Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="azhrei_fje" data-source="post: 4677779" data-attributes="member: 12966">No conflicts, per se.&nbsp; I was just thinking that limiting the number of magical items in use based on how many &quot;spell slots&quot; a caster has and then also limiting the number of items in use by having a limited number of body slots just seemed redundant.You mention doing away with body slots altogether, then later say that this spell slots rule could co-exist side by side.&nbsp; I don't understand that dichotomy.Definitely!If you eliminated body slots and went with &quot;magic items count as 1/2&quot;, then there could be feats dealing with items, as well.&nbsp; Maybe a feat that says magic items with a CL less than &quot;X&quot; have no cost?&nbsp; So a feat where &quot;X&quot; == 1 would allow a free feather fall.&nbsp; Each time you take the feat, it applies to one single item.&nbsp; And the &quot;Improved&quot; and &quot;Greater&quot; versions have the lower ones as prereqs.It would certainly change the dynamics between sorcerors and wizards, too.&nbsp; Sorcerors great strength is lots of on-the-fly spells, while the wizards strength is variety.&nbsp; Using this system, would you arrange for sorcerors to be able to handle more or less spell slots?I'm intrigued by this idea and I'd be interested in hearing more about this if/when you playtest it in a D&amp;D campaign.&nbsp; I may even bring it up for the continuation of my RttToEE game (it's been idle for almost a year but we're starting up again; only two players from the original group and neither are spellcasters).&nbsp; I'm going to subscribe to this thread, so please post here if you do test it out.&nbsp; And I'll do the same.&nbsp; Thanks!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="azhrei_fje, post: 4677779, member: 12966"] No [i]conflicts[/i], per se. I was just thinking that limiting the number of magical items in use based on how many "spell slots" a caster has and then [i]also[/i] limiting the number of items in use by having a limited number of body slots just seemed redundant. You mention doing away with body slots altogether, then later say that this spell slots rule could co-exist side by side. I don't understand that dichotomy. Definitely! If you eliminated body slots and went with "magic items count as 1/2", then there could be feats dealing with items, as well. Maybe a feat that says magic items with a CL less than "X" have no cost? So a feat where "X" == 1 would allow a free feather fall. Each time you take the feat, it applies to one single item. And the "Improved" and "Greater" versions have the lower ones as prereqs. It would certainly change the dynamics between sorcerors and wizards, too. Sorcerors great strength is lots of on-the-fly spells, while the wizards strength is variety. Using this system, would you arrange for sorcerors to be able to handle more or less spell slots? I'm intrigued by this idea and I'd be interested in hearing more about this if/when you playtest it in a D&D campaign. I may even bring it up for the continuation of my RttToEE game (it's been idle for almost a year but we're starting up again; only two players from the original group and neither are spellcasters). I'm going to subscribe to this thread, so please post here if you do test it out. And I'll do the same. Thanks! [/QUOTE]

Verification