The Ring and Cloak of Protection does that exact same thing. Both give a +1 to AC and to all Saving Throws. Then can someone please explain to me why the Cloak is only an Uncommon item while the ring is considered Rare? I'm really trying to figure this out.
The only thing I could think of is that you can only wear one cloak at a time while you can wear 2 rings (Pretty sure 2 is the limit). Does anyone out there know what the reason is for this difference in Rarity for basically the exact same benefits?
Also makes me think of the Ring and Cloak of Invisibility. The Cloak is far superior to the Ring and yet they are both Legendary items.
There's no limit on how many rings you can use so rings are slightly more useful than equivalent items of another kind. But I wouldn't think too hard about magic item rarity. An item's rarity isn't always perfectly aligned with its usefulness, and it's hard to say when that's an intentional choice and when it's simply a consequence of the magic item rules changing throughout different editions of the game.
I think it's just a fact of the lore in this case. Rings of Protection are just more common than the Cloaks because whoever it was making them made more rings. Maybe the ring is easier to make, or cheaper - no complex weaving of magic into cloth.
One thing to note is that you can't benefit from two identical magic items, so if you wanted that +2 protection you can't use two +1 rings, but you could use a ring and a cloak. So the ring is like the easier part to find of that "set".
I was going to say that the ring might be easier to keep concealed, but honestly I think it just shows that magic item rarity is not exactly backed with ironclad logic. The real limiter in 5e is attunement slots so "you can wear more rings" doesn't really mean that much.
wool is more common than gold? there's more tailors than jewelers?
yeah, you have to take rarities with a grain of salt...numerous items flat out don't make sense and aren't balanced when compared to others in their category.
I think it's just a fact of the lore in this case. Rings of Protection are just more common than the Cloaks because whoever it was making them made more rings. Maybe the ring is easier to make, or cheaper - no complex weaving of magic into cloth.
One thing to note is that you can't benefit from two identical magic items, so if you wanted that +2 protection you can't use two +1 rings, but you could use a ring and a cloak. So the ring is like the easier part to find of that "set".
wool is more common than gold? there's more tailors than jewelers?
Yes, but neither a tailor nor a jeweler can make an enchanted version of their product. Since there are very many more enchanted rings than the are cloaks we must deduce that there is something intrinsically more complex about enchanting a cloak than there is for a ring - unrelated to the ease/cost of making the base mundane item. It's because magic.
Yes, but neither a tailor nor a jeweler can make an enchanted version of their product. Since there are very many more enchanted rings than the are cloaks we must deduce that there is something intrinsically more complex about enchanting a cloak than there is for a ring - unrelated to the ease/cost of making the base mundane item. It's because magic.
uh, you're still backward. and i think you're off the mark about tailors and jewelers...if not them, who makes cloaks and rings...glassblowers??
Yes, but neither a tailor nor a jeweler can make an enchanted version of their product. Since there are very many more enchanted rings than the are cloaks we must deduce that there is something intrinsically more complex about enchanting a cloak than there is for a ring - unrelated to the ease/cost of making the base mundane item. It's because magic.
uh, you're still backward. and i think you're off the mark about tailors and jewelers...if not them, who makes cloaks and rings...glassblowers??
I'm not at all backwards or confused. Tailors make clothes including cloaks. Jewelers make jewellery including rings. But neither can make an enchanted version unless they are also some sort of skilled object enchanter.
The question here is why is an enchanted ring more common than an absolutely equivalent enchanted cloak. The true answer is because the book says it is. If you are looking for an explanation that takes into account that generally cloaks are cheaper than rings, then the answer must be because the enchanting part is different.
that's their rarity metric. That means the cloaks of protection are more common than the rings of protection. Said another way - rare is rarer than uncommon. see?
and to keep arguing for the sake of arguing...the cloak is still made by a tailor. then its either enchanted by that same tailor if they have the skill...or its enchanted by someone else - who might even still be a tailor. either way, the cloak was made by the tailor. the enchanter is irrelevant for the math behind my offhand comment though.
but personally i justify the rarity difference by the idea that stacking cloaks is more ridiculous than stacking rings...so sure, its easier to find a cloak because you're only going to wear one...but if you find two rings, you'll wear both.
