New article Design and Development Article on Magic Item Slots

[Aage]

Even though I hate the rest of the article, here's an interesting line...

Even though this is called an item slot, that doesn’t mean you can’t wield more than one weapon, because that would make the ranger cry.

Expected perhaps, but this confirms that 2-weapon fighting will be the domain of rangers?

 

[ThirdWizard]

I love it. Three item slots are assumed per character, +X items are gone for the most part, and the magic items listed sound very flavorful. I'm looking forward to this.

 

[Another Gnome]

Nothing really new in that article, and certainly little to no improvement over the 3.5 system. Personally, this is easily the biggest disappointment (and really only major one so far) where rules are concerned. I utterly despise artificial, nonsenscial limitations on wearing magic items, and the level-based ring slots is just frigging stupid. Boo!

Okay, so they want to cut down the signifacance of magic items. That's something I fully support, but this is not solving the problem, this is sweeping it under the carpet. It's not innovative, it's not elegant... it mostly just looks like something desperately cooked up at the last minute. I'm disappointed.

...

Actually that was a bit unfair; I do like the difference between primary and secondary items.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Exactly. They're building the game around only needing three magic items, rather than one item in every possible slot with stat boosts up the wazoo.

But 3.5 wasn't originally built around one item in every possible slot with stat boosts up the wazoo. You needed a magic weapon after a while, but if you were fully decked out in a min-maxed way with all the slots filled, you'd just slaughter things of an appropriate CR.

What the Christmas Tree let you do in 3.5 was to take on opponents way above your CR. For this and other reasons of power creep, they made monsters increasingly tougher for a given CR, to which point the items did become "needed." 3.5 evolved into a game where the Christmas Tree was needed (that is, if your DM used the later MMs or otherwise scaled up difficulty to account for Christmas Trees)... but it didn't start that way.

Now, 4E might be able to stop this arms race if they really hold the line on what magic items are allowed in new accessories. If future 4E accessories introduce items that significantly increase PC power... then more and more PCs will acquire such items... and monsters will need to be scaled up to match this new power level... and PCs without such items will be left behind. But it really depends on their determination to stick to their guns. A splatbook that increases PC power is probably going to sell better than one that offers "different but not better" options. So they have to weigh the long-term viability of the system against a short-term sales gain.

 

[frankthedm]

Color me disappointed - I was expecting ALL magic item dependency to go away.

I did not expect it all to go away, but this is still more than I wanted to see,

I also don't like the artificial ring limitations by tier.

Oh, I am pissed about this. Level restrictions on items is a pet peeve of mine in electronic games.

related...
http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=215

 

[Sir Brennen]

No Rings... i am biased... but one ring was always one of protection, so you just lose one slot at epic tier and this is a restriction which can be easily ignored...

I have a feeling rings of protection have gone away along with the stat boosters. Rings should be more interesting now if they're only available at higher levels.

 

[Rokes]

I was really hoping for more changes that would convince more characters to splurge on the "Dust of incredibly interesting, and possibly life saving, if only in the right situation, but would make for a great story if it works." Instead it's going to be the same crap, where they just save their money for the next plus X item.

I guess their thought is that if every character has "magical abilities" then every character should have lots of magic items as well. I guess it's just personal preference to see my players depending on their abilities and less on their items.

Thank god for rule 0. (Although if the rules are based on them assuming a 9th level character has +2 armor, it'll take a bit more tweaking...)

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Instead it's going to be the same crap, where they just save their money for the next plus X item.

I'd rather see magic items not be for sale.

 

[Dragonblade]

I swear, some of you people have the most ridiculous expectations. No more stat boosting items is a MAJOR change and will go a heck of a long way towards reducing the Christmas tree effect.

Seriously people, this is D&D. Since 1st edition magic items have been a part of the game. D&D wouldn't be D&D without +X Swords and +X Armor. You cry that the game is moving further from its roots, but now you cry its not moving far enough away. They can't win.

Seriously, if you have a problem with +X Swords and Armor, then not only is 4e NOT your game, no edition of D&D really is. Magic items are an iconic part of the D&D experience and have been for 30 years.

The problem with 3.5 was not magic items per se, it was the preponderance of stat boosting items and the fact that a plethora of magic items were all but required at higher levels. Now, other than weapon/implements and magic armor/clothes you NEED NO ITEMS! But cool and flavorful items are still a part of the game. Just mostly optional.

This is a vast improvement and an excellent change. Once again the 4e designers have proven their brilliance. 4e is shaping up to be the BEST edition of D&D EVER. Period.

And I haven't even seen the book yet.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Thank god for rule 0. (Although if the rules are based on them assuming a 9th level character has +2 armor, it'll take a bit more tweaking...)

Hey at least they're being more explicit about it this time, now you know just how much to add in to re-balance for the lack of the assumed baseline items.