WotC: Souldn't Magic Items Be Classified By Function?

[The Little Raven]

If you can somehow nick a ranger's two-weapon fighting ability (sigh), can you use a +3 wand in each hand? Do they stack? Can you cast multiple spells? The ranger can make multiple attacks, after all...

Since two weapon fighting covers melee attacks with two weapons, I don't see how it could apply to casting two spells, since spells aren't melee attacks... they're spells. It's just like a two-weapon wielder can't wield two bows at once, because two-weapon fighting is built for melee combat, not ranged or spell combat.

 

[Sphyre]

I suspect form will determine function. If they determine invisibility is provided by cloaks, I doubt a ring of invisibility will exist.

People are judging the 4E article through 3E glasses. I suspect that article is just the tip of the iceberg and we haven't seen the deeper changes yet.

This is how I see it.

In fact, they have said all items of a certain level cost the same price, and that's their balancing factor. This is what it looks like 4e uses:

• Each Magic item has a level.
• All items of a given level cost the same amount.
• Magic item's abilities are assigned a level.
• The slot is determined by the what the item's ability is.

 

[maggot]

Boots of intelligence are just a lame metagame creation necessitated by 3e's CTE balancing.

CTE? Coefficient of Thermal Expansion? Commitment to Excellence?

 

[Voss]

Actually, two weapon fighting works just fine for two one handed ranged weapons. Or at least it used to. Combine it with quick draw and you can hurl as many daggers (or whatever) as you have attacks, including the off hand attacks.

But if spellcasters are really comparable to the chumps, why wouldn't they be able to pull of multiple spells, particular the at will ones?

 

[Zimri]

Well, here's a question. If you can somehow nick a ranger's two-weapon fighting ability (sigh), can you use a +3 wand in each hand? Do they stack? Can you cast multiple spells? The ranger can make multiple attacks, after all...

If you're using a +3 sword in each hand do you add +6 ? Currently in 3.x ? Has anything remotely close to an answer to this been hinted at by a wotc insider for 4e ? Do we know what penalties the ranger gets for twf ? is casting 2 spells the equivalent of using 2 weapons, or is the magus really the weapon ? how much "concentration" or "force of will" is required to tell reality to sit down and shut up vs swinging a sharp pointy slashy thing vs shooting a bow or crossbow ?

 

[The Little Raven]

CTE? Coefficient of Thermal Expansion? Commitment to Excellence?

Christmas Tree Effect. Someone else coined the acronym on another thread.

 

[The Little Raven]

Actually, two weapon fighting works just fine for two one handed ranged weapons. Or at least it used to. Combine it with quick draw and you can hurl as many daggers (or whatever) as you have attacks, including the off hand attacks.

Well, that's only because thrown weapons are an explicitly named exception in the Two-Weapon Fighting rules.

But if spellcasters are really comparable to the chumps, why wouldn't they be able to pull of multiple spells, particular the at will ones?

Because, again, Two-Weapon Fighting is focused on melee combat (with an exception for throwing weapons only). Spells are still not melee weapons or thrown weapons, they're magical spells.

 

[delericho]

Well, that's only because thrown weapons are an explicitly named exception in the Two-Weapon Fighting rules.

No, they're not.

The reason Two-weapon Fighting doesn't allow you to use two bows is that a bow requires two hands to use. Even crossbows can be fired (but not loaded) with one hand, and a character can use two if he so chooses.

 

[delericho]

Well, here's a question. If you can somehow nick a ranger's two-weapon fighting ability (sigh), can you use a +3 wand in each hand? Do they stack? Can you cast multiple spells? The ranger can make multiple attacks, after all...

Very unlikely. Firstly, in 3e, casting a spell requires a free hand (for most spells, anyway), and so a character wouldn't be able to do so and hold two wands. Secondly, the wands will almost certainly provide enhancement bonuses, and I would be very surprised if they don't keep the rule that bonuses of the same type don't stack. (If they do get rid of this rule, I still expect them to explicitly state that identical bonuses don't stack.)

Plus, a spell isn't an attack. There isn't really a concept of a "full spellcasting" action, although perhaps there should be.

 

[jaer]

Actually, two weapon fighting works just fine for two one handed ranged weapons. Or at least it used to. Combine it with quick draw and you can hurl as many daggers (or whatever) as you have attacks, including the off hand attacks.

But if spellcasters are really comparable to the chumps, why wouldn't they be able to pull of multiple spells, particular the at will ones?

Because despite having 2 hands, the wizard only has 1 mouth.

And even if they don't need to speak the words to a spell, one brain with which to alter the laws of physics and bend reality to their will. That seems like it requires a little more concentration then swinging two swords, but that could just be me.