As I understand that magic item slots have been removed, so can we wear multiple belts say, or multiple hats, that sort of thing? I would like a page reference not opinions if possible. Thank you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Page 345:
If an item’s Method of Use entry says only “worn” and isn’t followed by a given type of item, a character can wear any number of that item. For instance, a character can wear any number of rings, so the entry for a ring would list only “worn.” However, if a character can wear only one of a given type of item, that item’s form is listed following the word “worn.” For example, if the Method of Use entry for an item is “worn, cloak,” then a character could wear only one cloak.
Personally, I'm going to house rule to ignore that and say you can wear as many magic items as the overal limit allows, I've no problem with someone wearing 8 belts, or 4 hats, 3 cloaks, or 2 pairs of boots. It seems like there's no value in balancing items against each other via if you equip a [foo] you can't also equip a [bar] and "the mental image of that is ridiculous" is probably enough of a cap on any one kind of item.
Things that you can't wear more than one of it would seem:
"garment" (robes + Inexplicable Apparatus will exclude one another)
"shoes"
"armor"
"circlet"
"mask"
"backpack"
"horseshoes"
"gloves"
"headwear" (not explicitly exclusionary of circlets)
"collar"
"eyepeice"
"belt"
"cloak" (not explicitly exclusionary of robes I guess)
"bracers"
"barding"
This brings an interesting issue with regards to the etching of magic armor runes (+1, 2, etc.) onto Elven Chain/Mithral chain shirt: you can't. If you make a chain shirt out of Mithral though then you can.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm confused. I thought the resonance system was supposed to replace slots.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm confused. I thought the resonance system was supposed to replace slots.
It feels like that is where they started but someone raised the objection "okay what about wearing two different pairs of boots at once" and the reaction was "well, sure, that doesn't make sense, but we can't have a rule just for boots..." and eventually they ended up in a system where descriptive text (a la "this is a belt") is just recreating the bad old item slot system.
Like there's nothing weird about wearing a skullcap under your helmet and you could put a crown or a hat on top of that, or wearing several belts. So I'm inclined to just say that if the magic boots you took off a dead gnome can expand to fit the feet of your Shaq sized half-orc, then magic boots can serve as overshoes.
It seems like there's no value in balancing items against each other via if you equip a [foo] you can't also equip a [bar] and "the mental image of that is ridiculous" is probably enough of a cap on any one kind of item.
<widley off topic>Were you by any chance a student of KTH, Stockolm? Or is the use of the terms Foo and Bar much more widely used than I supposed?
</widley off topic>
It seems like there's no value in balancing items against each other via if you equip a [foo] you can't also equip a [bar] and "the mental image of that is ridiculous" is probably enough of a cap on any one kind of item.<widley off topic>Were you by any chance a student of KTH, Stockolm? Or is the use of the terms Foo and BAr much more widely used than I supposed?
</widley off topic>
They are very commonly used words. Almost anyone with a programming background would have heard of them.
It seems like there's no value in balancing items against each other via if you equip a [foo] you can't also equip a [bar] and "the mental image of that is ridiculous" is probably enough of a cap on any one kind of item.<widley off topic>Were you by any chance a student of KTH, Stockolm? Or is the use of the terms Foo and BAr much more widely used than I supposed?
</widley off topic>They are very commonly used words. Almost anyone with a programming background would have heard of them.
I must admit that I am not used to seeing them as separate words. I am more used to seeing them combined into a single word, with "foo" spelled "fu".
I'm confused. I thought the resonance system was supposed to replace slots.It feels like that is where they started but someone raised the objection "okay what about wearing two different pairs of boots at once" and the reaction was "well, sure, that doesn't make sense, but we can't have a rule just for boots..." and eventually they ended up in a system where descriptive text (a la "this is a belt") is just recreating the bad old item slot system.
Like there's nothing weird about wearing a skullcap under your helmet and you could put a crown or a hat on top of that, or wearing several belts. So I'm inclined to just say that if the magic boots you took off a dead gnome can expand to fit the feet of your Shaq sized half-orc, then magic boots can serve as overshoes.
The distinction seems to be that some items have slot related keywords beyond "worn" and others don't. You can wear any number of items without slot related keywords as long as you have the resonance to invest in them, but you can wear no more than one of any item with one of the keywords in Kerx's post.
What the Resonance system does here is give you a reason not to try to fill every slot.
I must admit that I am not used to seeing them as separate words. I am more used to seeing them combined into a single word, with "foo" spelled "fu".
So FUBAR is originally a military slang acronym (as is SNAFU) circa WWII, but the metasyntactic variables have traditionally been Foo, Bar, Baz, Qux, Quux, Grault, Garply, Waldo, Fred, Plugh, xyzzy, etc. just as placeholder names in programming or pseudocode.
It's hard to trace the origins of this, since it comes from the dusty halls of some math department before CS was its own thing, but it's suspected that the first two being foo and bar are from a bowdlerized version of FUBAR (the F is an obscenity, you know which one.)