I suppose there is far less a DM can do to interact with your ring than your cloak. Plus, you look funny wearing a cloak indoors, while no-one questions a ring.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The Ring and Cloak of Protection does that exact same thing. Both give a +1 to AC and to all Saving Throws. Then can someone please explain to me why the Cloak is only an Uncommon item while the ring is considered Rare? I'm really trying to figure this out.
The only thing I could think of is that you can only wear one cloak at a time while you can wear 2 rings (Pretty sure 2 is the limit). Does anyone out there know what the reason is for this difference in Rarity for basically the exact same benefits?
Also makes me think of the Ring and Cloak of Invisibility. The Cloak is far superior to the Ring and yet they are both Legendary items.
There's no limit on how many rings you can use so rings are slightly more useful than equivalent items of another kind. But I wouldn't think too hard about magic item rarity. An item's rarity isn't always perfectly aligned with its usefulness, and it's hard to say when that's an intentional choice and when it's simply a consequence of the magic item rules changing throughout different editions of the game.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I think it's just a fact of the lore in this case. Rings of Protection are just more common than the Cloaks because whoever it was making them made more rings. Maybe the ring is easier to make, or cheaper - no complex weaving of magic into cloth.
One thing to note is that you can't benefit from two identical magic items, so if you wanted that +2 protection you can't use two +1 rings, but you could use a ring and a cloak. So the ring is like the easier part to find of that "set".
I was going to say that the ring might be easier to keep concealed, but honestly I think it just shows that magic item rarity is not exactly backed with ironclad logic. The real limiter in 5e is attunement slots so "you can wear more rings" doesn't really mean that much.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
wool is more common than gold? there's more tailors than jewelers?
yeah, you have to take rarities with a grain of salt...numerous items flat out don't make sense and aren't balanced when compared to others in their category.
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
Other way around, but yeah, maybe.
Yes, but neither a tailor nor a jeweler can make an enchanted version of their product. Since there are very many more enchanted rings than the are cloaks we must deduce that there is something intrinsically more complex about enchanting a cloak than there is for a ring - unrelated to the ease/cost of making the base mundane item. It's because magic.
uh, you're still backward. and i think you're off the mark about tailors and jewelers...if not them, who makes cloaks and rings...glassblowers??
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
I'm not at all backwards or confused. Tailors make clothes including cloaks. Jewelers make jewellery including rings. But neither can make an enchanted version unless they are also some sort of skilled object enchanter.
The question here is why is an enchanted ring more common than an absolutely equivalent enchanted cloak. The true answer is because the book says it is. If you are looking for an explanation that takes into account that generally cloaks are cheaper than rings, then the answer must be because the enchanting part is different.
cloak of protection as you can see, this is an uncommon item
ring of protection as you can see, this is a rare item
that's their rarity metric. That means the cloaks of protection are more common than the rings of protection. Said another way - rare is rarer than uncommon. see?
and to keep arguing for the sake of arguing...the cloak is still made by a tailor. then its either enchanted by that same tailor if they have the skill...or its enchanted by someone else - who might even still be a tailor. either way, the cloak was made by the tailor. the enchanter is irrelevant for the math behind my offhand comment though.
but personally i justify the rarity difference by the idea that stacking cloaks is more ridiculous than stacking rings...so sure, its easier to find a cloak because you're only going to wear one...but if you find two rings, you'll wear both.
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
Ah right. I had their rarities mixed up.
Then there is even less argument to have. Both enchantments do the same thing, cloaks are cheaper.
I suppose there is far less a DM can do to interact with your ring than your cloak. Plus, you look funny wearing a cloak indoors, while no-one questions a ring.