Ok, Bubba, I shall begin by reposting my previous converstations so as to better re-read and locate discussion. For anyone just joining us, this is a discussion Bubba and I started on a 4th edition thread which took a curve. We decided to continue the conversation here as a result of it was sidetracking the previous thread and although the topic of discussion is for consideration in my World of Greyhawk, it is otherwise not really Greyhawk speciifc, thus we back alleyed it. Feel free to read through the posts and throw your 2 cents in.
The Original Post:
Ok, in D&D we have body slots which though they have been in the game for many years are drawing some attention in the 4th edition rules. I however, have had some different ideas which I have considered over the past several years and would like to take the opportunity to present them for discussion.
In the basic D&D system, magic items are fairly plentiful. Just open up any module and you'll find quite a bit. Now I have never gotten hung up on the idea that you have to have "x" amount of magic by this level or at this level, you need this much magic wealth. If anything, I have taken the approach that I don't want PCs getting more magic than I want distributed within the campaign. So with this in mind, here's my discussion.
Has anyone ever toyed with the idea of making most magical items unique? I'm not talking about potions or scrolls, but I am talking about magical armor or weapons with special effects, or misc. magic, that sort of thing. I haven't done this, but I have considered it over the past several years. I certainly don't have a sound idea of how this work and the overall impact it would have on the game. But here's what I'm thinking at this point in time. The reason behind this concept isn't because there is anything wrong with magic items in the game, it would be to strictly give the game world a unique flavor.
1. Magic items being unique are going to much rarer. Does everything have a magic property in order to be different? What would we do with +1 weapon for example, give each weapon a special bonus so it is unique? Allow simple +1 weapons in the game, and anything greater such as a +2 weapon has a special property of some kind, thus making these items unique.
2. Would we have to keep track of these magic items so as to avoid duplication? Eventually, the PCs and NPCs would have their "x" amount of magic items most or all being unique. One would have to keep some kind of running guide as to which items have been discovered throughout a lengthy campaign.
3. One would most likely have to have some sort of strong guidline as to how much magic the DM would want to issue by various levels.
4. Treasure lairs would have to be greatly modified in order to reflect the changes in magic.
5. Justifying the change in my campaign would be easy, I have so many prophecies floating around that need to come true, this would easily solve one of them. Kinda like killing two birds with one stone. For others though, making a change of this magnitude may become more problematic if they wanted to explain the difference in mid campaign.
6. What about magic item creation and ensuring items are unique? The magical research involved before hand could reveal what magic item does or does not exist. I would suggest allow some flexibility in saying "that item doesn't exist yet, so yes you can make it". On the other hand, you don't want PCs cranking out magic items left and right because the rules changed.
7. Magic Transferance: Another thing I have considered is the idea of magic items consuming magic from another item in order to increase it's magical capabilities. In my game, the players are motivated more by roleplaying than game mechanics. Thus if one of them finds a +3 sword with "whatever" kind of properties and they already have a +2 sword which they have been using for the past few levels, they often don't want to upgrade because they look at it from the "emotional investment" of the character. "This sword has save my life more times than I can count, I am not going to trade it up for some flash in the pan snazzy new magic item that I just stumbled across." On the other hand, from a mechanic point of view there is the obvious advantage of setting aside the old blade and picking up the new one and even from the character point of view, one could have the idea of "This item is more powerful than what I have, perhaps I should be using it".
This concept has made me consider that when two magic items come into close proxiemty of one another, and some sort of magical ritual is preformed, the magic of one item is transferred into the other item. Thus the character's original magic weapon could also take on the properties of the new one found. The drained magic item becomes little more than an empty shell of a weapon.
Now this idea would be applied to most magic items, not including potions and scrolls. So for example, that cloak of elvinkind could become a +1 cloak of elvinkind.
Some rules would have to be established which would perhaps allow saving throws for the item in order for the magic transferrance to work. Perhaps it doesn't always work, maybe on occasion, both items suffer, one becomes tainted, or some other interesting gaming effect. What items are compatable with one another, which are not?
Feed back please......
_________________ _________________ Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
Last edited by EileenProphetofIstus on Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:20 pm; edited 1 time in total
Warning....another long post by Eileen....continuing the conversation of transferrance as a alternative method to magic.
The transferance idea of what I was considering is sketchy at best. As mentioned, the types of players I have would rather keep their original magic weapon or other item rather than upgrade when something with a better bonus comes along. It would also serve to reduce the number of magic items characters have. The biggest problem I see is making sure that the lesser amount of items would not become to powerful. I am picturing a method of transferance (for my world) which would be something everyone has access to. Since religion plays a big role in my campaign I would first opt to use that. As the campaign progresses however, more and more arcane people are taking a stand against this strong force of relgion, thus I would opt for them to use a different method which achieves the same goal.
The basic idea is that when an adventurer discovers a new magic item, say a +3 weapon and they already have a magic weapon of their own, they could transfer the magic from one item to another, choosing which one drains into the other. The exact ritual, magic spell, or whatever, is undetermined at this time. It is the rules I am concerned about.
I was also considering the idea that a lesser magic item could be transferred to a stronger one. Say for example, the character has a +2 sword and now finds a +1 sword. I wouldn't transfer the +1 weapon to the +2 sword and say "You now have a +3 weapon". To much for to little. I was considering an idea which requires mutiple lesser items to accumulate before the next +1 is attained. For example, maybe five +1 items will increase the +2 weapon to a +3 weapon. One could also use a combination of lower plusses to achieve the same effect. For example, if a party member already has a +4 weapon, they would have to find a +2 and three +1 weapons, or any appropriate comibination thereof. One could also say the higher the bonus your going for, the more it takes, thus attaining a +4 or +5 from magic transferance would require say +8 or +10 total bonuses.
I thought about giving the drained item a saving throw, but now as I think about it, it seems counter productive to the idea. The idea IS to get the magic to drain into the other. By giving it a saving throw and the item succeeded, thus not draining, seems odd because from the game point of view, one wants to make saves, not fail them. The idea is TO transfer, thus it seems backwards. It might be possible to have the transferance occur on a sucessful save and if failed, the magic kinda disappears and is lost forever. This might work better. It allows the desired effect to happen on a successful save and if it fails, all is lost, which is a less desireable effect. Also a failed save indicates one less magic item in the game which is good since part of the idea is to also have a unique way of reducing the overall number of magic items available.
I would expect there would have to be a cap put on the item as well. For example, using the Armor and Shields and Weapons magic item rules, items can have up to the equivelant of a +10 when considering all of the special effects put into a weapon. I see this as a good starting point for these items. For consistency, I would consider doing this for other items as well.
Using rings as an example, it is easy to picture a +1 Ring of Protection becoming a +2 Ring of Protection. But let's say one already has a +1 ring and now finds a ring of invisibility. When transfering the magic, the end result would be a +1 ring of protection which also grants invisibility. I guess I would start by making the cap a specific overall gold piece value like they did with armor/shields/weapons. Using say 100,000 gp as a cut off (just a number for the discusssion), the +1 ring of protection and invisibility would be worth 22,000 gp, leaving a remaining 78,000 gp worth of magic which could eventually be dumped into it. For rings that already have a 100,000+ gp cost, I'd say transferance cannot occur. Now one would have to decide if 100,000 is a good cap or if it should be higher or lower.
Using magic items which have little relation to one another could be harder to deal with. Let's say we have a +1 ring of protection and the adventurer finds boots of speed. Now what? Do we say "No, the items are to different and thus it doesn't work"? Do we say "It could work but will be harder to achieve because the items are very different from one another."? Do we require the basic item to be the same, such as two cloaks, two rings, two sets of footwear? Do we pick and choose if a combination of magic items is feasible? Do we modify the saving throw if the items are different yet deamed compatible?
Finally, do we give the magic item a name....that is Greyhawkish in nature. Such as "character so and so's ever acting ring" or "the Tome of Boccob's Divine Word", etc.
Also, what happens when the item is lost or gone? Does it remain the same? Does the added magic eventaully disappear and return to it's original form? It may have little consequence in the game at the time if this concept is recently introduced to the Flanaess. If a DM opted to start a new campaign and say it has always been this way, all of the sudden it does require consideration.
What about aligned magic items, how would they be affected? If an item with no alignment is drained into a LG item for example, it could take on the new magic effects with little difficulty, providing the new ability does not promote an opposed view (such as a LG sword taking on magical properties of poison for example). This becomes an issue to deal with.
As a side note, here is something I have been doing for several years already in my campaign. I like it and it works well for us. Taking the discussion above, I would want to allow the ideas to work together.
