New article Design and Development Article on Magic Item Slots

[ThirdWizard]

First off, drop the snark. It's pointless and unnecessary.

Second, I read the same article you did. The one that showed an 11th-level character wearing eight magic items on his body, not including a number of other possible magic items that might also be in his possession.

While it may be true that only three slots factor into the hit/damage/AC/saves math, that doesn't address the fact that the character is still suiting up in magic items like they're sports equipment, which is my biggest issue.

That's because some people like playing with lots of magic items. If I statted up some 15th level PCs in my games, they would probably have about 30-40 magic items each. I likes the magic items, lots of them homebrewed.

The thing is, you're looking at an example PC with a lot of magic items in a system specifically designed to allow a wide degree of items in individual campaigns and deciding since he has lots of items, then you'll have to use lots of items. If he had only three items, and I complained that he didn't have enough and lamented the lessening of items, that would be just as wrong.

I would guess that most people will have lots of items because they like having lots of items. That isn't badwrongfun. You're complaining that a WotC employee in some campaign (probably one of many he plays in) has a bunch of items. Just use less items in your game and be happy playing the way you play and let others be happy playing the way they want to.

 

[AllisterH]

First off, drop the snark. It's pointless and unnecessary.

Second, I read the same article you did. The one that showed an 11th-level character wearing eight magic items on his body, not including a number of other possible magic items that might also be in his possession.

While it may be true that only three slots factor into the hit/damage/AC/saves math, that doesn't address the fact that the character is still suiting up in magic items like they're sports equipment, which is my biggest issue.

Which would only be possible if there is a hard limit to the number of magic items you can wear. Which itself has its own problem, namely why the hell can I only wear X items, if X+1 items can be worn.

For example, some people are disappointed that cloaks seem to have taken the necklace slot, yet as another poster pointed out, most cloaks require a clasp around the neck to the neck slot is already filled.

 

[Lurker37]

I think we're going to need to see a bit more about what 4E rings actually do before we can pass judgment on the level restriction on rings.

Heck, we don't even know how the ring limit is enforced in game. We don't know if it's a matter of 'the ring refuses to be equipped, becoming too small to fit on your finger', 'You put in on. You hear a loud voice declaring you unworthy. You pass out.' or more a 'you've put it on, but lack the ability to master it and draw on its power'.

Once we know what power level rings have, and how the level limitation is explained in game, then we'll be able to let rip. Until then we're just speculating.

And limiting the items to one attack bonus, one AC bonus, one Save bonus, no stats buffs but you can still equip and use other cool, optional seem to be a huge step forward in my opinion. The +2 sword had to stay, and we already knew there were similar pluses for implements. To make sure that these can be exactly countered by two other slots, and no more, seems quite fair to me.

But again, we need to know more about what the items in the 'optional' slots can and cannot do before we'll know how much they can affect combat. Furthermore, I'm anxious to know how WOTC intend to prevent third-party publications from breaking these new rules and redecorating the christmas tree.

 

[Rechan]

Which would only be possible if there is a hard limit to the number of magic items you can wear..

Or the system just doesn't shovel out the magical items so you are assumed to have enough for all those magical items.

Or just how many magical items you can get benefit from.

For instance, in 3e, you can only benefit from two rings. But what stops you from putting four, or eight magical rings on your hands?

 

[M.L. Martin]

First off, drop the snark. It's pointless and unnecessary.

Second, I read the same article you did. The one that showed an 11th-level character wearing eight magic items on his body, not including a number of other possible magic items that might also be in his possession.

While it may be true that only three slots factor into the hit/damage/AC/saves math, that doesn't address the fact that the character is still suiting up in magic items like they're sports equipment, which is my biggest issue.

Then don't give out that many magic items.

This is the big change, IMO; this is the thing that lets the Christmas Tree effect die for gamers who want to kill it. Since only the 'core items' directly impact a character's key stats--that is, the character's ability to fill the niche--and WotC will lay out their expected progression, DMs are now more free to scale magic item availability up or down without throwing off the balance of the game. So long as everyone has the expected offensive and defensive implements for their level range, all other magic items are handy but not necessary. Thus, there is a minimum--weapon/implement, armor, cloak/amulet--and a maximum--nine slots--but there is room for any level of variation within that range.

