Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sadrik" data-source="post: 4012274" data-attributes="member: 14506">I have not read through this huge thread but felt like I had to comment on what I thought of the changes.Are these changes for changes sake?  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /> I mean reducing the number of slots and making some of them required while others are optional? This does nothing for reducing the christmas tree effect. Of which I would define as having bonuses coming from multiple items that all stack together to break the average assumptions of the game. Quite honestly I don't care how many slots there are. When writing 4e, dealing with the bonuses issue it could have been done in many other ways but they seemed to select the most game rulesy fix. A cloak or an amulet can only do this, a feet slot item can only do that etc. Wrong approach entirely in my opinion. My fix to the 3.5e item bonus problem is a problem of bonus stacking not of arbitrary item slots.</blockquote>