In my campaign, I have introduced the idea of divine abilities for magic items and have been using it for several years now. Essentially, the individual finds a magic item and is required by religious law (the deities) to have it dedicated and purified. Dedication is simple and ususally done on the spot providing ample time is allowed. One merely takes an oath to use the magic item in service of their god or goddess and promises to have it purified at the first available opportunity. Purification requires the character to take the item to their temple and have a cleric perform a ritual which essentially creates a magical tie to the item with the deity. After the ceremony is complete, the item makes a saving throw, if successful, it is granted a divine ability useable once per day. The specific ability is dependent upon the character level of the owner (to insure game balance) as well an ability which relates to the areas of concern of the god or goddess. For example, Eileen has a Belt of many Pouches which automatically provides the necessary components to cast a Divination spell 1/day, and she worships Istus. Currently, I allow the player to pick the divine ability desired and I as the DM approve or disapprove of the selection making sure it fits the two requirements of level and the overall focus of the deity. Other rules exist as well, such as cost, what happens when you attempt to use a non-dedicated or purified item, or what happens when you use one that is already dedicated or purified to another deity.
Would you please consider the ideas and give me some feedback. Thanks much! _________________ Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
Interesting post Bubba. I read the whole thing and will have to read it a couple of more times to absorb everything you offered. I recognize that these ideas may not be "Bubba approved" for you campaign, in part or whole, and that is ok. As mentioned, it is something I have thought about over some period of time and have yet to implement on paper. The whole thing started when the paladin expressed out of game, that the character wouldn't be happy about upgrading magical items she has had for some time now because she values her acquired possession more than new things, yet it would be nice if the game offered such playing some sort of reward. I see this as excellent character/player development (especially coming from a 15 yr. old).
The added part of divine abilities which I introduced, I have concrete rules for and have been using for a few years now. I have tweaked them over time, but found them to be rather playable for us. I didn't include much information on them because it was an after thought, plus my post was already lengthy. In short, because I have a small group, game balance isn't quite as much of an issue, since most adventures are considered for larger groups. In a nut shell, purifiying magical items and receiving a divine ability requires the cleric to have the proper feat. The PC must pay a cost to the church for attempting the ritual, regardless of whether it works or not. The whole idea is saving throw based and so as one increases in level, they are more likely to be successful. Such rules were incorporated into the campaign because my overall storyline which revolves around the Gods of Greyhawk and their relationship with mortals, and mortals view of the Gods. Essentially, all of the adventuring we do is one way or another worked into this big scope picture (similar to Dragonlance having it's own world scope).
I would be interested in considerable discussion on the issue in order to pound out some trial by error rules for my campaign. I am perfectly capable of writing my own, but in my opinion two heads are better than one. If this is of interest to you, may I suggest we start this conversation on a new thread so as to not incur the wrath of our fellow Greyhawkers. I leave that up to you. Let me know if your interested in a ongoing discussion or if you are tapped out on this one. Thanks always for your considerations. _________________ Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
Bubba, in order to get things started, I shall restate my position and goals as to why I am interested in this Magical Transferance and Divine abilities of magical items. Then I'll try and elaborate a bit.
One thing I have always liked about Greyhawk is that its a wide open slate for the DM's to fill in the blanks. This open canvess allows me to paint the type of picture or campaign I have always wanted. When Dragonlance came out, I found a certain admiration for the "entire world concept" the idea of the characters getting swept up into a global event which not only took up their adventuring careers, but defined the game world as a whole. I wanted such a development for my Greyhawk. The top of the list for me, has always been religions, so this is what I settled on. I need not go through the entire history of my development at this time (and I don't want to bore you) so I will leave it at this.....My interest in these ideas stems from that campaign.
The default rules assume characters eventually find a bigger and better magical item and replace the lesser ones acquired. With thoughts of something a bit more permanent in regards to items acquired, by observing the interests of the characters and players, and overall, wanting less magical items in the game, I came up with the idea of magical transferance. Someone mentioned that it was a commonality in fantasy fiction.....I'm sure that is true, I read non-fiction (and comics) so I don't indulge in many fantasy novels. I have no preconcieved ideas of comparison to draw from.
How these rules would work has been somewhat discussed above. I'd like some input in creating sound rules which would work for my campaign. I don't see it as a "Greyhawk thing, but rather a campaign thing". Here is what I would like the rules to support/consider at this point in time.
1. Have the system be useable for both arcane and divine oriented individuals. i'd like each to benefit from the rules, yet be handled with different fluff, but same mechanics. I am creating a large seperation between these forces (a huge war which hopefully will encompass much of the Flanaess, all religions, arcane power groups, etc. I see these rules as a part of that event as well as fulfilling fairly open ended prophecies. Magic in my campaign has become a big poitical/religious issue.
2. Reasonable limits on how much magic an item can handle. Also rules for taking a maxed out magic item and maybe draining some of the magic to make room for something else in the future. Maybe. Just thinking ahead here on this one. You know eventually, someone will mas out, and then want to drop something in order to transfer magic from a newly discovered item into that precious item of theirs. I don't want the campaign to become nothing more than super powerful magical items. One suggestion was in gold piece limit, another in XP cost. I'm thinking perhaps both. What I don't want is PCs running around with artifacts. Nope not at all.
3. Items of transferance should seem logical. For example, having a +1 sword absorb the power of cloak of elvinkind seems kinda poor to me. I'd like the characters to take weak items and incoporate a more powerful item as well as they having a more powerful item and transfering the magic of a lesser item. This transferance should be very gradual though and is a good way of eliminating pesky little items from the game which eventually accumulate in most campaigns.
4. Transferance is not always 100% guarenteed. Sometimes things go wrong. I want there to be some risk but not so much that the PCs don't want to do it.
5. How the transferance occurs from a fluff point of view. I am somewhat decided upon how it occurs from a religious point of view but undecided as far as arcane is concerned.
6. If something happened to the magical item over time, I don't think I'd want it to retain all of the properties it has accumulated. Unsure on this though. If I introduce the idea in the near future, this new method will have just started, so I don't need to worry about items from the past found in dungeons having undergone this procedure. Thus magic found will still be the standard D&D items in the books.
7. Dealing with alignment issues of magical items. As mentioned before, the house rules I have of dedicated and purified magical items bring about the alignment of the deity into it. The items do not become intelligent but they do radiate that kind of magic and it is kinda like the god placing his blessing on it.
8. I'd like to make magical items unique (for the most part). Maybe not have "X" amount of cloaks of elvinkind running around. I know this is a separate concept, but it is one of the overall goals. I'm not sold on it, it would seem kinda non D&Dish to me. But I would like to discuss it overall and see where the thoughts lead.
9. I have mentioned the house rules I use for divine abilities entered into magical items in a previous post. These rules also exist primarly to fluff the campaign. The rules are fairly sound and haven't presented any significant play problems for my campaign. I mention it because it is a related issue in regards to magic and the religious overtones of the campaign. It has also been an area of political/religious dispute with those practicing arcane magic as well.
Anyway, I'm hoping to see where we can take this. Eventually I'd like to have some workable rules I can play test in the campaign. Pick an area of five and start discussing the pros, cons, and ways we could make it happen.
Thanks! _________________ Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
Last edited by EileenProphetofIstus on Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:46 pm; edited 1 time in total
Shall we begin with the rules you've already established? I think that would be a good starting point.
Looks like you caught me in mid post. I'll stay online for awhile, can you? _________________ Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
Shall we begin with the rules you've already established? I think that would be a good starting point.
Looks like you caught me in mid post. I'll stay online for awhile, can you?
Oops. Sorry I missed that last post. That's what I get for surfing the 'net while I'm in the car, I guess.
Anyhow, I'm taking the time to give this some quality thought, so I'll post my reply in a day or two. I don't want to just send some off-the-cuff, ill-conceived claptrap that doesn't further the discussion.
Before I delve into the subject at hand I have to mention that I’ve been into long term, themed campaigns since long before APs were invented. I’ve also had an interest in Greyhawk’s religions. I’d be interested to see what you’re doing with your campaign, and if you find the time, prophet, I’d like to see how you’re developing things plot-wise.
And now for something completely different…
For those of us with a preference for low-magic campaigns there is a need for some means of restricting magic without simply leaving it out. All versions of D&D rely to some extent on magic, and it’s difficult (though not impossible) to run a campaign without supplying a steady stream of items great and small. This is especially true if one must rely on published products. An additional problem (if one can call it that) is that in supplying more powerful magic items the DM creates a glut of items that must be disposed of. The standard practice is for PCs to sell these items, but in campaigns that focus on low magic this can become problematic: what happens to all those magic items that are put on the market? Further, players like to see their magic items grow in proportion to their characters. It’s a rare player indeed who will be satisfied if his 15th level fighter is still stuck with a +1 sword, even in those campaigns that avoid the ‘high magic’ label. This being true, it follows that there should be a system by which a character’s items can “grow” without the DM being forced to supply ever more items.
The concept of magical transference would seem to offer a solution to these dilemmas. While in most fantasy fiction the concept is applied to casters draining magic from other casters (often to power their own spells, retain youth, etc.), why shouldn’t the concept apply as well to enchanted items? It seems a natural fit.
I see no reason why such a concept shouldn’t be available to any type of caster, or even to psionics practitioners. I’ve always ruled in my own games that magic is simply a force of the cosmos and that arcane and divine casting are merely differing methods of accessing and shaping that force. I admit I’ve changed my mind several times concerning how psionics fits into this, but I currently tend to think that it, too, is just another method of accessing and shaping magical force.
