Neck Slot Items

[KarinsDad]

Overall 4e is trying to AVOID the golf bag syndrome, so really I'm not all that inclined to be nice to power gamers trying to play the system.

In the case of bracers and shield, or neck slot items, it's not playing the system.

It's following the written rules, no different than following any other rule written in the PHB. It's obvious that the designers wanted the players to have the option for multiple items in the same slots because they wrote three sentences on it.

This is only true for item slot items and then only for items where there is not a physical limitation. It is not true for rings. There, putting on 3 rings will disable all of the rings.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In the case of bracers and shield, or neck slot items, it's not playing the system.

It's following the written rules, no different than following any other rule written in the PHB. It's obvious that the designers wanted the players to have the option for multiple items in the same slots because they wrote three sentences on it.

This is only true for item slot items and then only for items where there is not a physical limitation. It is not true for rings. There, putting on 3 rings will disable all of the rings.

Huh? I fail to comprehend what you're trying to get at there man. Slotted items allow ONE item of a given type to function. If you want to use another one you have to remove the first. They don't specify ANY particular action type for this. The only slot that is mentioned in this regard at all is WRT to shields and that is only one specific example of an arms slot item. By RAW you could conclude that no other slotted items can be switched AT ALL during combat. Of course you could be somewhat more forgiving. The same could be said of rings, there is no action type dealing with them at all though again it seems reasonable from a simulationist point of view to make equipping or unequipping them minor actions.

So I am totally befuddled by your statement. The designers IMHO obviously didn't intend PCs to be swapping out slotted items (or rings) during encounters at all, though the possibility is left up to the DM ultimately. In terms of carrying golf bags of items around they also certainly weren't encouraging that practice AT ALL with item daily power use limitations. Certainly there are plenty of items you CAN have many of or different variations of, but its a lot less useful to do so than it was in previous-Es.

 

[KarinsDad]

Huh? I fail to comprehend what you're trying to get at there man. Slotted items allow ONE item of a given type to function. If you want to use another one you have to remove the first. They don't specify ANY particular action type for this. The only slot that is mentioned in this regard at all is WRT to shields and that is only one specific example of an arms slot item. By RAW you could conclude that no other slotted items can be switched AT ALL during combat.

No, you cannot conclude that by RAW. Not even by RAI. For RAW to say that other items could not be switched in combat, it would have to explicitly state that. Sorry, but you are making this up.


Not every possible action in the game system is listed in the combat section.

For example, lighting a torch during combat. Not listed in the action section. Are you claiming that a PC couldn't light a torch in combat?

There are reasons there are DMs in the game system. One of those reasons is to adjudicate when the players come up with an action that the game system allows, but an explicit rules reference to that particular action might be missing.

Are you claiming that a cloak cannot be removed in combat? A belt?

Is it your claim that someone can pick a lock or remove a shield as a standard action in combat, but they cannot remove a cloak or a belt???

Huh?

Glad you aren't my DM.


The rules are clear. One can wear multiple slotted items in a given slot as long as there is not a physical limitation. Only the first item worn works until it is removed. Now, the DM could rule that there is a physical limitation wearing an amulet and a cloak at the same time, but that's pretty silly.

 

[Turtlejay]

Not to speak for him, but it sounds more like he is saying you could remove your cloak, or switch your rings, but benefiting from the magic contained in them might take more than just a minor action.

Usually when someone asks a general question like this, it is because they have a specific intent. Rather than getting bogged down in theorycraft and infighting, OP, what were you intending to do with this? Why would you want to do it?

Jay

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

No, you cannot conclude that by RAW. Not even by RAI. For RAW to say that other items could not be switched in combat, it would have to explicitly state that. Sorry, but you are making this up.


Not every possible action in the game system is listed in the combat section.

For example, lighting a torch during combat. Not listed in the action section. Are you claiming that a PC couldn't light a torch in combat?

There are reasons there are DMs in the game system. One of those reasons is to adjudicate when the players come up with an action that the game system allows, but an explicit rules reference to that particular action might be missing.

Are you claiming that a cloak cannot be removed in combat? A belt?

Is it your claim that someone can pick a lock or remove a shield as a standard action in combat, but they cannot remove a cloak or a belt???

Huh?

