Sorry but I'm a little confused by this "Balance issue is irrelevant IMO it is more related to performance/memory saving for hardware reason" What???

Anyway I personally see no reason why you can't wear at least two rings, one one each hand. Again, Dragon Age allows two rings.

With regards to "Balancing" tweak the game to even it out a little. And speaking of "balance" at level 54 there's nothing in the game I can't handle, and I'm not even using cheats, or have elaborate armor.

Anyway tweak the game to allow us to wear two rings. This isn't so unrealistic in a D&D world.

xdcm-

i would very much not assume that. the previous generation even implemented this subject better than skyrim. it's solely on beth and their decision making and talent. do you trust those? and, the way they are streamlining and dumbing down things that assumption is not wise.

edit- sygnus21

yes, the fact that their are no NEW enemies as i level-up shows, imo, that beth made mistakes in the balance/scaling system.

"One ring to rule them all."

Ooops! Sorry - wrong game!

That bit of obviousnessness done with - why stop at rings?

How about earrings or bracelets that can be cosmetic or enchanted to help us even more?

At least there are different looking rings.
My biggest problem is there are only a few types of gloves, and they all clip through the sleeves.

There's no obvious reason why you shouldn't wear multiple rings. D&D used to have a 2 ring limit. I think the idea was that the magic would start to sort of interfere with each other. But it's really bunk. Why should two rings interfere when a pendant and ring don't? Makes no sense.

Exactly the limits on how many magic items you can wear are about balance not logic. Otherwise clothes under armor. Robes over light armor, 10 rings, and multiple amulets.

Claiming you should be able to wear two rings in Skyrim because you can in real life is a [censored] argument until you show me a magic ring.

The constant decrease of equippable slots is a very valid concern. They could have made ring slots less powerful but allow 2 of them for more customization.

I predict we will only have 1 single slot for gear in 2 sequels or so.

More doomsayer snowball effect based in nothing.

I like the one ring, makes the game more balanced.

I still think this is one of the dumbest complaints ever since what really matters is total power of enchantments and not how many slots you spread them around, but if it makes any of you, "But I could have 2 rings in X" feel any better, just think of it as you're keeping 1 ring-finger open for when you get married.

How many wedding rings can you wear? One, if you want it to actually "do" anything.

Similarly, you can wear as many magic rings (and body covering outfits, etc) as you like, but only one does anything.

What, you thought you were actually taking rings out of your pocket and switching them? In zero time? Without ever dropping one? Because that;s what griping about the "realism" of "only wearing one ring" (or saying its more realistic to wear two, or 10) would imply...

edit - DOH, ninja'd on my metaphore. Nicely played, CasulaPlayer!

i'm going to say this as well-intended as possible:

for you, to NOT, see how it absolutely matters and is relevant to the whole issue of streamlining and dumbing-down is of concern for someone like me. and, i assume others, as well.

sort of like the saying, if you can't handle the small things...

Well we're already two slots down as it is.

You need perspective in your life.

Even within the context of this game, I see this as one of the most meaningless changes out there. The only thing that it modifies is that it cuts down, ever so slightly, the possibility diversity of enchantments which you can have and makes it slightly easier to max out 1 particular enchantment since you only have to find 1 ring that has the max enchantment instead of having to find 2. Other than that, there is literally no difference. It doesn't matter. It's not dumbing down. It doesn't change the gameplay. If I were to make a list of 100 things that I cared about going from Morrowind to Oblivion to Skyrim, this would not even make the list. For people to caterwaul about this as if it somehow mattered is ridiculous.

You should be able to wear at least 5 necklaces and at least 20 rings (2 per finger), seriously. If i had the ability to enchant jewelry in real life id be looking like Master P

Helmet, necklace, armour, gauntlets, boots, ring, shield, sword, is 8 enchantments not enough for you?

I have 10 fingers. I want to wear 8-10 rings.

casual player-

so i will just assume you, in fact, do not understand. for you to continue on with a reason as to why this particular, specific change is meaningless, proves you miss the point. or, are unable to see its relevancy to my argument.

how the rings impact gameplay has absolutely nothing to do with my point of consideration and the specifics do not matter. the fact that they contribute towards the dumbing-down of the game does.

i, too, can make a list, proving, along with 100 other aspects of the game, that as a whole, the game has been simplified and dumbed-down. and, the cutting of the number of rings one is able to wear lends to my argument.

and, don't mix our posts on this subject on beth's website with real life. it does nobody any good.

Of course the specifics matter. If you think that there are other things that dumb down the gameplay, then complain about them. Because the loss of 1 ring slot, as a matter of how it actually affects the game, is extremely trivial. To make a mountain out of this molehill just makes people look bad.

I expect that the "official answer" is balance.

I also expect that the "real answer" is that they spent the "2 rings" development money somewhere else, like on the Perks GUI.

i think multiple rings would be cool. as far as "balancing the power", they could build cancelling effects to limit the amount of rings you can wear. For example - two rings of health would cancel out each other, if you tried to put on a ring of resist cold at the same time as a ring of resist fire, they would cancel each other out. rings with similar effects would also cancel each other out. that would solve the GOD complex, but still allow for mulitple ring usage.

Sorry but attacking other people for voicing opinions you don't believe in should give you pause to get "perspective in your life". If YOU feel like you don't want two rings fine, but other people are entitled to their opinions as well.

Anyway a D&D game SHOULD allow you to wear 2 rings!!! ANd there's no reason why this can't be. Even in the very console port of Dragon Age 2, you can have two rings. Why not Skyrim???

And games have been dumbed down for consoles. You can clearly see this in a great many sequels including Mass Effect 1 vs Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age: Origins vs Dragaon Age 2.

If you want easy console games, that's fine, but for the rest we'd like to be challenged, and reducing the customization of games is a quick easy lazy way to set up a game/character and is mainly done for consoles.

I’m not ragging on consoles just stating the obvious.

My opinion

Suggested balance fix:

Allow the wearing of multiple rings, but divide the effect by the number of rings worn. That would actually make the player choose between having one strong enchantment or multiple weaker enchantments.

At the very LEAST, if you get married that ring should go where it belongs. It's not like that ring is overpowered or anything.

The balance issues with multiple rings is pretty obvious, but I wouldn't mind seeing something like this. Or maybe the overall effect from rings could be averaged out, with the overall power increasing just a little with each additional ring. So a +damage ring alone gives you +40% damage, a +health ring alone gives you +40 health, but the two rings together give you +22% damage and +22 health, two of each would give you +27% damage, +27 health, 5 of each +42% damage, +42 health. That way you still become more powerful as you find more rings, but it doesn't get too out of hand.