the opposite weakness. Assuming you would drop it down to one pip of the resist, which I think is fair. I understand this makes them somewhat closer to rF/rC chain mails, but the encumbrance and racial restrictions, as well as the availability are different enough to me to justify this. Keeping two pips would make them stand out more, but also could be arguably too strong.

[Shtopit]

I think that the best enhancer proposal (if we want to separate enhancer and resistance) was that of making a universal elemental enhancer as an Amulet of the Elements, powering Fire, Ice, Poison, Air, and Earth magic. It has the advantage of being usable by a wider range of characters, and amulets force you to make choices (spell power vs regen vs mp regen vs faith...)

About fire dragon armour, I think that even 67% fire resistance without weakness to cold would be OK. It's not that big a step up from rF+ (50%), but it would need testing. Anyway, I think that in general elemental weaknesses are a bad way to balance features. The game turns too spiky and, more importantly, they take away a huge chunk of player attention.

Good catch on octopodes, they would have to be a special case. Probably they shouldn't have any limitation at all and stay as they are now.

[Siegurt]

I am not sure i agree with your premise. Why does disallowing the wearing of two of the same ring make (the infrequent case of) getting a resist through a mutation more important? The first pip of any resist is the actually important one.

[Lasty]

Keep in mind that all artefact rings have a base type, and so you wouldn't be able to wear two artefact rings that coincidentally are both rings of stealth under this proposal. You could exempt artefacts, but that would be weird too.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Siegurt]

Keep in mind that all artefact rings have a base type, and so you wouldn't be able to wear two artefact rings that coincidentally are both rings of stealth under this proposal. You could exempt artefacts, but that would be weird too.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

Yeah, he specificially exempted artifacts in the OP, but i agree that it is weird.

[Lasty]

Oh, sorry, missed that.