New article Design and Development Article on Magic Item Slots

[Siberys]

Aw crap, I put my cloak on to go outside, now, I have to take off my necklace.

Nobody said you had to take it off. In 3.x, for example, you could wear more than two rings - its just that only two of them ever functioned, their auras interfering.

At least, that's how I and everyone I know's always interpreted it.

 

[Sadrik]

You're right...neither of us has an argument; it's purely taste-driven. I agree with the designer's rationales, and can easily fit it into my games. You feel differently. Fortunately for me, the way I like is in the book.

Any, rule can fit into a game. The problem is that believability is being strained by arbitrary slot limits (and level limits for rings).

I have always felt that the advantage that table top rpg's have over CRPG's is that we can reason outside the box at the game table and as everyone should know computers cannot do that. So, the designers should be embracing that concept and not falling into: "Arbitrary limits that have to be there for game play sake." I don't care if my players look like Mr. T and have 50 necklaces on as long as they all don't stack together I am fine and the game is fine. Two approaches, and it appears that your ideal method is the direction they went with. So far this is the only 4e thing I have absolutely not liked what I heard.

 

[Bishmon]

Yes, but what is the middle ground? It's not 12 (3e). It's not 9, 10, or 11 (4e heroic, paragon, epic). You said it's not a couple (2-3)? So is it 5? Or 6? I'd just like to see a number so I understand where you're coming from.

And I've repeatedly said around six, even in the same post you quoted.

I've said that I like the idea of the three main ones that affect the attack/damage/AC/saves, and that I'd have around three 'accessory' slots for the various other things they're going to have in 4E.

If that's not enough of a 'collection' game for some, they could have added things you could collect that would allow you to upgrade or make a magic item in some way. For example, let's say if you had a flawless ruby, a quantity of adamantine, and a specific enhancement scroll, you could have a wizard add the 'flaming' ability to your weapon. Players could even be rewarded with drops that merely make light of these elements, like a formula in an eladrin's journal or a map showing a long lost mineral deposit.

That's just an off-my-head example of some sort of system that could allow for a reasonable number of magic items with a high level of collection and reward that doesn't result in characters hauling around backpacks of unused magic items on their trek to a Magic Depot.

 

[TwoSix]

And I've repeatedly said around six, even in the same post you quoted.

I've said that I like the idea of the three main ones that affect the attack/damage/AC/saves, and that I'd have around three 'accessory' slots for the various other things they're going to have in 4E.

If that's not enough of a 'collection' game for some, they could have added things you could collect that would allow you to upgrade or make a magic item in some way. For example, let's say if you had a flawless ruby, a quantity of adamantine, and a specific enhancement scroll, you could have a wizard add the 'flaming' ability to your weapon. Players could even be rewarded with drops that merely make light of these elements, like a formula in an eladrin's journal or a map showing a long lost mineral deposit.

That's just an off-my-head example of some sort of system that could allow for a reasonable number of magic items with a high level of collection and reward that doesn't result in characters hauling around backpacks of unused magic items on their trek to a Magic Depot.

But you have to admit that 6 being "reasonable" and 9 being "Christmas Tree" is, ultimately, a matter of taste, and there's no way that the designers could have been right by everyone on this.

 

[JohnSnow]

And I've repeatedly said around six, even in the same post you quoted.

To be fair, you have to have repeated something to have said it repeatedly. Which I suppose you now have.

Yes, in that post, a few paragraphs later, you said "six items." But it was so buried, someone could have easily missed it.

So, you're okay with the Core 3 and 3 more. Fair enough. Set your campaign's limit there. Done, and done. People are complaining all about 4E taking power and fiat away from DMs. Guess what? Here's your chance for absolute fiat.

In your campaign, characters can't have more than 1 weapon (or implement), one set of armor, one cloak or amulet, and three other items. There. Now you've got your 6.

What does it matter if the rules provide the option for more?

 

[rkanodia]

What does it matter if the rules provide the option for more?

Especially since Mike Mearls explicitly that the math behind the monsters only takes the weapon, armor, and cloak into account - Monster Manual monsters have been tested for their difficulty against a character who is otherwise naked.

 

[Bishmon]

To be fair, you have to have repeated something to have said it repeatedly. Which I suppose you now have.

I've actually now said it at least four times in this thread, but really, who's counting?

So, you're okay with the Core 3 and 3 more. Fair enough. Set your campaign's limit there. Done, and done. People are complaining all about 4E taking power and fiat away from DMs. Guess what? Here's your chance for absolute fiat.

In your campaign, characters can't have more than 1 weapon (or implement), one set of armor, one cloak or amulet, and three other items. There. Now you've got your 6.

What does it matter if the rules provide the option for more?

But they haven't provided the option. If they had provided options, I could say, "Hmm, I like that one, I'm going to use that one in my campaign" and be done with it.