I’ve never seen much reason to limit an item’s power. I prefer to simply regulate the amount of magical power a character is given in the game. The 3.5e rules suggest a cap of 200,000gp value for non-epic magic items, and this is definitely a workable system – arbitrary, perhaps, but workable. The idea that an item could be partially or completely drained to make room for other enchantments seems far more relevant to this discussion. I must admit my gut reaction at first was to say, “No way.” After further consideration, though, I’m not sure it couldn’t or shouldn’t be done. But there would definitely need to be limits.
I’m currently at a loss for how this should be done mechanically. The concept of material fatigue springs to mind as a possible analogy for how at least one limit might be put into place. Just as a piece of metal becomes weaker when repeatedly bent and straightened, perhaps items could become increasingly less capable of holding an enchantment the more they are drained and recharged. Another way of handling this might be to increase the costs (whether in gp, XP, or time) of draining and charging items each time it is attempted. A further concern is how much bookkeeping will be necessary to track when and if an item loses its newfound powers. I’m uncomfortable with needlessly arbitrary limits in any case.
The “logic” of how transference takes place is also a concern to me. I’ve toyed with various methods by which it could be done. The method that first occurred to me was simply to have a property transferred intact from one item to another. For example, a +1 AC bonus drained into another item would still be a +1 AC bonus. This could work, but it would give rise to some questions concerning how reasonably certain properties would fit into other items. Transferring a cloak of elvenkind into a sword is a good example. Rules for adjudicating transfers by this method could conceivably get quite complex.
Another method that occurred to me is to simply use a drained items magical charge to create any effect when transferred to another item. To use my earlier example, if a +1 AC bonus were to be drained into another item, the magical energy could be used to provide a +1 attack bonus instead. The drawback to this system is that it might be difficult to decide just how much power is involved in a given magical property. Is a cloak of elvenkind’s enchantment sufficient to provide a +2 attack bonus? Or is it only sufficient to provide a +1 bonus? I’m currently toying with a way in which an item’s requisite Caster Level might determine the amount of energy available for use – more on that in a later post, perhaps. I suspect examining this Caster Level approach, and perhaps the spellthief’s abilities, might provide a good starting point. Simply using the gp value of items isn’t workable, since part of that valuation includes an item’s usefulness as determined in part by the body slot it occupies.
In any event I do like the idea that multiple items could be drained to accumulate a greater store of magical potential. If magical transference is possible – especially by the second method I mention above – this would seem only logical. This would definitely provide a means to reduce the number of enchanted items floating around in a campaign world. I refer back to my earlier post as a possible starting point for this.
I’m not a fan of magical mishaps in most cases. If such were to be allowed, any number of scenarios quickly present themselves. Anything from a simple failed transfer to a catastrophic explosion of magical energy is possible, depending on the desires of the DM. Whatever specifics are eventually decided upon, my belief is that they should be consistent with the possibility of mishaps that arise with other magic item creation methods. Personally I favor the idea of a “cost” to the method rather than a “risk”. Regardless, we should examine the possibility of saving throws, wild magic’s effects, and even the old potion miscibility rules to see if there’s anything useful there.
The fluff that accompanies the rules is relatively irrelevant to me. Fluff can be shaped according to a DM’s whim, and can be done after a workable system is finalized if need be. I suspect I’ll likely defer to the wishes of the majority when the time comes to decide on this. Most likely the fluff accompanying individual items will create itself during play. The fluff accompanying the rules themselves will present itself as those rules are developed.
I’m also uncomfortable with the idea of items retaining their newly drained powers indefinitely. Unfortunately I’m at a loss to explain why. This is more of an emotional preference to me. I can readily see reasons for it going either way. I don’t think it would be unbalancing to allow items to retain their properties, but it might be unbalancing for an item to lose its properties if we don’t handle it right.
Concerning aligned items, I dislike the idea that they could be drained in the same way as other items. It seems to me that the extra effort needed to dedicate such an item should count for something. I can see allowing them to be drained under certain circumstances, but what then happens to the item’s moral and ethical outlook? Does it translate to the new item or is it destroyed? I think there should at least be a chance that the drained item has some influence on the new item beyond the mere transfer of powers. My gut feeling is that this is a factor that should not be determined entirely by the player’s preference. Perhaps some sort of table listing possible outcomes is in order?
Intelligent items, on the other hand, should definitely not be transferable in the same way. Could you imagine an item like Blackrazor allowing itself to be drained of power? This should not be possible unless the item allows it to happen or unless the spellcaster performing the transfer is of surpassing power. Rules for such an occurrence should also be considered. I still feel that intelligent items are creatures and therefore not subject to draining, but I’m not married to the idea.
IMC I’ve been dealing with the idea of unique items for decades. I also dislike the idea that many items seem to be mass produced. Unfortunately, I’ve never been able to design a means of making every item unique – I simply don’t believe it can be done. The 3.x version of FR handles this by giving certain items a small amount of fluff (usually just a unique name and a short backstory), and I tend to think that’s the best anyone could do. IMC I do the same thing, and I attempt to make sure that the items I choose as treasure are those that are rarely encountered. When possible I make my own items. In spite of all these efforts I still end up at times with a variety of “standard” magic items straight out of the book. Perhaps it’s unavoidable. However, I do maintain that the “feel” of unique items can and should be incorporated into a campaign if only in terms of fluff.
In conclusion, it seems we should concentrate on the following areas:
1. How does magical transference work mechanically? What is the cost, what is the risk? How are magical powers evaluated, what powers appear in the new item, and what happens to the drained item? How long do drained powers work?
2. Is it possible to partially drain an item to make room for different powers? If so, how does this work?
3. Is it possible to drain aligned and intelligent items? If so, how?
4. What fluff accompanies the system? How is magical transference explained in-game?
5. Why would a character want to use this system? Is this a desirable method only because of it's relative costs or is there something more?
Lots of thoughts which I will offer in a day or two. Sounds like some of my rules for divine powers do answer or at least address some of these issues so I shall make mention of them as well. I work Fri, Sat, Sun. By Monday I will probably have worthwhile post, perhaps sooner. Excellent post, thankyou, exactly the type of considerations I was looking for. _________________ Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
Before I delve into the subject at hand I have to mention that I’ve been into long term, themed campaigns since long before APs were invented. I’ve also had an interest in Greyhawk’s religions. I’d be interested to see what you’re doing with your campaign, and if you find the time, prophet, I’d like to see how you’re developing things plot-wise.
I see three major factors to be attributed to the current campaign I have developed. The first factor developed far before I even knew of D&D, and that is my ongoing interest in bible prophecy. As a child, this has always been an area of considerable interest for me. Secondly, my most impressionable years with D&D were the earliest. From the very beginning, I was enthralled by Gary Gygax's Greyhawk deities. The many cryptic references by Mr. Gygax concerning Tharizdun held particular interest. The third factor was the announcement of the 3rd edition release of the D&D game. I had taken a considerable break between 1st edition, and thus skipped over playing 2nd edition, though I did own the core books. Upon announcing the 3rd edition, I felt like it was a good time to get back into D&D. So as a prelude to 3rd edition, a loosely structured campaign was developed and characters to take part in it.
As a side note Bubba, this campaign is a large motivator for having created the divine abilities for magic item rules, and to a lesser degree, the concept of magical item transferance.
The first thing I did was tell the players to not roll up D&D characters, but rather Heroes instead. These characters would have destinies which would be aching to be fulfulled. Each player did so within the limits of their imagination and my acceptance as DM. The incredibly in depth backgrounds were intertwined to a degree as well. Some came to the forefront before others, some heroic destinies see the limelight off and on based on the destiny they chose.
Much of what you will read below pertains to Eileen, as will be obvious. Cherron the wizard chose to have Acererak as her father. She was fathered when Acererak was still a man and retained her youth through means of a suspended animation of some sorts. She eventually added a demonic bloodline to the character to make things seem a bit more realistic. Her bound destiny is to destroy her father, thus an eventual trek through the Return to the Tomb of Horrors module. The Paladin Ariel has less of a obvious heroic destiny (as my daughter was 7 years old when she created the character). It was determined that in her past, she was a 10th level paladin of Heironeous who one day adventured to the Tomb of Horrors to destroy Acererak. The party failed, and various undead reduced her levels to 1. The first game began with this character being resurrected in Greyhawk City.
I wanted the campaign to last for at least 10 years of actual playtime. Hopefully longer if possible. Taking religion as being my primary interest when considering all of the wonderful options D&D offers, was for me a no brainer. It just fit. It was my idea of what I wanted Greyhawk to be like. So that's what I went with.
I choose Tharizdun as the ultimate mover and shaker behind everything. The players knew little of Greyhawk so I had a distinct advantage in my development. To them, Tharizdun was not some "over used" god and so I had no problem with this barrier. Another aspect of consideration for the campaign was the use of modules. In my early years, I purchased many modules (eventually sold them, only to rebuy them years later, another story unto itself). Having used only a handfull, and then it being so many years since these dungeons had seen use, I pulled out my favorites, accepted the idea of using a few new ones as well, and decided to tie them together in a loose manner to form an epic campaign. I had a strong general focus of what the campaign would be, and allowed it to continue developing in my head as we began to play. I chose to make it flexible in order to accomidate unforseen changes. In a nut shell, this is what it is.
