you can wear potentially 10 rings vs 1 or 2 cloaks, depending on how liberal your DM is.
The one drawback is that similar properties of rings PROBABLY wont stack, for example; no double-dipping rings of protection to get a +2 or more to AC and saving throws.
You can wear 10 rings but still only attune to three items so unless you're very selective it's a bit pointless
I see it as more of a guide for DMs, so level 7 characters aren't using both, getting +2AC and +2 to all saving throws and thus the intention is that the ring comes in at later levels than the cloak.
Rings also conflict less than cloaks. Generally speaking you only really get 1 cloak (down to DM digression) where as rings, you get far more, most rings do require attunement but not all rings do, for example ring of resistance or ring of swimming, do not.
The Magical Cloak Consortium was very lax on the types of linen and other materials that could be used for such cloaks. While the Rings of Magical Nature Guild have strict specifications and thus rarer.
Rings also conflict less than cloaks. Generally speaking you only really get 1 cloak (down to DM digression) where as rings, you get far more, most rings do require attunement but not all rings do, for example ring of resistance or ring of swimming, do not.
I imagine this is the answer. If you get a Cloak of Protection then later get a Cloak of Displacement, you have to choose between them. That makes it inherently less valuable than a Ring of Protection that will always allow you to add new magic items (except for number attuned, which is equal for both magic items). If you have a choice, you should always go for the Ring - hence a difference in rarity (and thus value).
Similar to why laptops are more expensive for the same power as desktops. They're often more desirable.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It is strictly a game design choice. If you thought about it logically things like +1 weapons, armor cloaks and rings of protection etc should all be “common” items as they are by far the most generally useful and desirable. As such they would be the most common produced whenever magic items are produced and so also the most common to be found in dungeons etc. that’s like with potions - the two most common should be healing and “love” with pretty much everything else a fairly distant “second”. To some extent we see in the artificer rules and new bastion rulesa bit of a guideline - you basically have to be tier 3 (L9+ bastion rules to make common & uncommon items, L3 & 10 respectively to make +1 and +2 weapons, armor and items as an artificer.).
"Common" is not just a reflection of which items people will want, it's a reflection of how much skill it takes to craft the item and how rare/expensive the component materials are. Ergo even high demand wouldn't necessarily be enough to make +1 weapons "common"
I have to disagree, just because something is cheap and easy to make doesn’t mean there are going to be a lot of them. When I look at the listed “common” items most are nearly useless from an adventuring standpoint. Things like the clothes of mending, cloak of many fashions etc. I understand why they are common - they are everyday useful. Some, like the rod of bird calls and immovable rod can, in certain cases, be useful but generally are relatively useless both adventuring and in down time regular life.many I have trouble thinking of what I would do with them and why they are worth spending 50GP on the item.if I’m going to hire an accomplished mage to make me something usefull I’ll spend my money on something I can use regularly not on junk just because it’s “magic”.
I have to disagree, just because something is cheap and easy to make doesn’t mean there are going to be a lot of them.
Well, it's ordinary supply and demand -- if it's cheap to make and people actually want it, it will be common. However, D&D 'rarity' numbers are only marginally connected to the real world meaning of that term, as they routinely assign rarities to unique items.
Agreed. Game rarity has much more to do with power than with real world economics. Still it’s slowly creeping in with 2024. With the right features in a L9 bastion you can pretty well create your own potions, scrolls and common or uncommon items on the side while adventuring. So watch the power creep begin.
I mean, plenty of common items hold up as the sort of thing someone with some extra money to throw around might buy; you can't tell me spending the extra gold for Armor of Gleaming or a Cloak of Billowing holds up any less than paying ten times as much for clothes because of whose name is on them. Then there's things like chests of preserving and cleansing stones that have tangible everyday utility.
Granted, it is also where the weird knick-knacks end up, but that's a function of there being little practical purpose to subdividing the classification further.
I mean, plenty of common items hold up as the sort of thing someone with some extra money to throw around might buy; you can't tell me spending the extra gold for Armor of Gleaming or a Cloak of Billowing holds up any less than paying ten times as much for clothes because of whose name is on them. Then there's things like chests of preserving and cleansing stones that have tangible everyday utility.
Granted, it is also where the weird knick-knacks end up, but that's a function of there being little practical purpose to subdividing the classification further.
I always think of the weird Knick-knacks as being equivalent of the mass produced plastic junk sold in pop up stores costing a dollar
Yeah - except they cost 50+ GP in a silver economy. I’ll grant that for your everyday Joe, or your rich Josephine a cloak of billowing would be a status purchase but again, your talking about a limited audience I would still think that items of real usefulness in that dangerous and fairly violent world would be considerably more desirable.
