by Logan Bonner
One of our goals in 4th Edition was to reduce characters’ reliance on magic items. The most important portion of this goal involved removing a lot of the magic items that were essential just so your character could feel effective, like stat-boosting items, amulets of natural armor, and the like. We also felt like these items weren't as exciting as magic items should be, yet characters depended on them heavily to feel adequate in proportion to their level. We felt that the cool stuff a character can do should come from that character’s abilities, not his gear.
Items are divided by item slot, much like they were in D&D 3.5 (though it took until Magic Item Compendium for the system to be quantified clearly). As before, you can only wear one item in each slot. The number of slots has been reduced (by combining slots that were similar), to keep the number of items manageable and easy to remem-ber. You still have a ton of choices for items in the game, and when we were still using more slots, our playtesters reported that it caused information overload.
Primary Slots
We've preserved a number of items that have traditional “plusses.” These are the items we expect everybody to care about, and the ones that are factored into the math behind the game. If you’re 9th level, we expect you to have a set of +2 armor, and the challenges in the game at that level are balanced accordingly. Here are the primary item slots:
Weapon/Implement: Whether you’re swinging a mace or blasting with a magic wand, you have an item that adds to your attack and damage. These weapons also set your critical hit dice (the extra dice you roll when you score a critical hit, see the Design & Development article, "Critical Hits"). Even though this is called an item slot, that doesn’t mean you can’t wield more than one weapon, because that would make the ranger cry. 3.5 Equivalents: Weapons, holy symbols, rods, staffs, wands.
Armor: This category now includes cloth armor, so the wizard in robes has magic armor just like the rest of the group. Magic armor adds an enhancement bonus to your Armor Class. 3.5 Equivalents: Body, torso.
Neck: An item in the neck slot increases your Fortitude, Reflex, and Will defenses, as well as usually doing something else snappy. The most common items are amulets and cloaks. 3.5 Equivalents: Shoulders, throat.
Secondary Slots
These items don’t have enhancement bonuses. That makes them essentially optional. You could adventure with no items in your secondary item slots and not see a huge decrease in your overall power. Take what looks cool, but don’t worry about having empty slots.
Arms: These are bulky items that fit over your arms, such as bracers, vambraces, and shields. You’ll notice that shields no longer have an enhancement bonus. Instead, shields have special defensive effects and items you wear instead of shields, like bracers, are more offensive. 3.5 Equivalents: Arms, shields.
Feet: Focused on mobility and special movement modes, you can be pretty sure what you’re getting when you look at magic boots, greaves, or sandals. 3.5 Equivalent: Feet.
Hands: Thinner items that fit on your hands fall into this category. This includes gauntlets and gloves. They usu-ally help out your attacks or help your manual dexterity. 3.5 Equivalent: Hands.
Head: These items increase your mental skills or enhance your senses. Helmets, circlets, and goggles all fall in this category. Another major subcategory here includes orbitals, such as ioun stones. If you see someone with an orbital, it’s a good bet you’re dealing with an epic character. 3.5 Equivalents: Face, head.
Rings: This slot has changed quite a bit. A starting character isn’t powerful enough to unleash the power of a ring. You can use one ring when you reach paragon tier (11th level) and two when you’re epic (21st level). And before you get started about how Frodo sure as hell wasn’t epic, let's be clear: the One Ring was an artifact, not a magic item any old spellcaster could make. Artifacts follow their own rules. 3.5 Equivalent: Rings.
Waist: Items you wear around your waist are usually about protection, healing, or increasing your Strength tem-porarily. 3.5 Equivalent: Waist.
Other Items
Some items don’t use item slots. Some of them aren’t useful in combat. Others can be useful in a fight, but only once in a while.
Potions: Potions are consumable items, and they're mostly focused on healing effects.
Wondrous Items: This category no longer includes wearable items. These are utility items that don’t take up space on your body or act as weapons.