This strikes me as a vast improvement over 3E's system, where stat boosters and other buffing items were so important that you practically had to have them and would crowd out anything else in the slots.

 

[JohnSnow]

Okay, I'm a big fan of Iron Heroes and killing the Christmas Tree. And while the number of slots bugged me a little at first, I've reconsidered and I think it works. Allow me to explain.

Magical implements and Magical Weapons are just cool. Pure and simple. To be able to counterbalance those bonuses, magical armor (to boost AC) and something to boost the defenses are probably necessary. However, these items don't have to be boring. Allow me to explain, using our sample Warlock for the example.

At 11th level, Dessin has a +3 rod of dark reward, +3 leather armor, and a +2 cloak of survival. We know (or can assume) that the rod adds to his warlock powers, that the armor boosts his AC. While we know his cloak adds +2 to all his saves, we don't know what other snappy thing it does. As a cloak of survival, we might assume it assists him in the woods, or something else. This alone should keep these items from becoming boring.

For example, one might imagine that a cloak of elvenkind will improve the character's stealth abilities as well as his saves, as the cloaks granted the Fellowship did. Three necessary items works for me.

As far as the other items, I'm okay with the slots existing as long as they aren't strictly "necessary." So, as much as I dislike the Christmas Tree, I don't think this is it.

 

[Incenjucar]

I'm thinking that something akin to Incarnium's methods really is the best way to work with these... at the very least, now that so many slots are physically stackable, there has to be a way to assign which item is usable (if any - and if you can negate items by stacking them we now have a nifty new magic item restraint method).

Rings... I dunno... maybe a ceremony required that can only be pulled off by 10th level characters would make them make more sense...

 

[Remathilis]

This is also my issue, Remathilis. You can stop the argumentative tone, also.

I'm sorry, but arguing that a D&D character having too many magical do-dads is like arguing that football gives too many points per "scoring opportunity" compared to hockey. Its a measure of character power and reward for overcoming challenges, and every edition of D&D has had magic up the wazoo. All the designers promised was less requirement on "you must have a +3 amulet of natural armor at 11th level or your AC will not be enough to withstand a CR 11 encounter" that was never stated by heavily implied in 3.5. It opens those slots to other unique or (dare I say) cool items that sat in the DMG but were routinely ignored, discarded or sold to acquire rings of protection and amulets of health.

As I said, no edition of D&D has ever handled "two magic items tops" style without house rules or DM fiat. Re-read the classic modules if you want proof. You are more then welcomed to continue to run D&D in that fashion, but shouting about how "this doesn't reduce the X-mas tree" isn't fair, they never said they were removing magical item acquisition from the game, they just said certain items for all characters all the time are no longer manditory.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Re-read the classic modules if you want proof.

Where 3E went wildly wrong and took the Christmas Tree effect to a whole new level was this combination of decisions:
1) Magic items much easier to make than in earlier editions
2) Buying and selling magic items not only allowed but expected as a player's right
3) The frequency of magic shops implied by that statement in the DMG that anything with a value below the town's GP limit can be expected to be available for purchase.
4) More stat-boosting items (did 2E even have a Con-boosting item?)
5) Greater importance of stats (e.g. spell DCs set by casting stat)
6) Flawed bonus-stacking rules, and accessories introducing new items with different bonus types

In 2E, my PCs often picked up a collection of "cool abilities" items and kept them for when they might be needed. And as DM, I handed out such items. Same in B/X. Note that I never played 1E, where I understand selling magic items was common.
In 3E, the expectation became that they would sell them and buy something optimal (though I've always avoided buying magic items in 3E/3.5 as a matter of principle).
That made a HUGE difference.

 

[zoroaster100]

Overall I'm pleased with what I read in the article. I am disappointed they didn't go further in getting rid of the +X weapons and armor, but if WOTC tells us explicity what + is expected at each level, it would make it easy enough for a DM to remove such items and just add those pluses as class abilities. I agree the level restriction on rings is strange, but it doesn't bother me too much. And I'm glad they didn't just have two rings available as two additional item slots as there were in 3e. I definitely think this systems will be better than 3e in terms of magic item dependence and Christmas tree effect. I wish they'd gone further, but I guess that will have to wait for 5e.