D&D 5E Magic Item Slots in D&D Next

[Jeff Carlsen]

Don't let this thread near you. It gets multiple attacks per round with paralysis.

Also, the current playtest has a solid replacement for slots.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I like how they're doing it right now in the playtest. Just use common sense. Obviously people can't wear two suits of armor or two pairs of boots, but if someone wants to wear more than 2 rings or amulets, why not? Attunement puts a limit on the total number of powerful items characters can use at a time, and that's a much better way of balancing things, IMO, than item "slots."

I also want them to put a general rule that bonuses from magic items do not stack with each other unless the item specifically states otherwise (right now, it's the opposite). That will also help tremendously to prevent abuse. If players can't use multiple items to boost AC or other stats, that greatly cuts down on the number of items that they will want to have, and encourages people to want to seek out more fun and interesting items instead.

I also dislike slots for another reason, it seems to greatly increase the "Christmas tree" effect. Players often see empty item slots as things that should be filled, and feel incomplete or inadequate when they're not. When there are no item slots, that mentality almost entirely disappears, IME.

 

[Li Shenron]

I am happy too with the current way 5e deals with magic items, and I agree with [MENTION=17077]Falling Icicle[/MENTION] that stacking needs to default to "NOT", then leave it up to a HR if wanted to stack.

Otherwise, the only caveat I still have with the current rules, is that the "must be +1 before having additional properties" is still there... It's not really a rule per se, but rather an idea silently creeping into the rules.

Among the current magic items in the playtest, only 2 armors out of 6 have a + to AC, but 10 out of 14 weapons have a + to attack and damage (not counting the plain-and-simple +N armor/weapon in these numbers, nor situational +s).

Not only there is NO story reasons why a magic weapon should have a + (it could have, but it's not a must), since "superiorly crafted" doesn't necessarily mean "makes it easier to hit the target" but it can mean a variety of things. And of course there is NO balance reason either like there was in 3e, since there is no built-in assumption in the game about what amount of +s your PC must have from equipment at every level.

But having +s from weapons goes against the bounded accuracy. It's not a huge effect, but it's still +1 in a system that is supposed to be bounded to +10 over the course of the whole level range (+5 from capped ability scores, +5 from class level), and IMO that +10% becomes significant, especially since the majority of PCs will be probably in the range of +3/+6 for a long time, so that +1 becomes more like +20%.

I am not saying we shouldn't have any magic weapons with a +, I am just saying that still having the large majority of sample magic weapons in the book grant a +, is "out of tune" with the current bounded accudacy design and adds nothing to the game. The DM is always free to make what items she wants, but still the items in the DMG set a trend...

Also, IMHO those +1 armors and weapons are great to give to those players who want low-complexity PCs, because they are active all the time and will just be added to your basic stats in the character sheet. At the same time, you can give complex magic items to the other players. But if those complex magic items also have a +1, then they are always better, so you'll now have to give +2 weapons to the first kind of players, and now those bonuses starts to get bigger...

 

[Garthanos]

Attunement Rocks... hang the slots.

 

[cmbarona]

I think the current method is the right method for this system. No slots, common sense, and attunement make a simple system. 5e is trying to balance coolness with simplicity, and I think it's working as needed for magic item use.

 

[Jester David]

With magic items no longer being assumed, and more rare I see "slots" being redundant. A simple rule that you cannot wear two magic items on the same body part would suffice.

However, as not everyone will play with the same frequency of magic items and recognition that some groups will want Monte Haul game with a Christmas Tree of magic items, I think there's should be a list of potential slots. For this purpose, I think the 4e slots were fine, although I can see "back" and "neck" being separated again as there's very little overlap between a magic necklace and magic cloak.

But like much of D&D Next it can be left for DM adjudication with a line that "two items can occupy the same slot if the DM rules there is no overlap in purpose or space, such as putting on goggles of nightvision while hearing a magic hat".

 

[keterys]

I kinda like "X items", who cares where they go. For example, 5. The slider is the groups can modify X based on their campaign desires - so maybe M. Haul's Dungeons o' Death campaign lets you use up to your level x 5 and Dark Grimly's Scorched Earth campaign lets you up to 1 at a time, but you have to roll on a chart to see if you're possessed every time you use it.

 

[Garthanos]

Now something based on associate Chakra of the body might be interesting.. but you might be surprised what kind of enchantments might be worn where LOL.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I really like the rules for Attunement in the test package, and I think that this does more than anything else to limit magic item overload and to make the question of slots obsolete. Attunement and common sense is enough.

I especially like the optional rule basing the number of attuned items on a character's charisma bonus, and would like to see it presented in the main rules as the default. (Whether in its current form, CHA bonus, min 1, or something similar (1+CHA bonus might make a bit more sense).

this solves the slots issue, and gives a great reason not to dump Charisma.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I'd like optional rules that, instead of saying "only one magic ring per hand", explain what happens when you do wear two rings on one hand.

Who else misses the potion miscibility table?