Cloaks are a Neck Item?

[Falling Icicle]

So... just for the record and all... You're complaining that 4e isn't video gamey enough?

Wow, way to take my words out of context.

If anything, you're alot more likely to see fewer options in a video game since they have to spend resources to code it in and create all the extra items. Writing down a magic item in a book is far simpler than coding all of its functions into a game. While many games may not have that many equipment slots, that's probably more due to the work involved in including them rather than an actual preference to have fewer (and less believable) item slots for characters. Making an amulet slot and writing a couple dozen amulets up for a pen and paper RPG is a much simpler and cheaper thing to do than including such things in a video game.

Though, I suspect that this decision, like many others in 4e, has more to do with saving space (and thus, money) than actual design preferences. Remember, the magic items are going to be in the PHB now, so they want to cut down on the number of pages and are apparantly willing to make alot of sacrifices in the game to do that. Druids, Barbarians, Monks, Sorcerers, Gnomes, Half-Orcs, and many of the magic items (and who knows what else) are all getting the axe to save paper. At least, that's what I suspect. It saddens me that they would whittle the game down so much just to save a few cents per book. I think I'm going to start calling 4e "D&D Lite."

 

[Lackhand]

Though, I suspect that this decision, like many others in 4e, has more to do with saving space (and thus, money) than actual design preferences. Remember, the magic items are going to be in the PHB now, so they want to cut down on the number of pages and are apparantly willing to make alot of sacrifices in the game to do that. Druids, Barbarians, Monks, Sorcerers, Gnomes, Half-Orcs, and many of the magic items (and who knows what else) are all getting the axe to save paper. At least, that's what I suspect. It saddens me that they would whittle the game down so much just to save a few cents per book. I think I'm going to start calling 4e "D&D Lite."

Goes well with my belief of what they're shaving off: Pounds. For which I'm eternally grateful.

ETERNALLY. DO YOU HEAR ME? ::rubs sore back::.

 

[hong]

If anything, you're alot more likely to see fewer options in a video game since they have to spend resources to code it in and create all the extra items. Writing down a magic item in a book is far simpler than coding all of its functions into a game. While many games may not have that many equipment slots, that's probably more due to the work involved in including them rather than an actual preference to have fewer (and less believable) item slots for characters. Making an amulet slot and writing a couple dozen amulets up for a pen and paper RPG is a much simpler and cheaper thing to do than including such things in a video game.

In the case of GW, it's absolutely to do with a preference for fewer items per character. The philosophy underlying GW is "skill, not time". You don't have to grind for X levels to get Y gear to be good at the game. Hardcore players may dispute whether that philosophy is actually achieved, but the point is to get away from the item- and level-based grind that characterises most CRPGs.

 

[HatWearingFool]

Wow, way to take my words out of context.

How did I take your words out of context? When asked what fantasy you were trying to emulate you provided an extensive list. With every item on that list being a video game. What else is someone supposed to take away from that other than the idea you are trying to emulate a video game?

I could understand arguing that you didn't include every source you wished to emulate if you only provided the 3 examples asked for, but you seemed to go out of your way to provide many sources for emulation.

 

[SmilingPiePlate]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a goal of 4th edition as well? To get away from characters being in large part defined by the bonuses their gear gives them?

I think I read that the designers wanted to do that. Or at least make games with low magic or rare magic require less DM tuning to make all the monsters work against the significantly weaker, less magically pimped out party.

 

[CleverNickName]

The restriction is an arbitrary one, just like the restriction on the number of magical rings that can benefit the wearer. The only reason that the rule is there in the first place is to balance the game...that's all.

I knew that 4E was trying to move away from the "Christmas tree" characters of 3.0 and 3.5E, where mid-level was all about pimping your body slots out with the newest gizmos. It makes sense that they would be doing it by limiting magic item body slots...it is quick, it is easy, and it doesn't require a page and a half of other rules. I'm surprised they didn't go further with it...putting gloves and rings in the same body slot, for example.

 

[jtrowell]

Don't think of the limit as "I cannot wear both an amulet and a cloak", but more as "I cannoth benefit from the magical bonus of two magic items of the same nature"

There was someone (a designer I think ?) who wrote that you could remove the item slots by replacing their location with their fonction.

Currently :

implement/weapon
neck
armor
boots
...

Instead you can use :

attack/offense/spell power/...
defensive item (AC)
defensive item (fort+ref+will)
movement item
...


With that variant, you could imagine wearing both a cloak of teleporting and an amulet of magical resistance (made up items), but not boots of speed, as they would overlap with the cloak

 

[Skornn2k7]

I am curious... Is the whole discussion about the neck slot being only 1 of 2 items can fit there or that you want to put more slots in the primary slots ?

I also noticed that the neck slot is basically 2 slots already, they said it would be saves, and some other magical fx too on the same item.


Skornn

 

[mmaranda]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a goal of 4th edition as well? To get away from characters being in large part defined by the bonuses their gear gives them?

I think I read that the designers wanted to do that. Or at least make games with low magic or rare magic require less DM tuning to make all the monsters work against the significantly weaker, less magically pimped out party.

The reason is the game designers wanted to reduce the number of magic items on a PC if that means (in part) reducing the number of slots so be it.

PCs in 4E are more than just a collection of gear, they have cool powers too. And with those powers come reduced dependency on items.

 

[Doug McCrae]

After reading the whole thread I'm still not sure what the problem is.

The OP says it's an 'absurd and ridiculous' rule. At no point does he say why.