New article Design and Development Article on Magic Item Slots

[JeffB]

Mixed feelings. I'll need more time to decide one way or another, but here' some of the things running through my head at the moment.....

1)This is def better than 3.x. A small handful of neccessities and a bunch of optional/non necc "flavor" items.

2) The "gamist" attitude towards rings really bothers me. I hope this kind of attitude in general by the designers is kept to a micro minimum. But I worry that will not be the case.

3) I still think Earthdawn had about the best item system (I guess this would be kind of where D&D's legacy weapons came from...I'm assuming based on the name anyways, I'm not familiar with them mechanically)

4) I really wish WOTC would stop releasing all this way cool "flavor" stuff (cosmology, POL attitude, etc) and then wierding me out with the rules changes (non cleric's "healing", martial powers being in part magical, etc).

I want "way cool" all the time. Are you listening Mr. Rouse?????

 

[Nymrohd]

Just a comment on the cloak and necklace slots being fused. Cloaks have clasps that tie around the neck, and historically were often elaborate affairs of gold and gems. In essence a cloak's clasp is pretty much a necklace in form and aesthetic function.

I very much love these changes. Sure I would like +x armor/weapons out of the game entirely, but I can house rule that as I have always done so with several ranks of crafting (masterpiece items). And as several people have said, it seems there are far fewer stat items required and with an implied progression we can extrapolate easily (and house rule in a myriad ways).

 

[Stogoe]

Put me in the "Meh/Disappointed" crowd. From the way the designers talked, I lead to believe we were getting a major reduction of worn magical items period.

Then you were obviously reading different articles than the rest of us. Seriously, if you thought that +X weapons and +X armor were going away, you were fooling yourself.

As for the article: 3 +X slots whose numbers work directly against each other (and thus can be phased out if you really want), and 6+ that are 100% completely optional? That's better than I could have ever hoped. Looking good, devs! Now if you could only get the articles put up online in a timely manner, you'd be golden.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

For those with issues about the Ring thing - I could easily see creating a house rule to create a situation similar to that in LoTR, where using a magic item beyond one's power level is in fact dangerous (leaving aside the One Ring=Artifact line in the article). There are ways, flavor-wise, to explain such limitations...

 

[Najo]

While I like what I see for the most part I have a couple issues:

• I don't like combining the neck and shoulders slots. I can see why the chose to combine the slots on a metagame level - they only wanted a single slot to modify defenses and amulets and cloaks were both traditionally defensive slots. Still I would have preferred chosing either neck or shoulders to modify defenses and using the other for active defensive abilities even if that would mean treading on the niche of magical shields a little.
• Having ring slots only open up as you level just doesn't seem right to me. It messes with my suspension of disbelief in all kinds of ways.

I agree with you. The ring thing and the neck and shoulders thing both do this. I think this approach to magic items would be better:

* Assign an item type to each magic item (i.e. boots, cloak, weapon, necklace, ring, belt). The type defines the area it is worn, instead of having slots on the body.

* Most items you can only wear one of each item type, with a few exceptions. Rings, weapons and wonderous items could have a limit of 2 each. Any item can go in any slot, but you can't have more than 1 of each item type and 2 of the few exceptions, or whatever.

* Then the character has a limited number of slots based on their level. The formula could be 1/2 level rounded up (so 1 item at level 1 - 2, 2 items at level 3 - 4, by level 30 you could have 15 items max) or you can lessen it a bit to 1/3 level rounded up (giving a level 30 epic character 10 magic item slots. The only issue with this is the wonky math feel. I am not wild about that.

Another approach is to either give a character 4 slots per tier (heroic has 4 slots, paragon 8 and epic 12) or to give characters a fixed number of slots 5 maybe, up to 10) that they have from level 1 -30 and it never changes.

What I like about this approach, is that character's don't try to fill each slot on the tree, which is what feels like the christmas tree effect. Instead they must pick and choose what items work best for them and they swap items out based on the task before them. They still can't use two cloaks at once, but likewise, they are not using all of the possible magic items at once either.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Look, why is your DM giving you these *powerful* magic items when you can't use them? It's like giving a 1st level character a +3 vorpal sword! The term we normally use is Monty Haul.

