New article Design and Development Article on Magic Item Slots

Brap. I was also hoping for a flat limit on the number of equippable magic items. Five would have been fine. Then just use common sense to deal with the "slot" business, and maybe split it up into 2 major/ 3 minor.

I bear +1 swords and magic-rings-that-only-the-powerful-can-unlock no particular malus.

Lord Tirian said:

I'm open to see an explanation why the 0-1-2 ring-unlock variant should be better.

Click to expand...

Rings are special. They are endless, without beginning or end. And their shape, a bound circle, allows them to contain magic far beyond any simple spell embedded in your common "magic" sword or item made of cloth. Where any other item or weapon would warped and destroyed by the restless force that is magic, the magics within a ring swirl silently, falling back upon themselves ... contained. Although less than an artifact, they are more than anything else you will encounter (other than perhaps the legendary Stones of Ioun).

Sauron knew this. It is no coincidence that he chose the form of the Ring when making his weapon. Nothing else would have contained his terrible power, or serve his terrible purpose.

But Rings cannot be worn lightly. Not just any soul has the wherewithal to withstand them; to command them. Only souls that have been tested, and proved themselves victorious again and again, have a hope of commanding the magic of a Ring. It is not a question of magical power, or command over vast sums of magical lore, but of personal strength. That resilient strength that can only be learned in overcoming adversity; in surviving the crucible. That strength that so few possess.

A few foolish men wear magical Rings that they inherited from their greater forefathers. They can not summon forth its power, and if they live even a year it is at the Ring's forebearance. They would do well to put the Ring in a safe place, where no can harm themselves attempting what should not be attempted.

Rings are true power given form. Only those with an even greater power inside them have a chance of commanding them.

And if you ever meet a man who commands the might of two Rings simultaneously, tread carefully, for you stand in the presence of greatness; such greatness as legends are made of.

Irda Ranger said:

Man, I can't believe the teapot-tempest over the level limits on Rings. That's like the easiest rule to Rule Zero I have ever seen. That's like house ruling "Demi-Human Level Limits" easy. Just treat them like any other powerful magical item and you won't upset anything about the game design.

I'd suggest that everyone take a deep breath and really ask themselves: Is this something that's really going to effect my campaign in a way I can't easily fix? Regarding the Ring thing, I think the answer is no.

And if the "expected plus" works the way I think it does, I think we can live without magical items entirely just by giving all PC's the same + bonus simply as a part of leveling up.

Click to expand...

It is because the ring is now the only magic item that is artifically limited by metagame rules. It feels artificial and thus hurts the submersion into the story. Sure, people can house rule it away, but the whole point is to avoid as many of those as possible. Why build in an unelegant design from the first place when another solution can be found.

The real question to ask, are there level limits on magic items (i.e. heroic, paragon, epic items?) If so, then most rings can be paragon or epic as the article says. There is no need to restrict the number of rings you can wear and use because of that. Just rebalance the game around two rings instead of one and then you no longer have this issue. The magic ring slot being restrcted and then it opens up feels wrong, especially when no other slots do this.

Imp said:

Brap. I was also hoping for a flat limit on the number of equippable magic items. Five would have been fine. Then just use common sense to deal with the "slot" business, and maybe split it up into 2 major/ 3 minor.

Click to expand...

The only problem with this is that a PC might spend all five slots on +AC items, and really screw with the game designs' assumptions. This limiting slots to specific kinds of bonuses is another example of "siloing" that the designers talk about. Choose within silos, but not across them.

Kid Charlemagne said:

For those with issues about the Ring thing - I could easily see creating a house rule to create a situation similar to that in LoTR, where using a magic item beyond one's power level is in fact dangerous (leaving aside the One Ring=Artifact line in the article). There are ways, flavor-wise, to explain such limitations...

Click to expand...

Yes, but the core game needs to be general. That sounds like a good low magic setting rule.
Sounds like rings got the axe for the most part.

I think my biggest problem is they did not fix magic items so much as made them weaker and you can use less of them.

I hated the "slots" by the way, VERY set in stone video game feel. A max number of items I could wear would allow a more, if magic worked in real life, feel. "...... but I like my boots, why can I get the magic on socks or pants? " slots were one of those things that could go away and no one would have cared.

EDIT: You could also limit the max amout of a kind of a bonus is to, Like say AC, per level. More steamlined game that way.

1: I predicted everything except the combination of item slots. Everyone should heap praise and adoration upon me, for truly I am an awesome person for that accomplishment.

2: They had to keep +X weapons. Its a D&Dism that's too sacred to slay. And once you keep +X weapons, you need +X armor to balance it. And once you decide that magical implements can be +X as well, you need +X save boosters. So these were inevitable.

3: But the moment you add in non armor +X armor bonuses, you screw up the system. I'm glad they fixed that. This is the reason that shields can't have +X bonuses to AC. It screws with the math.

4: For all the haters out there, what would have made this better? I know some of you wanted even less of a "christmas tree effect." But what we've got, 3 "required" items and 6 "optional" slots, how much else would you pare it down? Were you looking for the deletion of entire item slots? Were you looking for some rule like "you may not wear more than 3 items of magic?" What solution would have made you happy? It seems to me that this is as much of a reduction in the christmas tree effect as was possible without wholesale slaughtering of item slots.

5: I'm ok with the ring level restriction as long as they give an in-game reason. If they just say "no rings until level 11," I'll be mad. If they say, "here are the consequences of wearing a ring below level 11," and those consequences are prohibitive enough to basically ban rings below level 11, then I'll be ok with it.

I'm very disappointed. Not about the ring thing, either. In fact, I kind of like that. Maybe not the precise execution, but I at least like the idea enough.

My disappointment lies in the fact that at the beginning of each day of adventuring, heroes are still going to be suiting up with magic items like they're putting on hockey gear. The example 11th-level character is wearing eight magic items. Eight. That's not including his primary implement, any possible backup implements, any possible potions, or a ring he could now equip. In my opinion, that's ridiculous.

I mean, they said they didn't like having straight number bonuses, they wanted magic items to mean something special. But how freaking special is a magic item when it's merely one of eight items in your 'fall magic wardrobe'?

I was seriously hoping they'd simplify the system to something like your implement, your armor, and two or three general accessories that could provide any of a huge number of possible benefits. But yeah, obviously that didn't happen, and as a result I'm very disappointed.

Irda Ranger said:

Rings are special. They are endless...[SNIP]

Click to expand...

Easily the best thing I've read all day.

Masquerade said:

Too bad to see some required plusses sticking around, but I like that most of the magic item types are described as optional.

They've piqued my interest with the limit on rings, too. I wonder what sort of things rings will let you do in 4e...

Click to expand...

Right there with you.

I'm curious if a hat of disguise will exist in 4E and how it'll change. (Will it even be a head slot item?) My gnome has just "acquired" one, and it's pretty darn useful for a tricky little guy ...

As to the non-stat-boosting items being "optional, not necessary" --
In 3.5, many posters here have taken the view that a high-level fighter basically needs to have items of See Invisibility, Fly, and Dimension Door/Teleport (to escape Forcecage if nothing else). These are not stat-boosting items, but they are SO useful as to be almost essential. And they seem like the kind of capabilities that miscellaneous items will have in 4E.

I understand that the designers want to see a greater diversity of magic items used... but will there be some miscellaneous items that are so good that everybody will need to have them?