Did you actually read the DMG (either version)? You get zero benefit wearing more than three rings. Wearing two cloaks? Have you ever worn a Cloak or ever seen one? Try wearing two at the same time.
Is it a silver economy when any profession proficiency can generate a comfortable life style valued at 2 gp a day? Even proficiency in survival will let you do this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So both of these items are identical they both require attunement and have the same effect. Why is one rare and the other uncommon?
It's one of those mysterious design choices that was made when the edition was created. Really, they probably both should be rare.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
You can wear 10 rings but still only attune to three items so unless you're very selective it's a bit pointless
I see it as more of a guide for DMs, so level 7 characters aren't using both, getting +2AC and +2 to all saving throws and thus the intention is that the ring comes in at later levels than the cloak.
Rings also conflict less than cloaks. Generally speaking you only really get 1 cloak (down to DM digression) where as rings, you get far more, most rings do require attunement but not all rings do, for example ring of resistance or ring of swimming, do not.
The Magical Cloak Consortium was very lax on the types of linen and other materials that could be used for such cloaks. While the Rings of Magical Nature Guild have strict specifications and thus rarer.
Thats my story and I’m sticking to it! 😉
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I imagine this is the answer. If you get a Cloak of Protection then later get a Cloak of Displacement, you have to choose between them. That makes it inherently less valuable than a Ring of Protection that will always allow you to add new magic items (except for number attuned, which is equal for both magic items). If you have a choice, you should always go for the Ring - hence a difference in rarity (and thus value).
Similar to why laptops are more expensive for the same power as desktops. They're often more desirable.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It is strictly a game design choice. If you thought about it logically things like +1 weapons, armor cloaks and rings of protection etc should all be “common” items as they are by far the most generally useful and desirable. As such they would be the most common produced whenever magic items are produced and so also the most common to be found in dungeons etc. that’s like with potions - the two most common should be healing and “love” with pretty much everything else a fairly distant “second”. To some extent we see in the artificer rules and new bastion rulesa bit of a guideline - you basically have to be tier 3 (L9+ bastion rules to make common & uncommon items, L3 & 10 respectively to make +1 and +2 weapons, armor and items as an artificer.).
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
"Common" is not just a reflection of which items people will want, it's a reflection of how much skill it takes to craft the item and how rare/expensive the component materials are. Ergo even high demand wouldn't necessarily be enough to make +1 weapons "common"
I have to disagree, just because something is cheap and easy to make doesn’t mean there are going to be a lot of them. When I look at the listed “common” items most are nearly useless from an adventuring standpoint. Things like the clothes of mending, cloak of many fashions etc. I understand why they are common - they are everyday useful. Some, like the rod of bird calls and immovable rod can, in certain cases, be useful but generally are relatively useless both adventuring and in down time regular life.many I have trouble thinking of what I would do with them and why they are worth spending 50GP on the item.if I’m going to hire an accomplished mage to make me something usefull I’ll spend my money on something I can use regularly not on junk just because it’s “magic”.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Well, it's ordinary supply and demand -- if it's cheap to make and people actually want it, it will be common. However, D&D 'rarity' numbers are only marginally connected to the real world meaning of that term, as they routinely assign rarities to unique items.
Agreed. Game rarity has much more to do with power than with real world economics. Still it’s slowly creeping in with 2024. With the right features in a L9 bastion you can pretty well create your own potions, scrolls and common or uncommon items on the side while adventuring. So watch the power creep begin.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I mean, plenty of common items hold up as the sort of thing someone with some extra money to throw around might buy; you can't tell me spending the extra gold for Armor of Gleaming or a Cloak of Billowing holds up any less than paying ten times as much for clothes because of whose name is on them. Then there's things like chests of preserving and cleansing stones that have tangible everyday utility.
Granted, it is also where the weird knick-knacks end up, but that's a function of there being little practical purpose to subdividing the classification further.
I always think of the weird Knick-knacks as being equivalent of the mass produced plastic junk sold in pop up stores costing a dollar
Yeah - except they cost 50+ GP in a silver economy. I’ll grant that for your everyday Joe, or your rich Josephine a cloak of billowing would be a status purchase but again, your talking about a limited audience I would still think that items of real usefulness in that dangerous and fairly violent world would be considerably more desirable.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Did you actually read the DMG (either version)? You get zero benefit wearing more than three rings. Wearing two cloaks? Have you ever worn a Cloak or ever seen one? Try wearing two at the same time.
Is it a silver economy when any profession proficiency can generate a comfortable life style valued at 2 gp a day? Even proficiency in survival will let you do this.