Example
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
Arms: Bracers of the perfect shot
Feet: Wavestrider boots
Hands: Shadowfell gloves
Head: Diadem of acuity
Rings: None right now, sadly
Waist: Belt of battle
Wondrous Items: Bag of holding
*Note: He said Gnome?
Trying to bring the shunned back into the fold?
Video games use weapon slots?
Interesting...
Note: It will take you to the "print friendly page" so anyone can read it without logging in.
The Gnome reference could go either way....trying to squeeze it in at the last moment because they realized they errored and people complained VERY LOUDLY or they are gearing up for the PH 2 a year or so after the initial release.
One of our goals in 4th Edition was to reduce characters’ reliance on magic items. ... If you’re 9th level, we expect you to have a set of +2 armor, and the challenges in the game at that level are balanced accordingly.
Hmm. Well, it sounds like you're still reliant on magic items. And that list of item his gnome has? It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas...
|
Hmm. Well, it sounds like you're still reliant on magic items. And that list of item his gnome has? It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas...
I think that's taking it a bit too far. Yes, they'll still expect characters to have magic items - designing without that assumption would be a much bigger change than anything they've discussed so far.
But that list of items looked much more interesting to me than what I typically see in 3.5. I like magic items, don't get me wrong, I was just sick of everyone selling off everything they found so they could get their required Cloak of Resistance +(X+1). His list was varied, and what looked like there were several oddities. It gives me hope that discovered magic items might actually get used again.
Mind you, I'm still hoping they remove the default assumption that magic items are easily purchasable. I like them a little rarer than that.
But even this little preview makes it look like they're moving in the right direction.
Drew Garrett
|
|
A couple of things jumped out at me…
First, It’s hard for me to see a real difference from what they are claiming is wrong with 3.5 and what they are doing…
Consider...
We've preserved a number of items that have traditional “plusses.” These are the items we expect everybody to care about, and the ones that are factored into the math behind the game. If you’re 9th level, we expect you to have a set of +2 armor, and the challenges in the game at that level are balanced accordingly.
Secondly, it seems to me they are restricting what is possible with magic items. And I don’t like that. An item in the neck slot has to increase a save bonus. So its not possible for there to be a necklace or amulet to improve AC? When they talk about removing things from the game they are talking about limiting options.
I appreciate not having to have magic items to be effective, though apparently according to the quote above you still do, but to remove options, is, I think, the wrong approach.
I'm not really seeing the difference. Sure it looks nice and clear listed the way it is but didn't the Magic Item Compendium already do that. I'll admit that 3.5 may have a few to many items slots but just don't use the extra ones. Overall I'm not impressed.
What concerned me was attaching to much importance to magic items and body locations. I don't care for the idea of designating body locations for certain types of magic. This bonus goes here, that magic concept is tied to the waist, etc. I can see some metagaming thinking that could arise. "Hey wait, my hands and head are free, I need a magic item for those". Or, I need a magic item that does "x" so I need a waist item.
No shield bonus...why when they kept the magic armor bonus. I don't mind the effects idea, but I think the bonus should be in or out for both armor or shields, not one has it the other doesn't.
Rings only available at 11th level...garbage. If they want to retain game balance and dictate how the DM should handle this, then I think they should have a better mechanic, such as how powerful the specific item is rather than the object (ring) it is. Why single out rings only. I wouldn't mind seeing some restrictions on level/magic item use, but I want consistentcy, not just one thing called out.
One of our goals in 4th Edition was to reduce characters’ reliance on magic items. ... If you’re 9th level, we expect you to have a set of +2 armor, and the challenges in the game at that level are balanced accordingly.Hmm. Well, it sounds like you're still reliant on magic items. And that list of item his gnome has? It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas...
Yeah I always ran my games a little less monty hall, you be lucky to have half what that 11th gnome has in my game...
|
|
Rings only available at 11th level...garbage. If they want to retain game balance and dictate how the DM should handle this, then I think they should have a better mechanic, such as how powerful the specific item is rather than the object (ring) it is. Why single out rings only. I wouldn't mind seeing some restrictions on level/magic item use, but I want consistentcy, not just one thing called out.
