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

[SkidAce]

I'd like optional rules that, instead of saying "only one magic ring per hand", explain what happens when you do wear two rings on one hand.

Who else misses the potion miscibility table?

Me me me!

 

[ccooke]

Who else misses the potion miscibility table?

I don't. Not anymore, anyway, since it's included in the 5e magic item rules again

 

[Falling Icicle]

Now something based on associate Chakra of the body might be interesting.. but you might be surprised what kind of enchantments might be worn where LOL.

Frodo, what did you do with the One Ring?

 

[Li Shenron]

I think both "slots" and "attunement" makes for 2 nice optional rules that are worth including in the book, but as I said, as options.

Furthermore, both of them could be more specifically presented as dials. For instance, IMO attunement takes too little time, but this is fine for others. I think that currently it serves the purpose of not allowing equipping (or switching) some magic items in the middle of an encounter, but it doesn't prevent doing to between encounters. I'd like to use the system to also prevent switching in the middle of the exploration phase, thus I am probably going to "dial up" on the time required to stretch it to a long rest, for example. I can do that as a house rule, but IMHO it would be nice if this kind of "dialling" would be suggested by the rules themselves, in a side bar. Something similar could be done with slots, they could be presented as an optional restriction, but the DM could also be told she can "dial" on the number of rings or amulets that can work at the same time (with even an additional option for side effects if a PC risks exceeding that limit).

 

[drothgery]

With magic items no longer being assumed, and more rare I see "slots" being redundant. A simple rule that you cannot wear two magic items on the same body part would suffice.

I think if you're going to get rid of explicit (3e/3.5e/4e) or implicit (1e/2e) assumptions of magic items (or mechanically equivalent inherent bonuses), then +X items have to die (or at least be relegated to artifacts). They change the math too much. I don't have any confidence WotC will do this, though.

 

[JasonZZ]

I voted for 4E slots; that said, I could work with a rule that said something like "you can attune X items, provided you can actually wear/use them all simultaneously".

 

[SkidAce]

I'm not fond of attuning. I want a defeated wizard's wand of fire to be picked up and used on his remaining minions by the players.

I'm aware that means that PCs can swap items back and forth.

They can do that with their horses, and other gear, so I'm okay with it. I reckon I've just never had them abuse it.

 

[Gilladian]

I want magic items to be rare enough that (outside potions and maybe scrolls) there's not an issue with slots and attuning and such.

 

[Garthanos]

I want magic items to be rare enough that (outside potions and maybe scrolls) there's not an issue with slots and attuning and such.

But sir several people on the other side of the room like them being quite common as D&D without magic items..... just isnt D&D and pretending they have no impact on the math of the game is poppycock.

 

[Garthanos]

I'm not fond of attuning. I want a defeated wizard's wand of fire to be picked up and used on his remaining minions by the players.

I'm aware that means that PCs can swap items back and forth.

They can do that with their horses, and other gear, so I'm okay with it. I reckon I've just never had them abuse it.

Items that are really potent requiring attunement or which are much less potent without attunement makes them much less like trivial technology ... and for me attunement is a perfect way to implement one of the prices paladins always paid for their boons as well.

Magic in D&D including spells have always felt like gun ammo .... attunement is a definite improvement in terms of mechanics giving a more magical feel.