Nitpick: Neck is the same as cape

[Albion72]

Just a nitpick. It would be nice to be able to wear an amulet as well as a cape. 

 

Discuss?

 

Albion

[Zorfab]

It is not an oversight, but a deliberately made choice. Not that I disagree with you, but it is what it is. I have no idea if the game actually broke if people could wear amulets and cloaks simultaneously, but given how the game prunes bonuses that overlap... Probably not.

[Dravin84]

I'd be nice. Given it's a design decision (much like only being able to wear two rings) I can live with it even though there have been moments when I wistfully wished it was otherwise.

[justicar347]

It is a bit annoying when you want a cape for your character so they look the way you want. Then again, I'm not exactly wowed by the cape graphic.

[Emptiness]

If they add the ability to transfer enchantments from an item to another item for the same slot then this won't be an issue.

[Marceror]

Would like the option for both items to be equipped, largely because few of my party members end up with capes due to me seeming to find better neck items.

 

I'd rather have them all in capes, since, of course adventurers are going to have capes on.

[Peanuckle]

An amulet, cape, ten rings, ten toe rings, another ring someplace else, earrings, eyebrow studs, gold teeth, tattoos, subdermal implants...

 

You gotta draw the line somewhere.

[Marceror]

An amulet, cape, ten rings, ten toe rings, another ring someplace else, earrings, eyebrow studs, gold teeth, tattoos, subdermal implants...

 

You gotta draw the line somewhere.

The IE line works well for me. Which is pretty much identical to PoE, except for the combining of the cloak slot and amulet slot.

 

Of course, the grimoire slot and the pet slot are new.

[MLMII]

Personally I'd be happy with a toggle for a purely cosmetic cape and then morph the current capes into "amulets".

[Volourn]

It's a silly design decision that has to have been done because of 'engine limitations'. Surely, having a cape and a necklace wouldn't be unbalancing. I udnerstand not having 10 rings as that is silly to begin with. L0L Just one of many WTF decisions for an otherwise decent game.

[Luckmann]

An amulet, cape, ten rings, ten toe rings, another ring someplace else, earrings, eyebrow studs, gold teeth, tattoos, subdermal implants...

 

You gotta draw the line somewhere.

 

This is true. You do have to draw the line somewhere. But it just feels really odd to draw that line at two different items. Limited to one ring per hand? Sure, just to avoid the ridiculousness of 10 rings. But Cloak overlapping with Necklace? Eh.. can't see why.

 

It's going to be arbitrary either way, there's no real "objective case" to be made here, but it doesn't sit well with a lot of us.

[gkathellar]

My sense is that they just wanted to portray both as a "neck" slot, since most cloaks do clasp around the neck.

 

It's pretty arbitrary, but then again, so is the other way. I could live with cloaks being strictly cosmetic, though - it would let me keep on my backer cloak, and keep Eder with his Eothasian cloak. I'd like that.

[Hassat Hunter]

Definitely the oddest item-choice.

 

Dungeon Siege had 4 rings IIRC, which was kinda cool. But as expected, rings generally gave tinier bonusses to compensate for it's slots.

 

I would be all for splitting them, as I also think there are few good cloaks but plenty of good necklaces.

[Starwars]

I would defintely want one slot for amulets and one for cloaks.

[Mungri]

2 rings per hand and seperate cloak and amulet slots!

[Ink Blot]

Since properties from items don't stack, I don't see why there aren't separate slots, although I guess you might be able to powergame some separate properties, causing the downfall of civilization as we know it, degenerative gameplay, and general anarchy. But yeah, I'd like to see separate slots as well.

It's going to be arbitrary either way, there's no real "objective case" to be made here, but it doesn't sit well with a lot of us.

 

I guess if there's any objective angle at all, it's that the IE games had separate slots, so...

[PitchBlackYeti]

I agree it's dumb to have to choose between an amulet and a cloak. It's like having to choose between gloves and boots. If I had to guess the reason behind this I'd vote engine limitations.

[illathid]

My sense is that they just wanted to portray both as a "neck" slot, since most cloaks do clasp around the neck.

 

It's pretty arbitrary, but then again, so is the other way. I could live with cloaks being strictly cosmetic, though - it would let me keep on my backer cloak, and keep Eder with his Eothasian cloak. I'd like that.

This. It probably had less to do with engine imitations and more to do with GUI space.

[Hassat Hunter]

It's not like they need a pet slot, wasted space on all other characters.

GUI space would be the silliest of reasons IMO.

[nomak]

Just my thoughts...

 

...add "show cape" option to the settings and delete necklaces from the game (since both necklaces and capes replaces each other/occupy same slot).

 

In addition add "show helm" option as well as some helms are really ugly.

[Slapstick87]

I agree. Not because I want to wear an extra magical item, but because I want a cape regardless of itemization concerns. I'M A HERO, GIVE ME MY CAPE! :D

[Lady Evenstar]

Separate slots. If they're concerned about the effect on balance, make cloaks non-enchantable (like hats).

[stadi]

My ranger sucks without a cape. He's wearing the Stalker's Torc amulet because it seems to be a good ranger item, but now no cape...

[Rosveen]

I'll trade the pet slot for two neck slots.

[mystang89]

Just wanted to say I agree with the OP. I funds it kinda annoying.