Glad you aren't my DM.


The rules are clear. One can wear multiple slotted items in a given slot as long as there is not a physical limitation. Only the first item worn works until it is removed. Now, the DM could rule that there is a physical limitation wearing an amulet and a cloak at the same time, but that's pretty silly.

I think you're taking my statement to a ridiculous extreme. What I'm saying is that the rules don't specify how easy or hard it is to equip or unequip most items. This leaves it to the DM to determine on the basis of what he feels is in keeping with his game.

Nobody is suggesting that you couldn't possibly wear multiple items in any given slot either. Again it is up to the DM to decide what would be appropriate. That being said I'd love to see a player justify being able to wear 2 sets of gloves, for example, and have the option to remove EITHER pair depending on the situation. One set logically is worn over the other and if you want to utilize the second item instead of the first, well guess what, you'll have to remove both pairs and put the second pair back on! In the case of say an amulet and a cloak then well perhaps that isn't necessary. In the case of 2 cloaks? I'd again find it a bit difficult to visualize removing the first one without removing the second one in order to do so.

Given that none of the above have defined action costs it is ENTIRELY up to the DM to decide how time consuming and thus viable in a combat situation such actions are. Personally if I started to have a problem with players decking their characters out like christmas trees and playing musical items constantly during encounters then yeah I'd probably be inclined to put a curb on that behavior. I find it rather cheesy and not all that much in the spirit of the game.

 

[KarinsDad]

Not to speak for him, but it sounds more like he is saying you could remove your cloak, or switch your rings, but benefiting from the magic contained in them might take more than just a minor action.

I was inferring that this sentence indicates that when the first item is taken off, the second immediately starts working.

You benefit from the item you put on first; any other item you put in the same item slot doesn't function for you until you take off the first item.

Is it explicit? No. Is it implicit? Yes.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think you're taking my statement to a ridiculous extreme. What I'm saying is that the rules don't specify how easy or hard it is to equip or unequip most items. This leaves it to the DM to determine on the basis of what he feels is in keeping with his game.

Nobody is suggesting that you couldn't possibly wear multiple items in any given slot either. Again it is up to the DM to decide what would be appropriate. That being said I'd love to see a player justify being able to wear 2 sets of gloves, for example, and have the option to remove EITHER pair depending on the situation. One set logically is worn over the other and if you want to utilize the second item instead of the first, well guess what, you'll have to remove both pairs and put the second pair back on! In the case of say an amulet and a cloak then well perhaps that isn't necessary. In the case of 2 cloaks? I'd again find it a bit difficult to visualize removing the first one without removing the second one in order to do so.

Given that none of the above have defined action costs it is ENTIRELY up to the DM to decide how time consuming and thus viable in a combat situation such actions are. Personally if I started to have a problem with players decking their characters out like christmas trees and playing musical items constantly during encounters then yeah I'd probably be inclined to put a curb on that behavior. I find it rather cheesy and not all that much in the spirit of the game.

Yes, it is up to the DM for both which ones will it physically work and for how long it will take to remove them. I was merely responding to your claim that the designers did not intend for items to be swapped out in combat.

The designers wrote 3 sentences into the rules that allow for it. Just like many actions, they don't talk about in combat or out of combat unless their is a reason to do so.

Personally, I think that the KISS principle is better. A single sentence for both rings and slot items of "If you have more than the allowed number, then none of them function" would have been a lot better. But, they did not write that as the rule. They intended to give the DM flexibility within this area. I'm not sure why they didn't do that for rings, maybe because a different designer wrote that.

 

[Thanee]

So, someone could put an amulet on and a cloak on, then take the amulet off in combat and the cloak starts functioning.

Aha. Thanks.

Bye
Thanee

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Hmmh sounds cheesy...but my current player won´t even think about such tricks.

 

[Istar]

How long does it take to take your bow off your back unpack your quiver and get your arrows ready Draco ?

Isnt that a minor action.
Anyway lets kick the boots into touch.

My question is mainly on the neck slot.

1. Where does it say that wearing a magic cloak, and a magic amulet, at the same time, will cause them both to not work.
Surely you can wear both and decide mentally which one is active.

2. Why cant it be a minor action to change which one is active.

3. If not surely swapping amulets at worst is only a minor action ?