Tharizdun was imprisoned by the other gods and desires to escape. Should he ever achieve this he will slowly extract his revenge before totally destroying everything. Thousands of years ago, mortals (humans, elves, dwarves, orcs, etc). were taught the proper way of worship by the gods. Each mortal had one deity they revered. They acknowledged that the other gods existed but only worshipped and prayed to the one being of their choice. This was known as True Faith. The mortals worshipped according to these standards and all was well. At this time mortals all lived in realitive harmony. Ths predates any known Greyhawk history by a few thousands of years.
Before Tharizdun was imprisoned, he was causing all sorts of trouble (none of which has been specifically detailed). Being a God of Knoweldge he realized that his plans for destruction of Oerth would not be well received and that the day would come that he would be opposed. In an attempt to gain more power, he sought out Hextor and made a pact with him. Essentially Hextor would be subservant to him (when the time came) and in return he would increase his power tenfold. In the original plotline, this is how Hextor gained his extra arms, he made a pact with Tharizdun.
If you are familiar with the TSR module White Plume Mountain you know about the magic weapons the characters are to retrieve. What I did is decide that each weapon was originally owned and used by a god. Now one day each of these gods (armed with their weapons) were battling Hextor. With his now six arms, he managed to disarm each god and their weapons were cast down to Oerth. (This could be fact or myth). When the weapons reached Oerth, they eventually were discovered by mortals who then used the weapons. This was the beginning of the fall for mortals (not in the sense of good versus evil, but rather the fall from true worship).
Now the weapons had belonged to gods and when the mortals realized this it shook the entire faith system. Mortals became power hungry, arrogant, and selfish, and eventually denying the respect and worship of the gods themselves. As a few wielded the divine weapons, others attempted to match them by creating similar models. Each version was more and more perverted than the last. In addition through the corruption of mortals, the divine weapons eventually became perverted as well and lost their spark of divinity.
The effect of using these weapons which belonged to gods and perverting them is what caused mortals to fall from True Faith. Now they worshipped whomever best suited their needs (as described in the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer).
It was after this, that Tharizdun was eventually imprisoned. The details of his capture have not been further detailed. After being captured, it seemed that Tharizdun would have several methods of escape in which he would be working on all at the same time. As such, it becomes a factor in the ongoing campaign. One of these was to siphon off divine energy from the other gods through their worshippers. So the stage has been set for one of his attempts to escape.
Now the gods being very disappointed in mortals decided that the day would come when they must be punished for their falling from true faith. All of the Greater and Intermediate gods decided that each would send a judgment upon Oerth which relates to their areas of concern. Hextor would bring war, Nerull a great death, Pholtus could take away the sun and moon, gods of the seas could swell up great storms, that sort of thing.
They also decided to send a Prophet who could show them the error of their ways and quell these judgments. The Prophet was chosen from the religion of Istus. It is her duty to reminds mortals what True Faith was and encourage them to embrace it as did their ancestors. If successful, the judgments will end. If she fails or mortals choose not to accept her words, the judgments continue until complete. This was the heroic destiny for one of the characters rolled up.
In anticipation of failure, the gods drew lots of Oerth. Should mortals fail them once again, each deity would return to Oerth after the judgments were completed and reestablish their faith all over again in their chosen lot. Oerth being a large place, there was plenty of other realms which exist on Oerik as well as other continents, so the scope was not limted to just the Flanaess. In each location it would only be that single religion and in time, they would merge together in hopes that things would be better the second time around (an event which would take place hundreds of years in the future, at the very least).
Hextor acquired the lot of choice, the Flanaess and began making early preparations for his new domain, thus in the background, he is gearing up for a very powerful military force which he hopes will sweep over large and vital swaths of the Flanaess when the time is ripe. His newly established temple in the dark recesses of the Gnarley Forest grew from the very spot that he and Heironeous once battled, and the blood of Hextor spilled into the ground. This temple is the true fortress of evil for very high level characters to one day try and fell. Meanwhile, his armies amass, calling into service many nonhumans and eradicating the elves that live there.
The characters started out with Eileen prophesizing in Greyhawk City. She was already reknown for accurate prophecies, as a child (this is all written into the character background). The wizard, Cherron, was a member of the University of Magical Arts in Greyhawk and was sent to spy on Eileen. The paladin Ariel was moved by Eileen's prophetic words and chose to be her champion. This is what the first game turned out to be like (none of it planned in advance), it just developed through roleplaying. And so the characters began adventuring.
Now the characters have several goals they must accomplish throughout the campaign. Some of these they have done, others are yet to come. Some they don't even know yet.
1. They must retrieve all the divine weapons that originally appeared in White Plume Mountain. As they ventured into the volcano, only Blackrazor was a divine weapon, all of the others found were mortal versions of these weapons. Another weapon was found in the Temple of Elemental Evil (the Return to module). This adventure also set the stage for Tharizdun's first attempt at an escape. Now each weapon when it is acquired, must be turned over to a celestial being of the deity who once weilded it. It is then to be taken by the celestial to the gods homeplane to be purified from mortal corruption. Currently, the PCs have retrieved two weapons and passed them on as expected. The remaining two weapons (I included the one added in Return to White Plume Mountain) have yet to be found.
The purification process not only purges the weapons of mortal corruption but is also considered to be a humble apology to the gods, with the characters representing all mortals. Finding the first weapon, Blackrazor and delivering it to the Bastion of Faith in Rel Mord where it was given to the celestial was also a foreshadowing of the dedication and purification of magic items which has been mentioned in previous posts.
2. After the first weapon was delivered to the Bastion of Faith, Eileen arranged what was to be known as "The Gathering of all Faiths" in Greyhawk City. Each deity summoned the representitive of their faith and sent them to the council. Here, I as the DM introduced the 3rd editon rules of clerics getting to make magic items through the feats in the game. This event took place shortly after the 3rd edition was released. It was during this gathering that all clerics were shown how these feats could work. Eileen also showed the other clerics how the gods had given them the power to create divine abilities in magical items through the concept of dedication and purification. In addition, Eileen gave many prophecies which need to be fullfilled, as well as preaching about the concept of "True Faith". The religious representatives were then suppose to take all of this knowledge back to their churches and teach it themselves.
3. One of the prophecies which was mentioned in Eileen's background was a war between arcane and divine magic. The characters are now 11th level and the events are just starting to reach this event. Over time, the arcane practioneers have not taken a liking to Eileen's religious movement. The idea of clerics creating magic items is horrifying for them. The idea of having divine abilities in magic items is even worse.
Now, in ancient history, several powerful undead figures each with noteable arcane powers, who when they were mortal worshipped either Hextor or Tharizdun, were sworn by their gods to a pact, and that was to form a organization called The League of Arcane Supremacy.
At this point in time, two notable figures belong to this evil organization, that being Acererak and Strahd. I am also considering adding Lord Othwaite, more on him towards the bottom of this post (see the Ghost Tower of Inverness and the Lost Cavarns of Tsjocanth). Other individuals exist, but are undetemined as this point in time. Each of these undeads are bound to serve one of these two gods. As you recall, Hextor is essentially in service to Tharizdun (grudgingly at this point), so in essence, the entire League of Arcane Supremacy serves Tharizdun.
The league has created an artifact called the Pillars of Spiritual Corruption and are using it to remove the spiritual movement and divine powers and spells of clerics. A separate piller exists for each religion they choose to attack, and each pillar is located in a different location with the Flanaess. The first two pillars which begin their spiritual corruption are Istus and Herioneous.
The characters just started adventuring in Ravenloft and the Pillars of Spiritual Corruption have begun their work, thus Eileen is nearly without any divine abilities (spells, turning, etc, she gets to make a saving throw but the DC is very difficult to make) and the paladin so soon to be without as well. The characters are higher level than the module considers so this will even the playing field as well. The use of this artifact is really the first blow in the arcane and divine war. Somewhere in the castle of Ravenloft, I plan to reveal hints at this League as well. By the time the PCs finish the module, other religions will be affected. I have yet to figure out how the League will organize the arcane casters throughout the world and not reveal their presence at the same time. I am open to suggestions on this one. I do tend to use in a very mild way, famous NPCs of Greyhawk as once in a blue moon, guest roleplaying spots. They don't see the light of action and I would never have them sweep in and save the PCs. Although eventual opposition is another matter. So I am open to ideas here.
I was planning on placing the Pillar of Corruption which affects the religion of Istus in Castle Greyhawk because that would be the next big adventure we would most likely go through. I also need to find a way to shorten up the paladin's loss much sooner than Eileen's if possible. Don't want the players getting distressed for too long.
