Magic Item Limits, Slots, Requirements and Stacking

[Sadrik]

I'm not entirely sure what your point there was

Sorry, the obvious slots are: held implements, feet, hands, body, back, waist, and head. The non-obvious slots are jewelry, consumables, and wondrous.

They may not make earrings but they will have other head slot items that will interfere with helms and hats, and necklaces that interfere with cloaks etc.

I think your "jewelry" idea is a good one

Thanks.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Am I in the minority on this? How about no limit outside the obvious ones? As long as the bonuses don't stack...

I have always been a fan of the concept that items don't care what they look like but rather their effect is what is important.
Example:
Flagon of the dragons (an old 1st edition item) is essentially a cornucopia with a stopper, when you uncorked it, a random breath weapon shot out. I dont think this item can exist in this brave new world of 4e items that must always be defined. It is an implement by nature but is a wondrous too.

I think that item could exist. You don't "wear" that item so it doesn't take up a slot. (Same with weapons, those technically don't take up slots, so if you have dual-wield you're not gimped.)

Others:
bracers of defense (armor/arm)
ring of protection (ring/neck)

I am delighted those seem to be gone.

DnD 3.x had a weak AC system that was overly dependent on items. Now the only item you need is your magic cloth/armor ... well, I hope so. (I'm assuming that character AC increases without magic items. If so, DMs who want to remove magic items entirely from their campaign can do so just by assigning the appropriate additional bonuses at appropriate levels.)

And then, there was all those cool items from some book, where potions were more than just potions (they could be little clay symbols that you break, powders, ointments, oils, and all manner of things). I am not suggesting that they are not moving in this direstion with potions MIC shows otherwise. However, I wish that the concept of "three required core items" was tossed out in favor of "three core types of bonuses" and you can only take the highest item bonus in each from your gear.

If I'm reading what you said correctly, you'd like the option of using an "amulet of protection +3" instead of "armor +3" (provided the bonuses don't stack).

That's not a big problem. It does seem to require a house rule, but a very small one. Each item slot in 3.5 was only supposed to grant certain types of effects. It only seemed more flexible because more types of effects (especially AC-boosting ones) were required.

In the "arbitrary slot limit model" players are forced to select less optimal items so they can fill a slot rather than the best one. Condensing the slots does in no way mitigate this problem it exacerbates it.

I find this completely confusing. Could you please give an example.

To figure out the grey area you have to look at the specific magic items:
Goggles, mask, glasses these would all interact with the head slot. Now you cannot use a magic helmet and magic glasses. I would be screwed in a D&D world

How is this a problem?

More head problems the neck: amulets, necklaces, brooches, scarabs, capes and cloaks have been assigned to the neck slot and are given the core duty of giving bonuses to defense of which nothing else can give bonuses too. How about neck and back?

Same thing. Unlike in 3.x, you're not likely to want a Scarab of Protection. (IME, people wouldn't take such items if they interfered with the Cloak of Resistance anyway.) I've seen nothing that said 4e can't have "slotless items" either, but they'll need a different balancing mechanic than "the cost is doubled".

Then, hands run into a problem too: people have 10 fingers and like to wear jewelery but in prior editions you could wear 2 magical rings and have them be active (an arbitrary limit). But now, they are saying, that you cannot even use the magical powers of a ring until a certain level. And then you can use two at another later level.

The one vs two ring distinction seems odd, but I have no problem with rings not working for low level characters. Forge Ring was a 12th-level feat but it was being used to crease minor trinkets like a +1 Ring of Protection in 3.x. Now that item probably no longer exists, and is certainly not necessary.

In the video game version of 4e (which I am sure is a big component of the slot reduction plan) just put 4 slots off on the side to be filled with the jewelery class of wondrous items.

People have been complaining about slots for years, and that had nothing to do with video games.

 

[Sadrik]

If I'm reading what you said correctly, you'd like the option of using an "amulet of protection +3" instead of "armor +3" (provided the bonuses don't stack).