This is the one part of the entire article that really had me scratching my head. I didn't think that magic rings were that big of a problem. Hasn't the rule always been 2 rings total (unless you have a Hand of Glory, of course, but that only provides for one more). In my opinion, this just seems like one more "change it just because we can" rule and not something that needed to be changed.
Contributor
|
There was an article, long ago, about how Chris Sims had to do some extra work to translate his gnome character Dessin over to the 4E platest game. I believe in the same group someone had to change their psion into a wizard, but continued to call him a psion. I wouldn't read anything into the gnome thing except that it's his real character's equipment list.
My generousity varies by group size. The bigger the group, the less each person needed. I DM a 3 person group of 11th level characters and I'd say our magic list is about the same in item number but not necessarily power. I'm 11th level and the only weapon I have is a +1 dagger. Some of the other items are better of coarse. The difference is that I don't advance characters at the rate in the Players Handbook. Mine is much closer to 1st edition. I think magic item dispersement should be more of a DM thing than a hard and fast rule. Overall, I prefer less importance on magic items. There are many other factors to be included with magic item dispersement. For example:
1. Personnal preference
2. Campaign length
3. Group size
This is the one part of the entire article that really had me scratching my head. I didn't think that magic rings were that big of a problem. Hasn't the rule always been 2 rings total (unless you have a Hand of Glory, of course, but that only provides for one more). In my opinion, this just seems like one more "change it just because we can" rule and not something that needed to be changed.
I wouldn't mind seeing some restrictions on level/magic item use, but I want consistentcy, not just one thing called out.
Yea, I wish that when they do this kinda stuff....they would bother to explain WHY!!!!!!!! Might improve their image a bit. Did they make rings the "all powerful magic item" for some reason or what? Do they have any idea what these open ended statements do for those of us not in the know how?
Can you wear the ring? The magic however does not turn on until your 11th lvl? Now I fall like a feather?
Let me make sure I'm understanding this correctly.
- We still have slotted items, with a large number (I might say "dizzying number," but I'm not high enough level for orbitals yet) of potential slots;
- We still assume that all characters of "x" level have "y" many "+Z" to AC, saves, combat enhancement items;
- An 11th level character still has a large list of magic items owned.
OK, just wanted to make sure I understood how we were changing everything, eliminating slots, and removing reliance on magic items.
Did someone at WOTC just write the 1st draft of new items rules and post it right away, before anyone bothered to check what they'd already claimed to be doing? I am STILL convinced that they're frantically trying to throw together 4.0 right now, as we speak. Every time they get a new idea for a rule, they post about it. All this stuff about "playtesting" means they just chuck these new rules into their ongoing 3.5 game as they come up with them.
Weird design decisions.
Owell, I'll stick with having rings at any level I damn well please, thank you.
I find it terribly disappointing to see a large list of magic items possessed by a character at level 11. I hope that isn’t an accurate depiction of how 4th edition will really work. I was looking forward to a substantial reduction of the PCs reliance upon magic items in 4e. I guess I'll have to look up Iron Heroes after all.
Well, so much for that whole "certainly they wouldn't make magic item levels mean that you couldn't use them below a certain level" train of thought.
Alright, to be fair, they did not say that leveled items won't function for characters that are too low level to match them, and I'm not implying that they are going with this model. However, it is clear that at least some magic items will not function under a certain level in 4th edition.
|
|
Rings only available at 11th level...garbage. If they want to retain game balance and dictate how the DM should handle this, then I think they should have a better mechanic, such as how powerful the specific item is rather than the object (ring) it is. Why single out rings only. I wouldn't mind seeing some restrictions on level/magic item use, but I want consistency, not just one thing called out.
I agree!
Rings are not the items that everyone 'has' to have...
Anyways... I don't see the difference really with what was in MIC.