4. Eventually, when the characters locate all four divine weapons and have them purified on the proper deity aligned plane, they will be returned to the PCs in order for them to be taken to a far away temple (mega-dungeon) of the gods where they will be kept, destroyed, or whatever the DM decides when the time comes. Either way it is the final stage of their religious quest and most likely the campaign. We are far from this happening yet.
5. The judgments pass as the campaign progresses. I need to spend more time on this factor than I do. Not all judgments take place where the PCs see the gods handiwork, but I do make sure they hear about it. Others take direct action in the lives of the characters, such as a division within the faith of Heironeous; the Selintan overflowing after the worst winter ever, crops being wiped out, etc. I'm all up for suggestions for great judgments as well.
For Istus, I was considering finding a way for the future to take shape so that everyone could see what it will be like when Hextor rules the Flanaess. Just not sure about how to go about it. Including the characters in such an event is easy, but what do I do about all of the other millions of people who are to be taught something from this experience? Suggestions anyone?
Other significant adventures which have played a role in the overall campaign include:
Ghost Tower of Inverness
We went here for Ariel's paladin warhorse quest. Eileen ended up having her soul sucked out and put into the soul gem. I changed the module a bit to prevent it from being permanent. Her body was whisked away by a aspect of Hextor and given to a ghost (Lord Othwaite) to guard. The other PCs had to acquire the soul gem to get her soul back, find her body with the ghost and then negotiate retrieving her body.
Many centuries ago, Lord Othwaite was originally a paladin of Heironeous who killed Acererak (when he was still a man, the final stage needed to become a lich). At the time he used the a version of Blackrazor which was composed of good abilities as the original was also Heironeous' weapon. It was the death of Acererak which brought about the soul sucking ability the weapon now possess as well as the general evil inside. Now that Lord Othwaite wielded an evil weapon, he eventually became corrupted himself and lost his paladinhood, thus he began worshipping Hextor.
After he died many decades later, Hextor rewarded him by turning him into a death knight. Later when Eileen was a child and Hextor recognized that she was a threat to him, he dispatched Death Knight Lord Othwaite to kill her during the signing of the Pact of Greyhawk which ended the Greyhawk Wars. Eileen was just a kid at the time and the attempt was foiled by another. Because Lord Othwaite failed him, Hextor turned him into a ghost and the only way he could free himself was by someday killing Eileen.
The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth
Now at this point in the campaign, Lord Othwaite's faith in Hextor has wained so he was willing to make a deal with the PCs. They go to the Lost Caverns of Tsjocanth and bring back his dead wife (Drelzna, the daughter of Iggwilv), along with blackrazor, and a cleric of Heironeous so he can ask for forgiveness and he would give them Eileen's body back. The deal was made, Eileen was restored, and off they went to the caverns. After completing the Lost Caverns of Tsjocanth, they returned to tell Lord Othwaite that they couldn't give him blackrazor because a celestial of Heironeous told them to take it to the Bastion of Faith in Rel Mord so it could be taken to it's homeplane and purified. They also had to tell Lord Othwaite that his wife was a vampire and that they had to kill it. They did bring a cleric with for the atonement but Lord Othwaite was pretty angry with them by this point. Negotiations broke down and the PCs had to flee.
Now Hextor is tightening his grip on Lord Othwaite once again, torturing him on the Astral plane. Lord Othwaite is a twisted lost soul who comes and goes between two religions.
The Forgotton Temple of Tharizdun
We went though this module, then followed it up with the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. This was the big introduction to Tharizdun in the campaign.
Return to the Tomb of Horrors
We have yet to do the adventure, but as you may recall, our wizard Cherron is the daughter of Acererak. Unknown to Cherron, her mother is in Acererak's Apothosis (you'll have to check out the module if your not familiar with the Apothosis). Also as mentioned, Ariel the paladin of Heironeous died several years ago in the dungeon (before the campaign actually began). So between the two, they have some history tied in with this mega adventure.
Anyway, if you got this far reading I appreciate it. I apologize for the length but really didn't know how to explain things without it being so. I hope you can find some ideas here and perhaps you can help me with my tough spots as mentioned above not just with campaign plotting but maybe even the magical transferance idea. My next post will concentrate on the many wonderful ideas you presented in your previous post. I really did like a lot of them. I was also pleasently surprised to see that we seem to agree on things we didn't like. Your ideas made me consider things I had not thought of before.
Thanks for bearing with me on this overly long post. _________________ Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
Just to throw a though in here, kinda unrelated to everything.... 8)
I've always ascribed to magic items a la Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights videogames. Every magic item has a unique story associated with it. So, in my campaigns, everything but the most common, mundane magicks has a story.
In response to Bubba's last (lengthy) post, I would like to comment and hopefully add worthwhile content to the ideas presented. I think it would be wise to take bite size pieces (at least at first).
Bubba said:
Quote:
I’ve always ruled in my own games that magic is simply a force of the cosmos and that arcane and divine casting are merely differing methods of accessing and shaping that force. I admit I’ve changed my mind several times concerning how psionics fits into this, but I currently tend to think that it, too, is just another method of accessing and shaping magical force.
I think this is an excellent starting point. It is easy for most DMs to accept and can include any power source desired, such as magic of divine, arcane and psionic nature.
Bubba said:
Quote:
The fluff that accompanies the rules is relatively irrelevant to me. Fluff can be shaped according to a DM’s whim, and can be done after a workable system is finalized if need be. I suspect I’ll likely defer to the wishes of the majority when the time comes to decide on this. Most likely the fluff accompanying individual items will create itself during play. The fluff accompanying the rules themselves will present itself as those rules are developed.
I think that the idea of "transferance" should be far more than mechanical. Fluff is what makes campaigns stand out from one another, not necessarily in quality but in originality. The mechanics provide the "balance" while the fluff exercises the DM's ability to tell a story and provide players with options for characterization and roleplaying. I think to "pass" on significant fluff brings a disservice to the campaign. The fluff does need to be flexible and allow modifing, in order to accomidate various campaign emphasis. Example, my campaign being very religion driven would become even more so by having the fluff directed towards religion. For another, it might be arcane, another, plane hopping at earlier levels, another campaign might feature power groups of some kind, another might be war driven for a campaign that is in the midst of a 100 year war, or whatever feature the DM wants to push in their campaign. Some DM's may not want to have a major campaign feature and treat the idea as little more than a side rule option. I think we need to keep room for both ideas. I think the fluff should be written in a manner which is open ended in that the DM merely needs to insert their personal preferance. I am not saying develop the fluff first, I am saying that when the base mechanics are pounded out, that the fluff needs to be opened up slightly so that it can be squeezed in for a comfortable fit once the exterior is complete.
I think that as a starting point, there should be a bond between the affected magic items and the character. This could come in the form of an oath, a prayer, a ceremony at locations which are reasonably plentiful yet directly tied to the adapted fluff. Such an event may require the presence of an elder, be it wizard, cleric, lord, or similar individual. Part of the idea is to hopefully develop more than just a character with neat magic items. Make the two more interagal. Bottom line is I would make the concept go beyond mechanics and fluff and add roleplaying and characterization to the issue.
Bubba said:
Quote:
I’ve never seen much reason to limit an item’s power. I prefer to simply regulate the amount of magical power a character is given in the game. The 3.5e rules suggest a cap of 200,000gp value for non-epic magic items, and this is definitely a workable system – arbitrary, perhaps, but workable. The idea that an item could be partially or completely drained to make room for other enchantments seems far more relevant to this discussion.
Limitations on magic were taught to us from day one in order to retain game balance. Game balance is subjective from one campaign to the next. The D&D rules provide a framework for us to consider something to be "balanced". It is ultimately up to each DM to decide what is "balanced" for their campaign. For example, I have a small group, two players and myself. In order to accomidate the group size I also play a character. Even with a party of three, many modules or encounters which would normally be handled by a standard party becoming overly challenging. So the idea of how much magic is good for the campaign varies. In a campaign with 5-7 characters, less magic is likely to be needed to meet expected encounters. There is only so much encounter tweaking a DM may want to do because of "less than standard groups". I think we need some strong guidlines, but not necessary in gold pieces. Ragr, I believe offered the idea of XP as another option because players value it more. I think this idea is worthwhile to consider.
We could also put the limitation on the item itself, such as having various levels of commitment one could opt to go with. The commitment would be made when the "oath" is given, ceremony performed, etc. This sets the goal for the player. This is where I might consider the idea of cost in XP. It also adds to the fluff of however the idea is presented in the game. Place some restrictions on the amout of magic based on the commitment given by the character. For example "an item ofgreater commitment" offers "x" while an item of "lesser commitment" offers 'x". I would also like to see it character level driven. This helps retain balance as well. Just because the item takes magic from another item, doesn't mean we as DM's have to give the character access to that magic right away. I'm not looking for anything ultra complex in unlocking it. Another advantage this offers is that players are likely to know what power is going to be unlocked and see it as a improvement just like new spells, hit points, or a class ability. If they feel like they are getting more for their character level then I am all for it. The item may have been transferred 50,000 XP ago, but only until now do they access it.
