D&D 5E Magic Item Slots in D&D Next

[mkill]

Actually, here's a thought. Suppose magic items actually draw on the user's life force or willpower or innate magical ability or whatever. Each magic item has a maintenance cost, expressed in terms of an ability score, e.g. 4 Constitution, 6 Charisma, etc. These costs are additive, so maintining two 6 Charisma items requires 12 Charisma. If the cost of maintaining his magic items exceeds any of a character's ability scores, he takes some penalty

Or the item could become unreliable and even backfire, similar to 3E spell failure chance. You're up in the air over the enemy castle with your boots of flying, but a magic cross-backlash happens with your invisibility cloak and wand of fireballs. You quickly accelerate to the ground in a ball of fire...

 

[Mattachine]

I cast another vote for common sense--the last item you put on of a given type works. If a character really wants to wear two helmets, or two sets of gloves, the last one works. Perhaps magic rings will allow two, as in earlier editions (one per hand).

Anyway, the balance issue can be addressed by having fewer items with a "plus", and having very few bonus types (like in 4e). Then, eliminate stacking rules. So, if two items grant a bonus to AC, only the best one matters.

This reduces the Christmas tree effect, and in-game, this can be explained that "the strongest magic prevails" and "equivalent magics vie for power, with neither victorious".

If the game is low-magic, then you don't have to worry about slots and stacking. If the game is mid- or high-magic, a rule such as I describe would work well.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I also vote for: 1 similar item usable. No gloves over gauntlets.
I also like the "only 1 ringe per hand" limit.
Otherwise it doed not really matter...

 

[Incenjucar]

I picked Other, for Eliminate the entire concept of "slots".

"Slots" are an artificial construct. Simply let common sense rule the day.

"Common Sense" is useless for official play or DMs with problems telling players "no."

 

[CM]

I can't XP Keterys again, but I think this is a quite elegant solution. Gamist (which is just fine with me), but nice and simple.

 

[steeldragons]

"Common Sense" is useless for official play or DMs with problems telling players "no."

The latter is not the "rules" fault or problem. Nor should the rules attempt to be/solve so.

The former begs the question, "What is 'official' play?" in a game of imaginative fantasy? If one needs RAW to tell one what "to do", then one is better off playing something other than an RPG, imho.

--SD

 

[TwinBahamut]

The latter is not the "rules" fault or problem. Nor should the rules attempt to be/solve so.

The former begs the question, "What is 'official' play?" in a game of imaginative fantasy? If one needs RAW to tell one what "to do", then one is better off playing something other than an RPG, imho.

I'll disagree with this quite strongly. If you don't want the RAW to tell you what to do, then why on earth would you bother buying the rulebooks? The last thing I would ever want to do is spend a good chunk of money on a book that just says "eh, do whatever you feel is right". It would be a meaningless waste of my time.

That's why I'm not terribly fond of the idea of using a "common sense" approach to magic items. "Common sense" is a completely useless concept for rules adjudication or game balance, and I'd much rather have more rigid mechanical approaches.

 

[steeldragons]

I'll disagree with this quite strongly. If you don't want the RAW to tell you what to do, then why on earth would you bother buying the rulebooks? The last thing I would ever want to do is spend a good chunk of money on a book that just says "eh, do whatever you feel is right". It would be a meaningless waste of my time.

That's why I'm not terribly fond of the idea of using a "common sense" approach to magic items. "Common sense" is a completely useless concept for rules adjudication or game balance, and I'd much rather have more rigid mechanical approaches.

Fair enough.

I am, perhaps, using/reading "common sense" in a foolish manner. If you have a pair of magical boots on your feet...can you put on another pair of magical boots?

If you have a set of magical chain, can you put another set of more magical chain on you?..and expect them to stack, undoubtable uncomfortably, for your AC?

If you have 5 rings on one hand, can you put 5 more over top of them (I, personally, wear two rings on a single finger any given day.)?

Ok, I'll give you that last one...Yes, it's possible.

I'm not aying an "all out anything goes" game is what I'm looking for. In the case, as you made it, then yes, there's no point to the rules.

But, what I DON"T need is the rules to say "this is the one true way" to do it. Especially when the mantra of the new edition (whatever it is called) is to be "inclusive" and "modular"...i.e. "offer options."

What I was saying above was, if one's sensibilities are so...tense, I suppose would be the word...that I need the rules to say "You get 3"...or "6"...or "9 slots" for magic items and that's IT! That's the only way you can play/the way the game is supposed to be...and I can't think outside of that box...then that's not a fantasy role-playing game...to me.

Yes, we need rules...or a common framework of rules to lay the base game.

How to form a class...What this or that class archetype is/can do...what my "Abilities" are...HOW to roll my abilities (or point buy or whatever you prefer), my "talents", my "skills", my "themes" (all of those, similarly, should be chosen from a range of options depending on how my DM and/or group wants to/preferred style of play)

But for those that need a "one-way/this is the right way to play"...in regards to things like race or class or combat or, back on point, magic items I can conceivably have...then I suggest a video game or board game or card game...backgammon or blackjack perhaps?...or something else would be more appropriate for that person, than a role-playing game of imagination and fantasy.

There ought not be an "official" way to play.

Long story [too late] short, I do not want to see this new edition present [yet another] "one-true-wayism".

Options. Optional. Optional-ity. Modules. Modular. Modularity.

--SD

 

[Mattachine]

If bonus and effect stacking is prohibited, then most of this problem goes away.

If no more than one item of the same general type can be used (the last one equipped), then the rest of the problems go away.

 

[Incenjucar]

Living Campaigns are official play. They use the RAW. "Common sense" is useless. You have to make actual RULES, or people will say "Well if my halfling wears halfling-sized magic slippers of weightlessness she should be able to wear half-orc-sized boots of fire protection over those, with room to spare." and so forth.

And the DMs who can't say no ARE a big deal. They're a very vocal part of the community, and they do have some influence. See: Bag of Rats.