Koveras' Ring

[Salk]

Okay, guys... Here's my revised attempt.

 

Tell me what you think (I expanded slightly the Lore but you are welcome with suggestions). It uses SR's version of Luck, has its own .bam (albeit just a recolored one) and it's way more powerful than a Ring of Protection +1. It could be used by the Shadow Thieves, it could be a legitimate gift from Gorion and it is identifiable as well. If people like it and Demi is fine with it, I'd love to "donate" it to IR. If you think having a permanent Luck bonus when equipped makes it too powerful, we might consider changing to one single Special Ability called Lucky Strike (True Strike + 25% Extra Damage).

 

Ring of Opportunity

 

This ring was given to you by Koveras in Candlekeep. Its polished black surface is cold to the touch and engraved with powerful incantations. The ring's design and crafting material suggest western workmanship. On the inside you see what appears to be a thick figure eight with a slash mark through it.

STATISTICS:

Special Abilities (once per day):

True Strike

Equipped Abilities:

Luck: +1 bonus

Not Usable By:

Wizard Slayer

[Dakk]

I'm down with it.

 

Nothing that starts with "but this is Dakk's point" ever ends well But you actually nailed it subtledoctor.

 

but this is Dakk's point: you don't just need this ring to be something an assassin would use. You need it to be something Gorion might credibly give the Charname. So you need a generic benefit for the item, that's good enough to keep it in your possession in late BG1; and separately, it needs to have some identifying characteristic that some people, but not Charname, will recognize as belonging to the Shadow Thieves.

 

The abilities granted by the ring do NOT have to be that identifying characteristic. Just add a sentence in the lore about an odd symbol that you don't recognize inside the band.

 

For the assassins themselves, a generic bonus that's useful to all classes is fine to use, as long as the ring identifiably belongs to the Shadow Thieves so they can kill anyone else they find wearing one...

 

You are saying that some people should be able to recognize the ring to be a genuine item belonging to a Shadow Thief Assassin but at the same time you are saying that "you don't just need this ring to be something an assassin would use".

Yes. It needs to be BOTH 1) something useful to shadow thieves AND 2) something Gorion might credibly have bequeathed to Charname - *any Charname,* including druids and paladins and mages.

 

A ring that improves backstabs doesn't fit both criteria.

 

A Ring of Prot. +1 can fit both criteria. So would a ring of Luck. Or a million other things. My point is, there are tons of items which would be very useful to s shadow thief, which the shadow thieves might create or collect, and mark as their own, abc give to their members, which are *not* thief-only items.

 

As has been pointed out, a ring of Luck benefits anybody (criteria #2), but benefits assassins more than most other classes (criteria #1). So it's actually pretty appropriate.

 

The ring has to have some *identifying characteristic* as a Shadow Thief item. But that characteristic need not be a magic power. It can just be a certain marking - which Charname won't recognize (not yet having been to Amn) but Ulraunt will. A sentence about it in the description will suffice ("the ring bears a strange mark - it is distinctive, but you do not recognize it.")

 

Next, it has to have some magical power, not enough to be game-breaking but enough to make it worth keeping when you already have 3 Rings of Protection +1.

 

Next, that magical power has to be the kind of thing that Gorion might plausibly leave to Charname. Of course this is a lie - but it has to be a *believable* lie. So no "Ring of Backstabbing" only usable by evil thieves, because then my druid Charname would be like "WTF??"

 

Finally, that power has to be something that the Shadow Thieves would find useful. Note, that does NOT mean that ONLY Shadow Thieves would find it useful. Basically it has to be something everyone would find useful, *including* (maybe especially) Shadow Thieves.

 

The name probably shouldn't have "Koveras" in it. If anything it should be "Gorion's Ring of Luck" or more likely, just generic "Ring of Luck" and mention in the description that Koveras passed it on to you.

 

Spot on mate.

[n-ghost]

> The ring's design and crafting material suggest western workmanship.

 

Eh, isn't Athkatla to the south both of the Candlekeep and Baldur's Gate? Got such an impression from world maps, though it could be inaccurate Toril-wise ofc.

 

Otherwise, very nice.

[Salk]

> The ring's design and crafting material suggest western workmanship.

 

Eh, isn't Athkatla to the south both of the Candlekeep and Baldur's Gate? Got such an impression from world maps, though it could be inaccurate Toril-wise ofc.

 

Otherwise, very nice.

 

Athkatla is to the south of the Sword Coast but Amn is considered a western region of Faerun (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3437/3189917474_918b5c96f3.jpg).

 

I first thought of using "Amnian workmanship" but it doesn't sound so good.

[Jarno Mikkola]

This ring was given to you by Koveras in Candlekeep...

Erhm why does the items description have this ? I would place such nonsense to the unidentified description.

And the True Strike with +1 Luck.... can it get any more OP with my Kensai/Conjurer/Assassin triple kitted char ? Ouh yeah, double spells per level, I'll take that!

The point of the above is, the item should not be this good at this point of the game. Let's not forget that the +1 rings original weakness was that they couldn't be equipped with other +1 armors, rings and cloaks. So the Koveras ring didn't give that much of a bonus originally. Now the +1 to Luck is a horribly overpowered bonus over that...

