Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sadrik" data-source="post: 4014129" data-attributes="member: 14506">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.Others:bracers of defense (armor/arm)ring of protection (ring/neck)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.Christmas tree effect in my book is the bonus stacking problem of 3e. And since there were so many bonus types you needed a separate item for each bonus. I don't care much about the sheer number of items. Characters won't wear useless trinkets. Rather they will sell them. If I have boots that give me +1 Move and I have a necklace that gives me +2 Move I would use the necklace and sell the boots.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.Certain slots are obvious: 2 implements, feet, hands, arms, body, back, waist, and head after that it is a grey area.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 worldMore 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?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.Like I said, people like to wear jewelery. What about: ear rings, nose rings, toe rings, and the myriad of different necklaces, bracelets and other jewelery there are. I would have rather seen an arbitrary limit based on total jewelery, as a whole. It is better than limiting rings or the neck slot (amulet or cloak?) or head slot (goggles or helmet?).Why not say, "Characters can only use up to four pieces of magical jewelery period" and treat them as non-slot wondrous items?Of course, go with the 9 original obvious slots: 2 held implements, feet, hands, arms, body, back, waist, and head.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.For whatever reason that implementation of a slot system makes sooooooo much more sense to me.</blockquote>

Verification