Bubba said:
Quote:
The concept of material fatigue springs to mind as a possible analogy for how at least one limit might be put into place. Just as a piece of metal becomes weaker when repeatedly bent and straightened, perhaps items could become increasingly less capable of holding an enchantment the more they are drained and recharged.
This could be another way of placing limitations on the magic item. Over do it and you pay the price (so to speak). I like this idea a lot as well. I can easily see it being incoporated into nearly any fluff used to present the rules as well. The PCs should answer to someone or something for their over indulgence.
Quote:
Another way of handling this might be to increase the costs (whether in gp, XP, or time) of draining and charging items each time it is attempted. A further concern is how much bookkeeping will be necessary to track when and if an item loses its newfound powers. I’m uncomfortable with needlessly arbitrary limits in any case.
I'd like to stay away from bookkeeping if possible. Any rules we come up with that work out are likely to be complex. Having an item drop this ability to gain another, keeping track of some kind of power points, or whatever dimenishes the excitement of the rules. Worrying about doing a math formula to figure out how much we owe the wizard for transfering magic (as an example) is cumbersome and to typical. Having to look it up every time and re-read it just to figure out what modifiers, or seperate issues can and would occur should be minimized. It can't be eliminated, but I am saying that for us to cover the basis rules, we are already looking at a reasonable amount of information. So I would like to see short cuts to the recordkeeping. I don't think it helps the game any to become another math exercise. I see this as a good spot to reduce it.
Bubba said:
Quote:
The “logic” of how transference takes place is also a concern to me. I’ve toyed with various methods by which it could be done. The method that first occurred to me was simply to have a property transferred intact from one item to another. For example, a +1 AC bonus drained into another item would still be a +1 AC bonus. This could work, but it would give rise to some questions concerning how reasonably certain properties would fit into other items. Transferring a cloak of elvenkind into a sword is a good example. Rules for adjudicating transfers by this method could conceivably get quite complex.
I would like to point out a couple of brief ideas. First off, the method should be something that the PCs have fairly easy access to, including non spellcasters. If gratification does not occur fast enough, the PCs will merely adopt the new item as it is, without considering the idea of transferance. With that said, I also don't think it is something that should be immediantly available as well. Something sort of in the middle. Items need to translate easily in order to avoid heavy charts and math. I opt to try and keep this pretty darn simple. The player shoudn't have to pull out 3-5 pages of house rules to see if the newly found magic item can be transferred to their sword. It should be obvious from the introduction of the magic item and the player should have to only deal with the anticipation of getting it done rather than wondering "if" it can be done. Another reason it should be "obvious" right away, is to better help the players determine magical item distribution when new things are discovered.
I considered the idea of schools of magic being a factor and then decided against it. We could opt for something simple like having the player direct their sword, armor, cloak that they covet so much to be directed towards a specific goal of magic. For example, if the character starts out with a cloak of protection, then perhaps other magic items which offer "protection" could be digested by it. I don't speak just of A.C. protection either, but rather generalizing the word "protection" so that it means A.C. benefit, saving throw benefit, protection against certain types of creatures that sort of thing. This opens up the definition of what it can do, yet always protects the character (from something or in someway), is consistent with it's original magical mode, and drives the item a specific direction which applies logic. It is easy to remember and easy to determine what fits in.
I'll leave it at this for now. Wait for a response, and if we can settle on some basics, I think it will be easier to get into the nitty gritty about "how much magic can be tranfered, what is the cost" and other hardline factors which need to be determined. _________________ Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
I have a habit of thinking from the gut when it comes to rules issues; the longer I think about a solution the less likely I am to come up with something workable. If the issue of item transference came up in my campaign here's how I think, on a gut level, I would handle it.
Quite simply, a feat. Call it Splice Item, or Item Transference or whatever. The feat would allow a character to conjoin 2 (or more) item's powers into one. The items would have to be ones for which the character also had Create feats; this may go someway towards dealing with strange combinations like a +1 sword and a Cloak of Elvenkind, because in my experience players seldom choose Craft Weapon and Craft Wondrous Item for the same character. The character could not join any item for which they fail to meet the caster level. To my mind there would also need to be a cost in xp and, if you like, gp. I'm not always convinced by costs in gp as they seem too arbitrary and mechanical; xp represents life force, however, which seems more appropriate when you're messing with the stuff of arcana.
Now these are just my initial thoughts, I'm a long way from considering the pre-requisites for the Feat and other details. Also, would there be a need to divide Divine and Arcane items so the 2 could never be spliced together? This would add a layer of complexity to magic items but a simple D or A after the item's name would suffice; some items are obviously one or the other, some could be either. Or, maybe only a multiclass Divine/Arcane caster class could mix the splice.
At this point I feel I should say that I have serious issues with magic items in general. The question that always occurs to me is; who on Oerth is going to waste time and xp creating items for other people? Why are there so many +2 weapons about. A +1 weapon I can understand as it helps with those pesky DR's, but what the hell does a +2 weapon do for the creator. Think of the cost. An example (POTENTIAL SPOILER); in Return To Greyhawk Ruins the first encounter has 8 Orc Raiders who are multiclassed identically (don't get me started on such obfuscations) and each has a +1 throwing axe. What complete berk of a spellcaster made those, gave up 320 xp, only to be told "it's for the Orcs". Unless, of course, the Orcs in question took the 8 axes off some dead things in the last adventure. Verisimilitude? I think not.
Also, IMC, when you find any item that adds a bonus to a stat, skill or save, there is always an attunement period of a few days or more, depending on the item's power; I got royally fed up with parties sharing items around like tools in order to overcome some short term obstacle. I'm considering the same approach for all permanent items
I have a habit of thinking from the gut when it comes to rules issues; the longer I think about a solution the less likely I am to come up with something workable.
I'm kinda the opposite here. If I'm interested in having something work a certain way I pound out the details as best as I can. Addmittedly, when doing so it may not be as well thought out as a discussion such as here could produce. The complexity of anything I develop depends upon my motivation for adding it. I always look for the easist way which fits the motivation. Then I tend to add fluff around it to develop the flavor of the campaign. Below, Ragr suggests using feats. When I developed the "divine ability" idea for magical items this is what I used. It addressed the issue easily and also created the fluff I was looking for, that being to put more of a religious spin on the campaign.
Ragr said:
Quote:
Quite simply, a feat. Call it Splice Item, or Item Transference or whatever. The feat would allow a character to conjoin 2 (or more) item's powers into one. The items would have to be ones for which the character also had Create feats; this may go someway towards dealing with strange combinations like a +1 sword and a Cloak of Elvenkind, because in my experience players seldom choose Craft Weapon and Craft Wondrous Item for the same character. The character could not join any item for which they fail to meet the caster level. To my mind there would also need to be a cost in xp and, if you like, gp. I'm not always convinced by costs in gp as they seem too arbitrary and mechanical; xp represents life force, however, which seems more appropriate when you're messing with the stuff of arcana.
Now these are just my initial thoughts, I'm a long way from considering the pre-requisites for the Feat and other details. Also, would there be a need to divide Divine and Arcane items so the 2 could never be spliced together? This would add a layer of complexity to magic items but a simple D or A after the item's name would suffice; some items are obviously one or the other, some could be either. Or, maybe only a multiclass Divine/Arcane caster class could mix the splice.
I see some possibilities here but again it depends upon your motivation for doing so. My motivation for bringing up this topic was to....
1. Reduce the number of items a character carries.
2. Make items unique as possible. Not just the ones that the character's use in transferance but those normally found. It is an offshoot idea from the transferance but in the back of my mind.
3. Give the players an option to retain old magic items and not feel like they have to upgrade to the "newest" item in order to increase their level of power according to their character level. The idea was requested by one of my players and I saw it as a worthy idea of consideration.
4. Fit it into my campaign style in order to strengthen the campaign concept.
5. The idea was to make it fairly easy and attainable for PCs as it was the desired effect. If something is desiresd to happen frequently in the campaign such as this, the rules should not be written in a manner that make it difficult or downright hard to achieve. Else players will say the heck with it and all the work is for naught.
Now I realize that my goals are not your goals so things are going to be considered differently. In keeping with my goals, having a feat is a fine answer and works well with other aspects of the fluff as I mentioned. The concern I have is finding someone with the correct combination of feats. This would make it very hard to locate someone and achieve the desired results unless one broadens the idea to include wizard schools and churches going out of there way to teach this (again in my campaign). The bottom line is that if it is to be added on a considerable level it needs to be easy to do.
Ragr said:
Quote:
At this point I feel I should say that I have serious issues with magic items in general. The question that always occurs to me is; who on Oerth is going to waste time and xp creating items for other people? Why are there so many +2 weapons about. A +1 weapon I can understand as it helps with those pesky DR's, but what the hell does a +2 weapon do for the creator. Think of the cost. An example (POTENTIAL SPOILER); in Return To Greyhawk Ruins the first encounter has 8 Orc Raiders who are multiclassed identically (don't get me started on such obfuscations) and each has a +1 throwing axe. What complete berk of a spellcaster made those, gave up 320 xp, only to be told "it's for the Orcs". Unless, of course, the Orcs in question took the 8 axes off some dead things in the last adventure. Verisimilitude? I think not.