(I also don't like certain slot being specific effects... lame.)
What happened to the big bad Christmas Tree Syndrome? That was the only good thing I heard about 4e, that they were reducing the dependance on magic items. Not to mention that for some reason, sheilds dont give you AC. That was a big thing, when at low levels you had to decide weather to weild two-handed and do damage, or carry a sheild and stay alive. I'm getting Iron Heroes, mostly because it costs less than all new books that dont fix the problems.
This may be out of place, but the new planes SUCK. Demons can be intelligent - my players are heading to the abyss soon, and they will meet some evil, evil tricks. 5 planes is like the cliffs notes for Charlottes Web.
Rings only available at 11th level...garbage. If they want to retain game balance and dictate how the DM should handle this, then I think they should have a better mechanic, such as how powerful the specific item is rather than the object (ring) it is. Why single out rings only. I wouldn't mind seeing some restrictions on level/magic item use, but I want consistency, not just one thing called out.I agree!
Rings are not the items that everyone 'has' to have...
Anyways... I don't see the difference really with what was in MIC.(I also don't like certain slot being specific effects... lame.)
I REALLY hate reading up on 4th edition. The more I know of it, the less I like it... showing that ignorance may, indeed, be bliss.
Of course that blissful ignorance would melt into sputtering anger soon after I bought the core books (based upon the D&D title slapped on the covers) and saw the lame attempt by D&D's new team of designers to make D&D "cool" and "relevant".
So, is ANY publisher working on a slightly cleaned up version of 3.5? Anyone? PLEASE?!?!
|
His stuff at 11th level-
Implement: +3 rod of dark reward
Armor: +3 leather armor
Neck: +2 cloak of survival
Arms: Bracers of the perfect shot
Feet: Wavestrider boots
Hands: Shadowfell gloves
Head: Diadem of acuity
Rings: None right now, sadly
Waist: Belt of battle
Wondrous Items: Bag of holding
My stuff at 9th level(for my dwarven duskblade)-
Implement: +1 Dwarven Waraxe w/Lesser crystal of energy assault
Armor: +1 Breastplate w/Crystal of arrow deflection (+2 ac vs.ranged)
Neck: +1 Amulet of natural armor
Arms: +1 Variable shield
Feet: Acrobat Boots
Hands: None right now, sadly
Head: Headband of intellect +4
Rings: Ring of Silent Spells
Waist: Healing Belt
Wondrous Items: Everful mug, Everlasting rations
......................Seems the same to me except his guy has a +3 weapon, +3 armor, +2 cloak...... Lessening the reliance on magic items?!?
I don't see it. Rename the same stuff and call it different, the public will fall for it!
Must...resist...the urge...to rant...
More 4e doubletalk. It's all crap. Nothing new here.
(See? I resisted! Aren't you proud?)
Yes Bubba....but the bad news is I left a post on Canonfire as well. Can you resist it twice? I think not.....You shall cave in to your inner rage!
|
|
The impression I got from the article was not so much that they were trying to reduce reliance on magic items (clearly not the case, given that the example had an item in each slot) but to increase the diversity of choice - i.e. not every fighter has to have the same set of core gear to be effective. Frankly, that seems a good idea to me, but it is hardly the radical Iron Heroes-type departure a lot of us thought was implied.
Must...resist...the urge...to rant...
More 4e doubletalk. It's all crap. Nothing new here.
(See? I resisted! Aren't you proud?)
I'm proud of you, bubbagump. I'm trying real hard to do the same and now I have your sterling example to look to. Thanks for your assistance in keeping me away from spewing vile reality into this delusional piece of gorgon offal.
Oops. So much for not ranting. Ah well, it's a minor rant, at least. With apologies to those offended by that bit.
To be fair, we don't know what the magic items do. But really, he's decked out decently: better than my monk was at that level (and for 4 levels after), better than my changeling ranger is now (but that's only level 7), comparable to my heavy artillery drow wizardess from years ago. Without knowing what his stuff does, it's hard to say if the character meets the goal of having things besides the standard enhancements. Does that cloak add to Survival skill rolls, AC, saves, or what?