Don't expect 4e rings to be weak items, either.

Cheers!

Then, why do we need the restriction?

Sure, because the restriction restricts the use of a second ring (which is the main point - the Heroic tier is just done that way to keep the sequence - 0,1,2, if we had three arms...), but why does it suddenly "unlock"?

I think putting the "unlock" feature into the rings themselves, perhaps with certain conditions, is more elegant, is marginally better explainable and provides a story hook. Like Legacy items.

I'm open to see an explanation why the 0-1-2 ring-unlock variant should be better. And I don't think "keeping the prices down" is a good argument, considering a) that it'll perhaps mean less, and b) if rings are more or less equal, then it will still have a huge opportunity cost, and finally c) relics worked well - and if you tie the "price" into rituals... well, then that issue goes away too.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Man, I can't believe the teapot-tempest over the level limits on Rings. That's like the easiest rule to Rule Zero I have ever seen. That's like house ruling "Demi-Human Level Limits" easy. Just treat them like any other powerful magical item and you won't upset anything about the game design.

Seriously, people. There are rules that go to the heart of the game system and are very hard to change (like switching from AC to DR). There are rules that are individually easy to modify, but so great in number (like spells or 3E magic items) that re-writing all of them would be a hassle and a half. If 4E comes out and you don't like one of those, you've got problems. But this level limit thing is not either of those. Not by a long shot.

I'd suggest that everyone take a deep breath and really ask themselves: Is this something that's really going to effect my campaign in a way I can't easily fix? Regarding the Ring thing, I think the answer is no.

And if the "expected plus" works the way I think it does, I think we can live without magical items entirely just by giving all PC's the same + bonus simply as a part of leveling up.

 

[Najo]

Hi Campbell!



But what if Rings are really powerful and thus automatically moderate* or better magic items (*under 3.5 terminology).

I mean you don't say its the right of any PC to own a +5 vorpal sword at 1st-level even though they could physically wield one. You don't say its the right of any PC to possess a ring of wishes at 1st-level.

I think you are getting into a tizzy over nothing. 3.5 had Minor, Moderate and Major magic items. This seems little more than an extension of that.

I think Campbell's issue with breaking supension of belief is that if all the items except rings can be heroic level, then why can't rings be heroic level. Why can't their be minor rings. THAT doesn't make sense. At least have a catagory of all magic amulets, necklaces, rings and other jewery are all paragon level then, why only rings? Anyone with working hands and some fingers can slip a ring on.

I know it doesn't seem like a big deal, but it was the first thing that jumped out at me as a game designer when I read the article. The second thing being that they still had a christmas tree because of all the items. They may not be needed items, but they are a checklist of slots none the list and gives the feeling that you have to have one of each magic item you can get. That is what makes the game feel more like a game and less like a heroic fantasy story.

 

[MerricB]

How is my math wrong? If you're hit 10% less often, you are dealt 10% less damage over the course of your adventure. They are directly proportional.

"10% less often" doesn't mean what you think it does.

If you have a 15% chance of being hit, attacks deal 10 damage each, and you're attacked 100 times during an adventure, you take an average of 150 damage.

Same character, give them a +2 suit of armour. That reduces the chance of being hit to 5%. Get attacked 100 times during an adventure, 10 damage each... the average is now 50 damage.

So, your "10% less often" means the damage has been reduced by 67%!

Cheers!

 

[Greg K]

Man, I can't believe the teapot-tempest over the level limits on Rings. That's like the easiest rule to Rule Zero I have ever seen. That's like house ruling "Demi-Human Level Limits" easy. Just treat them like any other powerful magical item and you won't upset anything about the game design..

Because it is such a lame idea that it should have never been implemented in the first place and, thus, no house rule should be required. Then again, this is the WOTC design team we are talking about and so I am no longer surprised by their lame mechanics/restrictions. Pramas was completely right, imo - WOTC has some excellent designers, but fails to bring out their best.