This is pretty much one of the reasons why I like the idea of limited items and some uniqueness developed into the system. I can't have only one +1 sword and one +2 sword running around, I realize this. But to me it doesn't seem all that impossible to have only one cloak of elvinkind or one suit of armor with "such and such" special ability". Surely this isn't for all campaigns either. When I write these things, I'm keeping mine in mind though. On a side note, when modules take the short cuts, such as one +1 axe for everybody, 4 hit points for every orc, etc. I drop this on the spot. Maybe it takes a moment or two longer to roll up hp for 24 orcs, but my players accept that not all orcs are created equal and it by correcting these things, it no longer stretches their belief of the game. In return, they accept the minute or two needed to correct these author shortcuts.
Ragr said:
Quote:
Also, IMC, when you find any item that adds a bonus to a stat, skill or save, there is always an attunement period of a few days or more, depending on the item's power; I got royally fed up with parties sharing items around like tools in order to overcome some short term obstacle. I'm considering the same approach for all permanent items
I'm not sure what you mean by attunement period. Is this a "it doesn't work for a few days once you found it" idea?
In regards to commmunity sharing, my rules for divine abilities solved this problem. Once dedicated and purified, they are "tied or kinda bonded" to that character and their faith in their god. Thus they radiate the god's alignment as well. This limits community useage, as none of the players wants to be naughty and be the one to "break faith". One player moaned once when they were in White Plume Mountain and the metal stairway at the beginning of the module collapsed so it was hard to get out. Eventually, they found a way to exit without stooping to naughty levels. It made the player stronger as they realized that they overcame another obstacle in the game. But again, such ideas are not for everyone. _________________ Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
Attunement means waiting a number of days before complete connection to the item has formed. It's a simple rule (in truth the players don't even know exactly how long it will take because I've not written it down as a house rule) and fits the campaign well.
The great beauty of a using a feat is that it is a recognised concept; every player knows what they are and how they work. Also, it needn't be restrictive becuase you set the prerequisites to suit your world. You may not have to be a spell caster/item creator to have the feat in question. You may have the feat as a Divine talent or gift. You may be able to complete transference without any prior knowledge of item creation. Or, you may have to work co-operatively with those who do have the other feats as part of a greater ritual or ceremony. Finding such people could be a task in itself, requiring diplomacy, coercion or other, more nefarious means (my players, at this point would be rolling their eyes thinking "here we go again, another the enemy of my enemy is my friend scenario, whoopy do").
You're absolutely right to say that what's most important is what fits your campaign. Your campaign is a singularity, Eileen, as is mine. In fact, they are completely different. In mine, the characters seldom get involved in Oerth shaking events; they are just people making their way in the world, finding trouble (and having it find them) and resolving issues against the backdrop of larger events. The gods are not fully understood-even by those that worship them. And there are those that would say there are no Gods. The atheists of Greyhawk. So where do Divine powers come from? Clearly it must be from the Gods. Or is there one true God with many aspects. It is this kind of uncertainty and ambiguity that I love to foster (and occasionally the characters sit together and discuss these issues; a great role-playing free-for-all). So for me it's simple rules that win the day, but with complex and undefined fluff to back them up. I don't shy away from changing rules without warning either, especially when it comes to magic. More than one time a player has looked aghast as an accepted concept (rule) fails. The world moves on and we have another subject for discussion. The best way, I've found, of making items unique is, as you've said, by cutting down on the amount of items in circulation. By doing this nearly every permanent item (perhaps with the exception of the aforementioned +1 weapons) becomes at worst very rare.
Anyway, this is a great thread you've got going here and I look forward to seing how you pull the various ideas together. And, btw, although our campaign concepts are different, I enjoy reading about how yours is going.
Attunement means waiting a number of days before complete connection to the item has formed.
Eileen said:
That's what I thought you meant. Is there a particular reason why you have this house rule? I'm curious as to it's purpose.
Ragr said:
Quote:
The great beauty of a using a feat is that it is a recognised concept; every player knows what they are and how they work. Also, it needn't be restrictive becuase you set the prerequisites to suit your world. You may not have to be a spell caster/item creator to have the feat in question. You may have the feat as a Divine talent or gift. You may be able to complete transference without any prior knowledge of item creation. Or, you may have to work co-operatively with those who do have the other feats as part of a greater ritual or ceremony. Finding such people could be a task in itself, requiring diplomacy, coercion or other, more nefarious means (my players, at this point would be rolling their eyes thinking "here we go again, another the enemy of my enemy is my friend scenario, whoopy do").
Eileen said:
When you originaly mentioned feats I think I was a bit closed minded or tired, I just got done working one of my 13.5 hour shifts, and then I come home and post. As mentioned, this was my way of utilizing other fluff important rules for my campaign. When you wrote this it didn't even dawn on me that the PCs could take such a feat without having the specific "create magic item feats" (we'll say I was tired). Though it does seem logical to me that one should, it really all depends upon how one writes it. Even if the PCs don't take it (mine may or may not), how it is incoporated into the fluff of a campaign is easy for everyone to do, which brings me back to an earlier point made. So this speaks highly of the idea. Considering the idea now, it actually would work out great in my campaign. I'm picturing "The Second Gathering of all Faiths" only this tme make it more dramatic, and action packed. Hmmmm......Ragr is clever.
Ragr wrote:
Quote:
The best way, I've found, of making items unique is, as you've said, by cutting down on the amount of items in circulation. By doing this nearly every permanent item (perhaps with the exception of the aforementioned +1 weapons) becomes at worst very rare.
Anyway, this is a great thread you've got going here and I look forward to seing how you pull the various ideas together. And, btw, although our campaign concepts are different, I enjoy reading about how yours is going.[/quote]
Eileen said:
I think I may pm you on this one. I don't want to derail the topic more than I have. Can't wait for Bubba to jump back in, wait till he finds out how far behind he got. Must be age. _________________ Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
The motivation for the attunement idea was purely me being a little fed up with items being passed around from character to character as if they were buckets or spades; way to destroy the mystique, folks. It was mostly items like Rings of Swimming or, my all time fave, loaning the Rogue a Cloak of Resistance every time that he attemted to Disable Device. Of course, the Rogue had to remove all valuables immediately prior to the attempt, except the Cloak, just in case he got toasted and took all his other gear with him. This might explain the number of drawings of semi-naked Rogues opening chests, seemingly in their dressing gowns, in D&D sourcebooks.
Btw, Ragr disrobes for no-one; if I go down in flames so does my hard earned kit. The scripture according to Brandobaris/Olidammara (delete as applicable); chapter 2, paragraph 3; "and lo, ye can,and shall, take it with you when you go". Sift through the smoking ruins all you can, former colleagues.
Bubba....did you give up on us or what? We need your expertise and input! _________________ Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
I am currently working on a meaningful reply to this thread that incorporates a few mechanical ideas to get us started. My ideas need some refining, and I'm hoping to run a short playtest before posting what I come up with.
Unfortunately, I'm having some difficulty finding the time to get these things done. In addition to my family duties and my normal workload (which continues to demand my attention no matter what my doctor tells me - being the boss can be a real b*&^% sometimes), I've also agreed to write an article, collaborate on an adventure, and assist with at least two other projects - all of which are due very soon.
Nevertheless, you can count on something in a few days, at least. Please continue in my absence, as I'm keeping up with the thread during my (severely limited) free time.
The 2e Tome of Magic introduced the 7th level Wizard spell "Steal Enchantment" spell which allows the caster to transfer magical properties from one item to another.
Steal Enchantment (Enchantment)
Range: Touch
Components: V, S, M
Duration: Permanent
Casting Time: 1 hour
Area of Effect: One item
Saving Throw: Neg.
This spell "steals" the enchantment from a magical item and places it within another, non-magical item (the material component). Both objects must be touched by the wizard during casting. The two items must be of the same category (blunt weapon, edged weapon, ring, amulet, shield, armor, wand, etc.).
The enchantment can be transferred only to a nonmagical item. Only the energy of one item can be transferred; it is not possible to combine two magical items into one item. The new item has all the properties of the original magical item (including the same number of charges, if any).
At the culmination of the spell, the original magical object is allowed an item saving throw vs. disintegration with all modifiers it is allowed as a magical item. Exceptionally powerful objects (such as artifacts) may be considered to automatically succeed the saving throw at the DM's discretion.
If the saving throw is successful, the magical object resists the effect and the spell ends in failure. If the roll is failed, the magical item loses all of its powers, which are transferred to the previously nonmagical object.
Even if the magical item fails its saving throw, the spell's success is not guaranteed. There is a chance that the enchantment might be lost. The base chance of this occurring is 100%, modified by -5% per level of the caster. Thus, a 20th-level wizard has no chance of losing the magic. If the enchantment is lost, both items become nonmagical.
The material component is the nonmagical item which is to receive the enchantment. It must be of equal or greater value than the object to be drained.