Also, can anyone find the statement that said they wanted us to be less reliant on magic items and/or less like Christmas trees? I like rubbing people's noses in their own statements so a link or direction would be nice. If we can't find it, then maybe we're all overreacting. Or inept at internet searches.
Finally, what kept us from having magic items that did more than buff us to begin with? Game design. Either the way higher-level encounters were designed, or the magic items designed. Some efforts have been made to address this in 3.5. The MIC has plenty of stuff that isn't strictly an enhancement bonus in cloth. You can add those bonuses to existing items as well. In the end, though, was that message not clear enough or were high level critters still too tough to survive in 3.5 w/o those bonuses? This playtest character is armed with all sorts of stuff, presenting to us the idea that the PCs will still need lots of magic to survive. Not explicitly stated, but implied.
So much for not ranting. I at least tried to return to logic/common sense and civility.
With such a emphasis on body slot area I can easily picture people thinking they have to fill every slot....that was something I didn't care for. Perhaps I'm wrong, I know the body slots have been there for awhile, this just seems to bring them to the forefront more, especially when the dictate that this type of magic relates to that body area, etc.
With such a emphasis on body slot area I can easily picture people thinking they have to fill every slot....that was something I didn't care for. Perhaps I'm wrong, I know the body slots have been there for awhile, this just seems to bring them to the forefront more, especially when the dictate that this type of magic relates to that body area, etc.
Also think about this: we now have fewer slots, so there may be the view that you really have to choose between items in a slot since you have less slots (imagine choosing between an amulet of natural armor and a cloak of resistance).
Except there will be no amulet of natural armour or cloak of resistance.
True. But I'm willing to bet there will items we all want and will have a tougher time choosing between. That problem happens in higher-level play now within my group: amulet of mighty fists or amulet of natural armor, for example. I'm not opposed to fewer slots overall, despite the choices for combination (at least that shoulders/throat slot). I wish they'd explained more about how this series of changes is going to produce fewer Christmas trees or how much less needful it is to have a mound of enhancement bonuses, but I suppose we'd need the crew who's doing the monster design for that.
I'm all for downsizing the emphasis on magic items vs. characters, and maybe limiting body slots and designating types of magic with these slots was their solution, but it seems like it will create a vaccum of power play to me. Wow, I have only "x" amount of slots (in other words magic items I can wear at one time) therefore I need the biggest and baddest things I can get my hands on. Does anyone else see this point of view or am I looking at it the wrong way?
Not to mention there is now a tactical disadvantage.
If I detect magic on your necklace, I know it improves your Saves.
On you Headband, I know it enhances your mind or senses.
Wow....good point. I played with a lot of people and I know some that would exploit this....
I'm all for downsizing the emphasis on magic items vs. characters, and maybe limiting body slots and designating types of magic with these slots was their solution, but it seems like it will create a vaccum of power play to me. Wow, I have only "x" amount of slots (in other words magic items I can wear at one time) therefore I need the biggest and baddest things I can get my hands on. Does anyone else see this point of view or am I looking at it the wrong way?
I'm with you on this one, Eileen. I see this as no different really from what's going on now but with fewer slots for it. The difference I see is that enhancement bonuses won't be available or will be scarcer as far as options go.
I'm with you on this one, Eileen. I see this as no different really from what's going on now but with fewer slots for it. The difference I see is that enhancement bonuses won't be available or will be scarcer as far as options go.
I wouldn't mind seeing enhancement bonus drop in importance or effect. Apparently they are removing the shield enhancement bonus (the only thing that seems weird about that is they kept enhancement bonus for armor). I would like a game with less "my character has +5 this and +4 that". I seen a lot of folks measure the quality of their characters this way and it becomes little more than a rat race for the most powerful bonuses.