 

I still hold my "original" opinion that the ring should be a +2 to saves with the True Strike once rest ability. And with the paladin restriction. Why ? Because the player is likely to bring someone in the party that's going to be benefiting from those bonuses even if he/she is a Paladin or Wizard Slayer... but still it won't be a +1 level to any of them.

[Dakk]

My only fear is that +1 Luck and True Strike is, indeed OP. Other than that I think the powers are suitable. If one has to go, keep Luck

[Salk]

Well, the ring is indeed powerful this way. But it's also true it's Chapter 6.

 

Jarno,

 

the reason why it's not restricted to Paladin is the original one: Gorion is supposed to have left it to CHARNAME to use it. It's unfair to penalize those that play with a Paladin. I also don't agree with your protest about the identified description.

 

Also, True Strike is a once / day ability. The OP element, if there is one (but I am not sure), is the equipped ability, not the special one. Sorry, Dakk...

[Jarno Mikkola]

Also, True Strike is a once / day ability. The OP element, if there is one (but I am not sure), is the equipped ability, not the special one. Sorry, Dakk...

Actually, it's 3 times per day, see you can rest 3 times in 24 hours, you begin the day before, you rest and say start at hour number 5, you fight a small skirmish( and use the ability) and rest until hour number 13, fight another fight, and rest until hour number 21, fight and rest to wake up at ~5 and thus gain the ability back as many times as you rested and used it the day before, as the game refreshes the items abilities per rest, not per day... but you are correct on the luck being the OP element of the ring(yes, I wrote it so above).

 

The ring giving the +2 to saves and it being not allowed to paladins is the actually connected. You see, it can be used with the other plus rings and cloaks stacking the saves, it gives the paladins save aura to non paladins (the true striking or invisibility ability being another, a different enhancement in the same item).

It's useful for everyone, including the Paladins as they will have someone else than themselves in their party... there's no Solo Paladins, nor a benefit of going just with paladins in the party, as a serious lack of multidisciplinary approach will be issue with them(unlike with a rock band of bards).

 

At low levels(so in the whole BG1 game ), the +1 to Luck will be a huge deal, as it gives the same bonus as you would gain from leveling up in everything except Armor Class(which the luck is likely to give more) and Hit Points(which the luck won't give). So it's way too much even for a BG1 chapter 6 item. Sarevok would never give such an item to the Charname. Or would the player give it to Sarevok ? You know, the non-masochist player...

[Salk]

Sarevok would never give such an item to the Charname.

 

No, but Gorion would. And the whole point is for CHARNAME to buy the lie and have him imprisoned for life. Also, the ring, in Sarevok's plans, would be in possession of CHARNAME only for a very short time.

 

But I understand your concern about the Luck bonus being too much of a boost. I can't accept your argument for making it restricted to Paladins because Sarevok's lie is all based on the assumption that the item was left to CHARNAME for his personal use.

[subtledoctor]

Sarevok would never give such an item to the Charname.

What? Why not? The BG story would be pretty sad if every character acted the way many people play the game ("must kill ALL teh monzterz, and take ALL teh itemzz!"). In that case Sarevok would take his little band of evil adventurers, hire on Dorn and Baeloth and Edwin, loot Durlag's Tower and High Hedge, and just kill every single person on the Sword Coast (occasionally retrieving books and wine bottles, and clearing out domestic spider infestations, to keep his reputation up) instead of starting a war to get them to kill each other.

 

But instead Sarevok acts *normally* in executing a plan. It's totally worth giving up a semi-powerful magic item if what you get in exchange (Charname locked up) is more valuable.

 

Most characters in the game are actually well-written and act appropriately given their position. It's only Charname who acts like a psychotic murderer in a twisted world without consequences or accountability.

[Mazuo]

For what little it's worth, I like your last implementation Salk. Mostly for the reasons that it should be a boon to pretty much any player class while not being easily superior to everything else. It's late enough in the game for a ring that strong to be appropriate as well.

[Jarno Mikkola]

What? Why not? The BG story would be pretty sad if every character acted the way many people play the game ("must kill ALL teh monzterz, and take ALL teh itemzz!"). In that case Sarevok would ...

Well in fact, do you even remember that Sarevok killed his own foster father and his allies, to gain advantage over the player(to accuse him/her for doing that), and gain his early heritage from both of his "fathers" ... yeah, that's kinda dark right there, as that's what happened! REMEMBER ?

[Shaitan]

 

What? Why not? The BG story would be pretty sad if every character acted the way many people play the game ("must kill ALL teh monzterz, and take ALL teh itemzz!"). In that case Sarevok would ...

Well in fact, do you even remember that Sarevok killed his own foster father and his allies, to gain advantage over the player(to accuse him/her for doing that), and gain his early heritage from both of his "fathers" ... yeah, that's kinda dark right there, as that's what happened! REMEMBER ?

 

I can imagine Sarevok giving anything to the PC. It really shows him like the chaotic person he is, rather than giving something useless crap.

[Scourge]

I don't understand your point of the paladin player unable to use 'this custom version' of the ring. What's the matter?

[Jarno Mikkola]

I don't understand your point of the paladin player unable to use 'this custom version' of the ring. What's the matter?

It's to balance the +2 to saves... SO you won't have a +6 from being paladin, having a +2 cloak and the ring... (from just a few items). Making you almost invulnerable at early levels to all their save vs spells. Making the item almost vanilla balance ... NOT FREAKING +1 level one to whoever uses it. It was not meant for that in the first place.