Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hella_Tellah" data-source="post: 4046579" data-attributes="member: 52669">He says without ever seeing 4th edition magic items.&nbsp; Consider this: a hypothetical warlock can use an eldritch blast at will and deal 3d6 damage at the cost of a standard action.&nbsp; He then gets a magic item that allows him to produce a blast of fire that deals 2d6 damage as a standard action.&nbsp; Now, if that 2d6 fire damage item's level is the same as the level at which the warlock's eldritch blast improves to 3d6, he's exactly as powerful as he was before, numerically.&nbsp; He just has the option of using fire instead, and it's not even optimal in most situations.&nbsp; He's a little more effective against white dragons, but not so much that you'll need to completely scrap the CR system.It's really easy to dream up magic items that don't have a strong net effect on character power; they just need a suitable drawback.&nbsp; Luckily, having an item cost an action is a perfectly scaled drawback, because the item has opportunity cost built in.&nbsp; The character can either use a standard-action power, or she can use the item, and if the item is a little bit weaker than a standard-action power, it won't have a strong impact on balance.The items you referenced above weren't designed to be power neutral; they were designed to compete with other magic items commonly used in those slots at those prices.&nbsp; They were designed for 3rd edition, a game in which all magic items are expected to increase character power, and in which all characters are expected to absolutely drip with magic items.&nbsp; We have no reason to think 4th edition magic items will be anything like that.&nbsp; In fact, the <a href="http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20080123" target="_blank">preview article</a>&nbsp; we saw suggests the opposite.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hella_Tellah, post: 4046579, member: 52669"] He says without ever seeing 4th edition magic items. Consider this: a hypothetical warlock can use an eldritch blast at will and deal 3d6 damage at the cost of a standard action. He then gets a magic item that allows him to produce a blast of fire that deals 2d6 damage as a standard action. Now, if that 2d6 fire damage item's level is the same as the level at which the warlock's eldritch blast improves to 3d6, he's exactly as powerful as he was before, numerically. He just has the option of using fire instead, and it's not even optimal in most situations. He's a little more effective against white dragons, but not so much that you'll need to completely scrap the CR system. It's really easy to dream up magic items that don't have a strong net effect on character power; they just need a suitable drawback. Luckily, having an item cost an action is a perfectly scaled drawback, because the item has opportunity cost built in. The character can either use a standard-action power, or she can use the item, and if the item is a little bit weaker than a standard-action power, it won't have a strong impact on balance. The items you referenced above weren't designed to be power neutral; they were designed to compete with other magic items commonly used in those slots at those prices. They were designed for 3rd edition, a game in which all magic items are expected to increase character power, and in which all characters are expected to absolutely drip with magic items. We have no reason to think 4th edition magic items will be anything like that. In fact, the [URL=http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20080123]preview article[/URL] we saw suggests the opposite. [/QUOTE]

Verification