In regards to other types of magic, I want more of a random feel to it. Gee...what do you think these gloves do? Not the "Well they are either ...
1. Gloves of...
2. Gloves of...
3. Gloces of...
or they could be
4. Gloves of..."
effect.
I wouldn't mind seeing enhancement bonus drop in importance or effect. Apparently they are removing the shield enhancement bonus (the only thing that seems weird about that is they kept enhancement bonus for armor).
My guess is that shields will fill a different role, perhaps negating an attack or partially negating damage from an attack. Kind of like some alternate systems (Or Chaosium) where armor didn't reduce the chance to hit someone, but it definitely reduced the amount of damage that they took.
While I seriously expect WotC to have failed utterly in their claim to have reduced the Christmas Tree effect, there is one thing I would like to point out:
The idea of various body slots having affinities for certain bonuses and effects is definitely not new to 4E.
Examples:
DMG 3.5, Page 288:
Body Slot: Affinity
Headband, helmet: Mental improvement, ranged attacks
Hat: Interaction
Phylactery: Morale, alignment
Eye lenses, goggles: Vision
Cloak, cape, mantle: Transformation, protection
Amulet, brooch, medallion, necklace, periapt, scarab: Protection, discernment
Robe: Multiple effects
Shirt: Physical improvement
Vest, vestment: Class ability improvement
Bracers: Combat
Bracelets: Allies
Gloves: Quickness
Gauntlets: Destructive power
Belt: Physical improvement
Boots: Movement
It does seem, however, that slot affinities are a recent invention. I looked through my AD&D 1st and 2nd ed DMGs and couldn't find anything of the sort (nor could I find anything about designing your own items, as 3.5 does).
I'm all for downsizing the emphasis on magic items vs. characters, and maybe limiting body slots and designating types of magic with these slots was their solution, but it seems like it will create a vaccum of power play to me. Wow, I have only "x" amount of slots (in other words magic items I can wear at one time) therefore I need the biggest and baddest things I can get my hands on. Does anyone else see this point of view or am I looking at it the wrong way?
It's been made obvious many times, 4th Edition is geared towards and designed to attract the new "target audience" for D&D. That very audience also plays nothing but World of Warcraft, Final Fantasy XI, DDO: Stormreach, and many other MMORPGs where this sort of trend is both common and acceptable.
Want to gain millions of customers, make it more like an MMORPG, streamline the rules, put in cool powers and cool gadgets and BOOM you just gained profit!
I just personally can't stand how much WotC is defending all of this and trying to actually make us believe none of the material in 4th Edition has any resemblance to video games when any one from age 10+ can easily see right through that.
11th character
Implement: +3 rod of dark reward
Armor: +3 leather armor
Neck: +2 cloak of survival
Arms: Bracers of the perfect shot
Feet: Wavestrider boots
Hands: Shadowfell gloves
Head: Diadem of acuity
Rings: None right now, sadly
Waist: Belt of battle
Wondrous Items: Bag of holding
21st Level character
Implement: +8 Staff of Unholy power!
Armor: +8 leather armor
Neck: +6 cloak of survival
Arms: Bracers of the killing shot
Feet: Roadrunner boots of speed
Hands: Demonlord gloves of power
Head: Diadem of sensory perfection
Rings: Ring ofThe Ancient Red Dragon, Ring of Resurrection
Waist: Belt of Magni
Wondrous Items: Bag of Anything*(What ever I need or want is in this bag!)
I don't play video games (other than chess and spider solitare on the computer) so I have to take everyone's word for it about the video gamey feel. I do agree with it by the way, it really does come across this way though. Somehow I doubt these folks will stand the test of time in their game design. New people will move in, the old will move out. I prefer the old days when the who's who of RPG design was more static. Not a flash in the pan.
What is driving me insane is this:
Rings don't work until 11th level
WHAT!?
So let me get this straight: WotC, and even TSR, has highly discouraged METAGAMING and, thus, effects that rely on something abstract (class and levels, for example) is not allowed at all.