But instead, they've provided the standard. And since that's the standard, if I want to do something differently, I've got to do the work. If I want tables for random treasure, I've gotta make them for my game. If I want fewer slots, I've got to house rule them and communicate those to my players. If I use published adventures, I have to modify them.

 

[Sadrik]

So, you're okay with the Core 3 and 3 more. Fair enough. Set your campaign's limit there. Done, and done. People are complaining all about 4E taking power and fiat away from DMs. Guess what? Here's your chance for absolute fiat.

Am I in the minority on this? How about no limit outside the obvious ones? As long as the bonuses don't stack...

I have always been a fan of the concept that items dont care what they look like but rather their effect is what is important.
Example:
Flagon of the dragons (an old 1st edition item) is essentially a cornucopia with a stopper, when you uncorked it, a random breath weapon shot out. I dont think this item can exist in this brave new world of 4e items that must always be defined. It is an implement by nature but is a wondrous too.

Others:
bracers of defense (armor/arm)
ring of protection (ring/neck)

And then, there was all those cool items from some book, where potions were more than just potions (they could be little clay symbols that you break, powders, ointments, oils, and all manner of things). I am not suggesting that they are not moving in this direstion with potions MIC shows otherwise. However, I wish that the concept of "three required core items" was tossed out in favor of "three core types of bonuses" and you can only take the highest item bonus in each from your gear.

Again, christmas tree effect in my book is the bonus stacking problem. I don't care much about the sheer number of items. Characters won't wear useless trinkets. Rather they will sell them. If I have boots that give me +1 Move and I have a necklace that gives me +2 Move I would use the necklace and sell the boots.

In the "arbitrary slot limit model" players are forced to select less optimal items so they can fill a slot rather than the best one. Condensing the slots does in no way mitigate this problem it exacerbates it.

Certain slots are obvious: 2 implements, feet, hands, arms, body, back, waist, and head after that it is a grey area.

To figure out the grey area you have to look at the specific magic items:
Goggles, mask, glasses these would all interact with the head slot. Now you cannot use a magic helmet and magic glasses. I would be screwed in a D&D world

More head problems the neck: amulets, necklaces, brooches, scarabs, capes and cloaks have been assigned to the neck slot and are given the core duty of giving bonuses to defense of which nothing else can give bonuses too. How about neck and back?

Then, hands run into a problem too: people have 10 fingers and like to wear jewelery but in prior editions you could wear 2 magical rings and have them be active (an arbitrary limit). But now, they are saying, that you cannot even use the magical powers of a ring until a certain level. And then you can use two at another later level.

Like I said, people like to wear jewelery. What about: ear rings, nose rings, toe rings, and the myriad of different necklaces, bracelets and other jewelery there are. I would have rather seen an arbitrary limit based on total jewelery, as a whole. It is better than limiting rings or the neck slot (amulet or cloak?) or head slot (goggles or helmet?).

Why not say, "Characters can only use up to four pieces of magical jewelery period" and treat them as non-slot wondrous items?

Of course, go with the 9 original obvious slots: 2 held implements, feet, hands, arms, body, back, waist, and head.

In the video game version of 4e (which I am sure is a big component of the slot reduction plan) just put 4 slots off on the side to be filled with the jewelery class of wondrous items.

For whatever reason that implementation of a slot system makes sooooooo much more sense to me.

 

[Bishmon]

Especially since Mike Mearls explicitly that the math behind the monsters only takes the weapon, armor, and cloak into account - Monster Manual monsters have been tested for their difficulty against a character who is otherwise naked.

Do you have that quote handy?

 

[Bishmon]

But you have to admit that 6 being "reasonable" and 9 being "Christmas Tree" is, ultimately, a matter of taste, and there's no way that the designers could have been right by everyone on this.

I suppose. But that seems like a pretty defeatist approach to design. I mean, everything's a matter of taste, and there's no way the designers could do anything right by everyone so what's the point to it all?

But the designers are tasked with coming up with fun, creative ways of running a game that closely matches what most people want the game to be. They can't just write their decisions off as matters of taste if they want to have a successful game. There's gotta be more design to it than that, otherwise any average joe could be a designer for WotC.

In my opinion, from a design standpoint, there's three key benefits to limiting the magic characters wear. First, it helps get rid of the Christmas Tree effect. Characters are no longer decked out in magic items like hockey gear, which I'd imagine would help the verisimilitude of a number of players on a number of levels during the game. Second, it would re-value magic items as something special, something wonderful, which I think most would say is a good thing. And third, it would be much, much closer to fantasy literature, which is probably a major source for a lot of people in where they get their expectations for the game.

The only significant drawback I see is that players like being rewarded, and they like cool magic items, so the more the merrier. That's a valid point, I'm not dismissing it. But I think there's a number of ways to replicate that sense of reward that doesn't devolve into characters hauling around backpacks of cheap magic items looking for a Magic Depot to sell them at.