Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 9217574" data-attributes="member: 93670">You are jumping the gun a bit & overlooked the first couple steps that made them relevant.  the DMG for 5e HAS a rule for what to do when two magic items need to be worn on the same body part.[spoiler="this is it"]MULTIPLE ITEMS OF THE SAME KINDUse common sense to determine whether more thanone of a given kind of magic item can be worn. A character can't normally wear more than one pair of footwear,one pair of gloves or gauntlets, one pair of bracers, onesuit of armor, one item of headwear, and one cloak.You can make exceptions; a character might be able towear a circlet under a helmet, for example, or to layertwo cloaks.[/spoiler]This is not a rule supporting the GM, it's a tediously specific application of rule zero for players to cite to the GM.  So much so that it only manages to avoid being a extreme  example of a hardcore Oberoni fallacy by virtue of the fact that 5e both pretends there are no consequences to this kind of thing and it's just rule zero but phrased in a way that gets in the GM's way if they ever want to say no there.   In fact it's so specific that it almost reads like "I'll show bob" type rogue commit you sometimes see in OSS projects with public repositories before they finally fork & split but put to print.Indeed slots aren't a one stop solution & I've never claimed otherwise. Having a similar 5e rule on dmg141 that is designed to encourage rather than limit stacking is a pretty solid reason to make the comparison.  When the 5e sheet lacks a couple fairly important sections related to that comparison it's hard not to point out the pattern.  Those sections are areas for recording magic items and for recording attunement.  3.5 launched with similar character sheet omissions in 2003 then in the 2006 corrected them with the revised sheet(linked in the OP). Back then 3.5 was only about a third of 5e's nine year run at the time but a year later it went a step further with the 2007 MiC pg286 slots sheet.  Here we are nine years in and 5e still has the tediously specific rule zero entry and a sheet that still has not been updated to include some form of the obviously missing sections for magic items & attunement. If the missing sheet support for magic items & attunement were the only ways that 5e makes needless work that would be one thing, but that's not the case & all of the individual things add up in aggregate often presenting compounding problems like a rule that encourages a nonsense "common sense" standard while encouraging PCs engage in magic item stacking as if "yes Bob you can use both magic items" is going to result in meaningful resistance from Bob rather than a rule supporting the GM when Bob wants to push back against "no Bob".</blockquote>

Verification