Cloaks are a Neck Item?

[Gloombunny]

What am I missing that makes "you can't benefit from an amulet and a cloak" any less reasonable than "you can't benefit from two amulets"? I mean, it's just as physically possible to wear two necklaces as it is to wear a necklace and a cloak. If it didn't bother you that wearing two necklaces made the magic on one of them not function, why does it bother you that wearing any two items around your neck makes the magic on one of them not function?

 

[AFGNCAAP]

What am I missing that makes "you can't benefit from an amulet and a cloak" any less reasonable than "you can't benefit from two amulets"? I mean, it's just as physically possible to wear two necklaces as it is to wear a necklace and a cloak. If it didn't bother you that wearing two necklaces made the magic on one of them not function, why does it bother you that wearing any two items around your neck makes the magic on one of them not function?

So what if I wanted to stat up Mr. T?

Clearly there's no regard for the ring & amulet limit here...

 

[Kenku17]

Neck:+5 Necklaces of "I pitty the fool!" Bling
Bonuslayer gets a +10 to fortitudes, If the player yells "I PITY THE FOOL!!!!" he gets a +5 agianst his next save

Sorry I couldn't resist.

 

[small pumpkin man]

3. 4e is a gamist based games and it balances in the game

Well, yes, sure, all item slots are gamist wraped in a candy shell of rationalization. I do think that if they're well done, having set rules for magic does make it feel more "real" which help the "simulation", but obviously that's not their point.

I'd also like to change my #2 from "it's magic" to something like "The ways of magic are beyond the ken of mortal men" since it's less snarky, while still having the same point.

 

[Mistwell]

Neck:+5 Necklaces of "I pitty the fool!" Bling
Bonuslayer gets a +10 to fortitudes, If the player yells "I PITY THE FOOL!!!!" he gets a +5 agianst his next save

Sorry I couldn't resist.

I'm pretty sure Mr. T gets an armor bonus from those necklaces. And that's one heck of a holy symbol.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Of course you can wear a cloak and an amulet. You will simply not beable to wear a magical cloak and a magical amulet, _and_ benefit from both at the same time.

I should have known someone would post with this "witty" retort. You know exactly what I meant.

As to why this is so, clearly it is for the same reason you can only gain the benefit from 2 magical rings at a time despite having at least 13 places where you could wear them.

If this was so "clear", why did previous editions (and countless other games) seperate the two? Wearing an amulet with a cloak is a commonly depicted thing in fantasy. Wearing several rings is not. Yes, a cloak is fastened on the shoulders or around the neck, but cloaks are there to cover one's back. Rings hang down from the neck and are actually over the chest. I understand their desire to cut down on the christmas tree thing, but this is taking it too far, IMO. Oh wait, I forgot, this is the same edition that doesn't even let someone use a ring until 11th level, and then only one. :\

Despite all the things as I like about 4e, I fear I'm going to have to implement alot of house rules before I can tolerate it.

Having [Neck] and [Cloak] separately would make it too much like World of Warcraft. Wouldn't want that, now would we?

Har har. Having a separate "slot" for cloaks and amulets goes back loooooong before WoW.

Since both items do the same thing, unless they change this from 3E, you can not benefit from both anyway since they apply it in the same way. Thus, it does not matter what the reasoning is, it is pointless to use both.

That's not an excuse. That's a problem they created. It's circular reasoning to say "hey let's have cloaks and amulets do the same thing in this edition" and then conclude that "since they do the same thing, you shouldn't be able to use both at the same time." The solution to this is obvious. Don't have cloaks and amulets do the same thing!

 

[hong]

I should have known someone would post with this "witty" retort. You know exactly what I meant.

The level of vehemence was so disproportionate to the possible cause that I just had to be sure.

If this was so "clear", why did previous editions (and countless other games) seperate the two? Wearing an amulet with a cloak is a commonly depicted thing in fantasy.

Name three examples.

Wearing several rings is not.

To be precise, even having _two_ magic rings is already more than is commonly depicted in fantasy. The limits are there for gameplay purposes. Rationalisations can be constructed as necessary, since the underlying premise is that magical forces are at work. Accept them or not, as you will.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

What am I missing that makes "you can't benefit from an amulet and a cloak" any less reasonable than "you can't benefit from two amulets"? I mean, it's just as physically possible to wear two necklaces as it is to wear a necklace and a cloak. If it didn't bother you that wearing two necklaces made the magic on one of them not function, why does it bother you that wearing any two items around your neck makes the magic on one of them not function?

Shh. We're having a moment here.

 

[Falling Icicle]

3. 4e is a gamist based games and it balances in the game

Yeah... having that one extra item slot would really unbalance the game... :\

But yet you can have a ring, gauntlet and bracer all on an arm, and that's just dandy.

 

[Celebrim]

Name three examples.

Just in the Lord of the Rings, or in all of fantasy?

Personally, I think that they should have a single magic item slot so that only your most powerful magic item functions. Think how easily that would be to balance.