New article Design and Development Article on Magic Item Slots

[Lab_Monkey]

Seems very similar to 3e. I was expecting much more of a change based on the 'Xmas tree is gone' and 'Charlie Brown Xmas tree' comments. Only three slots have been removed - face, torso and one ring - reducing the 3e total of 12 to 9 in 4e.

I agree, completely with what you've written above. However, also consider that they've toned things down by removing:

-Stat Ability bonuses (~4 slots per character) [edited for clarity]
-Natural Armor
-Deflection Bonus to AC
-Shield bonuses to AC
-Misc. bonuses (luck, sacred, etc.) to attack and defense.

That's a large part of the Christmas Tree effect right there.

 

[Sammael]

Color me disappointed - I was expecting ALL magic item dependency to go away.

I also don't like the artificial ring limitations by tier.

Oh, and that 11th level gnome has more items than my 11th level PCs used to have - and the item names are fairly reminiscent of 3.x Christmas tree ornaments. If all they did was reduce such items' use to "per encounter" or "per day," all they managed to do is slow the game down - instead of having all bonuses factored in, I will have to calculate them all the damn time.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Sad. So much for that promise. Oh well, some things in D&D you simply can't get rid off.

You don't even have to get rid of the iconic +X to get rid of that factor just switch what the plus applies to. Instead of adding to attack it adds to damage or widens the crit range

I'm disappointed in this.

not the only one

 

[FourthBear]

I feel the change is in the right direction, but not as much as I would like. Like they said, it looks like we're going to end up with a Charlie Brown Christmas Tree effect. I suppose that more wasn't in the cards because players just like magic items too much to reduce the default number drastically. If a +2 bonus is appropriate for 9th level, it sounds like around 10% of your total attack or defense bonus will be from magic. I suppose that's enough to make a difference, but not enough to cripple you, should you lose the item in question. Actually, the magic weapons and magic armor don't really bug me too much, but the assumed neck slot does. Wizards using magic wands, warriors having magic sword and such seem like something that's a pretty good default for mid and high level. Everyone having a magic amulet? Nah.

I really, really hope that opponents aren't generated with magic items standard and that magic items frequency in encounters is geared down to prevent the "oh, another +1 short sword? Toss it in the bag of holding, Gunther. Yawn."

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Sad. So much for that promise. People will still hunt for better plus-items, and try to hog as many magic items as possible, if they give better stats. Oh well, some things in D&D you simply can't get rid off.
I'm disappointed in this.

no, this time it will be very different:

you don´t need those Items to get a reasonable defense or stats. The problem in 3.x is that as a master, you have to give out mgical items or the first save or die spell kills your players.
When you have an NSC, you have to give magical defense items so that he doesn´t die in 6 seconds. Now to compensate the lack of a +2 sword and a +2 armour, you just have to increase the Level of the character by 4. Seems pretty easy.

No Rings... i am biased... but one ring was always one of protection, so you just lose one slot at epic tier and this is a restriction which can be easily ignored...

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

I like it. Like, a whole lot. I love the fact that they're building encounters/monsters around expected things (such as the tiers and base bonuses on magic items).

It'll make it a whole hellofa lot easier to determine when it's appropriate to release exceptionally powerful items such as the Vorpal Sword into the game at an appropriate level.

Level caps, or level requirements as a prerequisite to use specific magic items is an excellent backend mechanism to help balance encounters and monsters versus PCs. Two thumbs up!

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey there!

+x Swords is DnD.

but this time it is very easy to adjust, because magical weapons, armor and necklaces all add the same bonuses to attack, AC and defenses at a certain level.

So if you don´t give out those items, the math still works (and you just have to use slightly less powerfull monsters and equally low equipped monsters)

I wonder if the '+' is equal to 1/4 character level (rounded down)? Meaning you wouldn't get a +1 weapon until minimum 4th-level? That said...

Here’s what my 11th-level gnome warlock, Dessin, is wearing right now:

Implement: +3 rod of dark reward
Armor: +3 leather armor
Neck: +2 cloak of survival

...the Cloak of Survival is only +2, while the rod and armour are +3.

 

[Stormtalon]

Actually, the magic weapons and magic armor don't really bug me too much, but the assumed neck slot does. Wizards using magic wands, warriors having magic sword and such seem like something that's a pretty good default for mid and high level. Everyone having a magic amulet? Nah.

Well, since the article mentions neck slot is for either amulet or cloaks, I think it'll be ok. Sure, not everyone will have the magic amulet -- folks like the ranger/fighter/rogue will gravitate towards the cloaks and such.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

...the Cloak of Survival is only +2, while the rod and armour are +3.

because it is a played character, which doesn´t have only appropriate items (some maybe a bit higher, some lower than that)

 

[maggot]

Every time I read another 4E article, my hopes die a little more. For all the things they are changing, the couldn't see themselves to change the system enough so an 11th level character didn't walk around with 9 magic items. Sigh.

At least if he were 10th level, he wouldn't be able to have that ring. Some kind of progress.