That's not a big problem. It does seem to require a house rule, but a very small one. Each item slot in 3.5 was only supposed to grant certain types of effects. It only seemed more flexible because more types of effects (especially AC-boosting ones) were required.

Yes, you are correct. An AC boosting item should be able to come from several places bot only the highest should matter. For example: if a warrior had +1 armor and had Bracers that gave +2 to AC his armor should be treated as armor +2. A nice, succinct method that gives no bias to forcing bonuses into one item type.

I find this completely confusing. Could you please give an example.

Absolutely, if someone found a magic amulet for +2 move but was already wearing a magic cloak with +2 to fort/ref/will and already had boots with a +1 move. They now have to give up the amulet because their neck slot is already filled with something the character wants more. Instead of getting rid of the boots and putting on the amulet game rules dictate otherwise. And the reason this problem becomes worse in 4e is because they have shrunken the number of slots and therefore more item conflicts can occur.

The one vs two ring distinction seems odd, but I have no problem with rings not working for low level characters. Forge Ring was a 12th-level feat but it was being used to crease minor trinkets like a +1 Ring of Protection in 3.x. Now that item probably no longer exists, and is certainly not necessary.

One of the first things I learned as a game master is to never say no to your players. Just make it hard as hell for your players. The ring limit is odd and arbitrary I won't use limits like that when I DM.

It is, I admit, an easy fix. But when you factor in that it is designed to function within DDI a certain way and have PC generating software and all the other tools that get written based on the exact core of D&D it gets a little annoying that there is something in there that really chaffs me.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Yes, you are correct. An AC boosting item should be able to come from several places bot only the highest should matter. For example: if a warrior had +1 armor and had Bracers that gave +2 to AC his armor should be treated as armor +2. A nice, succinct method that gives no bias to forcing bonuses into one item type.

Absolutely, if someone found a magic amulet for +2 move but was already wearing a magic cloak with +2 to fort/ref/will and already had boots with a +1 move. They now have to give up the amulet because their neck slot is already filled with something the character wants more. Instead of getting rid of the boots and putting on the amulet game rules dictate otherwise. And the reason this problem becomes worse in 4e is because they have shrunken the number of slots and therefore more item conflicts can occur.

But they wouldn't find a magic amulet for +2 move. (And they shouldn't be able to in 3.x either.)

Anyway, I understand your position now, but the issues are minor for me and are easily dealt with.

 

[Sadrik]

But they wouldn't find a magic amulet for +2 move. (And they shouldn't be able to in 3.x either.)

Anyway, I understand your position now, but the issues are minor for me and are easily dealt with.

It is a design flaw, by no means fundamental but still a flaw.

Besides I could probably come up with an example that had a combination that was available in 3.5 and did not rub against you as apparently an amulet with +2 move does. Ignoring the fact that these types of item conflicts will occur and offhandedly saying, "the issues are minor for me and are easily dealt with." Tell me how you plan on dealing with them?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

It is a design flaw, by no means fundamental but still a flaw.

Besides I could probably come up with an example that had a combination that was available in 3.5 and did not rub against you as apparently an amulet with +2 move does. Ignoring the fact that these types of item conflicts will occur and offhandedly saying, "the issues are minor for me and are easily dealt with." Tell me how you plan on dealing with them?

Item conflicts would be either rare or non-existent simply by following the rules.

Unless I misread something, an amulet isn't supposed to give a bonus to movement.

Now, here's an example I can think of. (Sorry it involves a ring, though.)

A character in 3.x may have had a Ring of Jumping and the Boots that give you +10 speed. This wouldn't work in 4e because (as far as I can tell) rings aren't supposed to give movement bonuses. But then, there wouldn't be any Rings of Jumping in 4e, if that's the case, and there's no reason the ring's power couldn't be transferred to the boots (if you're converting an old character).

That's no bigger a deal than an item "vanishing" between 2e and 3e.

 

[Nymrohd]

Self-indulgent poll questions for the win!