Yet here we have something very abstract being implemented in 4th Edition and the metagame-stench just reeks. Every ring automatically detects when you reach 11th-level? What exactly is 11th-level in a fantasy world? Does a ring say,"Hm, this person is very strong, let me suddenly give him/her/it my powers." or "Nope, this fortunate commoner found me in a stream and is, well, a simple farmer. So, no, my power does not work for him."
It just doesn't make any sense. And, think of the PCs abuse of this:
PLAYER: "Hey guys, every NPC we beat up or meet let's have them wear this ring! If it works, we know they're higher than 10th-level!"\
Ridiculous
Slot affinites make sense up to a point (there is no "gauntlets of striding and springing") but restricting it to a single bonus like that is just dumb. WoTC loses more and more of my respect with each passing day... although its really Hasboro's fault. All their doing is slash and burn marketing.
11th character
Implement: +3 rod of dark reward
Armor: +3 leather armor
Neck: +2 cloak of survival
Arms: Bracers of the perfect shot
Feet: Wavestrider boots
Hands: Shadowfell gloves
Head: Diadem of acuity
Rings: None right now, sadly
Waist: Belt of battle
Wondrous Items: Bag of holding21st Level character
Implement: +8 Staff of Unholy power!
Armor: +8 leather armor
Neck: +6 cloak of survival
Arms: Bracers of the killing shot
Feet: Roadrunner boots of speed
Hands: Demonlord gloves of power
Head: Diadem of sensory perfection
Rings: Ring ofThe Ancient Red Dragon, Ring of Resurrection
Waist: Belt of Magni
Wondrous Items: Bag of Anything*(What ever I need or want is in this bag!)
Is it a big bag or a little bag? A red bag or a blue bag? Paper or plastic?
This came up in passing on the D&D podcast. There are no magic items that give flat bonuses to base stats. Why? Because if there are, there won't be any other items you can justify putting in that slot, because it simply won't be as useful. And oh man, is that ever true. Imagine, wizards can now wear hats and clerics can now wear amulets!
I'm all for downsizing the emphasis on magic items vs. characters, and maybe limiting body slots and designating types of magic with these slots was their solution, but it seems like it will create a vaccum of power play to me. Wow, I have only "x" amount of slots (in other words magic items I can wear at one time) therefore I need the biggest and baddest things I can get my hands on. Does anyone else see this point of view or am I looking at it the wrong way?
But... but that's how it works right now! That's the only reason why the Hand of Glory exists, and that's not even a recent item!
While I seriously expect WotC to have failed utterly in their claim to have reduced the Christmas Tree effect, there is one thing I would like to point out:
The idea of various body slots having affinities for certain bonuses and effects is definitely not new to 4E.
Examples:
DMG 3.5, Page 288:
Body Slot: Affinity
Headband, helmet: Mental improvement, ranged attacks
Hat: Interaction
Phylactery: Morale, alignment
Eye lenses, goggles: Vision
Cloak, cape, mantle: Transformation, protection
Amulet, brooch, medallion, necklace, periapt, scarab: Protection, discernment
Robe: Multiple effects
Shirt: Physical improvement
Vest, vestment: Class ability improvement
Bracers: Combat
Bracelets: Allies
Gloves: Quickness
Gauntlets: Destructive power
Belt: Physical improvement
Boots: MovementIt does seem, however, that slot affinities are a recent invention. I looked through my AD&D 1st and 2nd ed DMGs and couldn't find anything of the sort (nor could I find anything about designing your own items, as 3.5 does).
Yes, but PCs didn't need to worry about filling up all the slots. Especially when some magic items accomplished more than one thing simultaneously such as granting a saving throw bonus AND increasing an ability score.
Also, you are allowed to have magic items that do not follow the normal affinities. The market price just doubles, which seems very fair and legit to me. Can't have PCs powergaming or doing silly stuff like "Hats of Strength +6" now.