I was thinking that this is what the thread must be about when I read the title. Maybe a bit more involved than what I origianlly thought though. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
The idea of transference I think is good. It flows well, and I think can work well. However, I think you are approaching the mechanics all wrong. 3E/3.5E has creation gold and xp on most items, or its easily figured. If you sacrifice something to improve another, then you would gain the XP and GP of that item, and be able to transfer to whatever ability you want in your weapon. Magic Item Compendium has rules on expanding the abilities of items with common bonuses (AC of all sorts, resistance, enhancement bonus to hit, etc).
Given that you want permanent magic items more rare and worth more (in terms of demand), then I would just institute a ritual rule. Those with magical power can work this ritual, which takes time, and maybe 10% of total GP for consumed items to aid in the harvesting and merging of the items. Use the same times as item creation.
The other option you might consider is the weapons of legacy rules. It seems to fit your needs, but I could be wrong.
The above option for transference is an extension of the artificer (ebberon) ability to rip XP out of an item and store it for later use. Making it a limited use ritual makes sense for your purposes. Using Gold and XP would eliminate questions of how would one ability exchange for another, and at what ratio. Those questions are built into the system. For better or worse, they are internally balanced.
For the fluff side, I could see a feat being required, as well as specific locational requirements. Maybe an arcane laboratory with so much money spent on the lab and its furnishings, aligned properly with the stars and moons, requiring a minimum knowledge (arcana) rank, etc. This would limit item creation to those with time, resources and levels. I could even see an arguement for keeping the "rules" as they are, except for allowing for the transference of the "Essence" of the magic item into another item.
As an aside from this, if you do require these ultra expensive labs, and allow them to store the "essence" of transferred items, then you could have these labs laying around as treasure by the really high level guys, that the players then can use instead of treasure. I know in my games you give the PCs an item they say "thanks." If you give them a resource, even if that resource is in effect nothing more than the item they may have just said "thanks" for, they will hoot and holler and congratulate themselves on their luck. Placing said location in an enemy citadel in enemy territory then makes them take unprecedented effort to secure that territory.
Of course this suggestion, which seems to me the easiest mechanically, may run absolutely counter to your own desires, but if it were my game, that's how I would do it. And if the idea seems grandiose, blame Terry Goodkind and the Sword of Truth series. Now there's a world with a lot of magic items and very little item creation.
Having gone through and read your other posts in the 4E forum, I can see my suggestion will fall upon deaf ears, as you dislike the gold/xp system of ranking items. That said (and understood) my previous suggestion stands if you use 3E/3.5E, because, as I said before, it balances internally. As far as non-complicated and internally consistant options go, its likely pretty far up there. Using it the biggest task would be designing the fluff around it, which as a DM is usually the more fun of the two tasks.
But then, as I tend to be more "yay 3.5" than most here, you'd likely expect no other coment from me. But it is said in the spirit of helpfulness none the less.
A 2nd ed viewpoint to the subject...more like a editorial on it. If I get a little off track bear with. I read most of the thread but gads some of you are prodigious typists.
It is refreshing when someone hits on some old piece of minutia from a previous editon when reviewing what the game will become in the future. Cebrion's mention of the "Steal Enchantment" spell was where I was heading in my original thoughts on this .....involved......thread.
I would like to mention a couple of points in addition to the Steal Enchantment spell. There were other spells on the net that would mimic what some of the posters here apparently see as the way to work this subject through a feat or other game mechanic.
The spells would not only steal the enchantments but would build on them. You have items that combine powers over time, much like learning magic items of legacy have done in 3.??. The idea though will always reflect the risk factor in destroying such items during any transferrence/building process. There is no free lunch to it, so I don't see it as that big of a step when you compare it to learning magic items in the game.
*NOTE: There are also a number of spells like "Prepare Enchantmen" Lv 5 Champions of Mytara that allow for the "Attunement" of items for greater success, even though the poster on the attunement issue wanted to be less supportive on the concept.
In Volo's Guide to All Things Magical" the process of magical item enchantment is described, and although some here seem to see it as a feat, I would say that spells of Arcane or Divine nature are the only way to incorporate magic item creation.
Even considering the evolving nature of magic in 3.?? I would say that simply manipulation of the spellcraft with a feat may not be sufficient to attain what we are talking about....which is creation of combination magic items.
Even though feats are capable of altering/augmenting spell craft, I would not say it is the part of the process that should be a primary part of the sequence of events to create such an item. The combining of powers is an innate part of the spell, not simply and augmentation of the spell.
There are also divinational and alteration magics like "Thrice Supreme" that can actually affect game mechanics and augment the chances for a succes sin combo item creation even in 2nd ed******
For my part I have allowed evolving magic items that can learn or be combined since the early '90's. I am not the norm I know, but I did allow it with use of game mechanics available in that time frame.
With the subsequent introduction of "Secrets of the Magister" I became more firmly entrenched in my idea that magic items can evolve, which flew in the face of many gamers/DM's faces now and then. The spell Wondercraft Lv 9 in that book allows simple elements of water, earth, fire, and air to achieve semi permanent magic items of limitied scope for the system.
I don't allow these Wondercrafted items to be combined because of their transitory nature, but I always believed that for some peoples campaigns that magics nature is to evolve. In that campaign setting Mystra wants (in the Magister & other sources) to spread magic in the world.
I always considered Greyhawk a cut above FR in the magic department, so it is a natural evolution for me to see the Suel and other magic using cultures as coming up with items of combined magic powers.
I had always considered that the street lights of ancient suel not only illuminated (Continual Light), but would offer secondary affects like protection from dust storms or the occasional rains in a certain diameter. This low level spell is basically a permanent magical item, and the other spells applied to it make it more a magic item than some items like the lowly potion.
In a finaly analysis the magic stacks, combines, and evolves like everything else magic in the game worlds. The idea of combining magic items has been about for a long time, and if 4.?? takes up the mantel then I applaud the idea. It is only the natural evolution of magic.
Also it leads to the evolution of the ultimate magic items...Artifacts. They aren't just made...they evolve.
Later
MT
1) Please note that I firmly support the low level gamers not adopting the idea for thier games. It is up to each DM afterall.
2) I know that 2nd ed isn't everyones cup of tea here, but even though I don't intend to change my game edition for any reason, I would certainly like the see whatever evolution 4.?? brings about be more real in relationship to how magic would evolve in a LOL "Real World" magic environment. For some the full evolution of magic is a hard pill to swallow (see 1), but it does work in a process of natural selection where the innovative prosper and the stagnant are buried.
My apologies Mike for having not responded to your post. I've been waiting for Bubba since he was playtesting some rules he worked out. Also I read a lot of this stuff after work so I am kinda tired and thus my comprehension level takes a serious drop. So lets see what we could come up with.
Mike said:
Quote:
The idea of transference I think is good. It flows well, and I think can work well. However, I think you are approaching the mechanics all wrong. 3E/3.5E has creation gold and xp on most items, or its easily figured. If you sacrifice something to improve another, then you would gain the XP and GP of that item, and be able to transfer to whatever ability you want in your weapon. Magic Item Compendium has rules on expanding the abilities of items with common bonuses (AC of all sorts, resistance, enhancement bonus to hit, etc).
I think I got lost right away. I don't have the Magic Item Compedium so maybe that is why I didn't understand (not sure). It's this sentance which really throws me off:
Quote:
If you sacrifice something to improve another, then you would gain the XP and GP of that item, and be able to transfer to whatever ability you want in your weapon.
Mike said:
Quote:
Given that you want permanent magic items more rare and worth more (in terms of demand), then I would just institute a ritual rule. Those with magical power can work this ritual, which takes time, and maybe 10% of total GP for consumed items to aid in the harvesting and merging of the items. Use the same times as item creation.
I liked the idea of it being a ritual because it fits in great with the fluff of my particular campaign. I think I have mentioned the fluff before in previous posts and how characters could benefit from it. Pretty much in my campaign all they would have to do is select a divine or arcane magical approach to the ritual. For divine, it would be a ritual handled by the different faiths. For the arcane, the ritual would be handled by schools, guilds, that sort of thing.
Quote:
The other option you might consider is the weapons of legacy rules. It seems to fit your needs, but I could be wrong.
I have this book but haven't been able to properly read it in order to get the full concept out of the pages. From what I gather, it pretty much allows one to have a magic item which has various properties already in place which are unlocked through various methods as the character advances in level, am I correct. If so, having transfered magical properties of a magic item or two into those of the PCs and unlocking it later when it is level appropriate would be good.
Mike said:
Quote:
The above option for transference is an extension of the artificer (ebberon) ability to rip XP out of an item and store it for later use. Making it a limited use ritual makes sense for your purposes. Using Gold and XP would eliminate questions of how would one ability exchange for another, and at what ratio. Those questions are built into the system. For better or worse, they are internally balanced.
I don't have any Ebberron materials so regretfully, I didn't really have much to say in return.
Mike said:
Quote:
For the fluff side, I could see a feat being required, as well as specific locational requirements. Maybe an arcane laboratory with so much money spent on the lab and its furnishings, aligned properly with the stars and moons, requiring a minimum knowledge (arcana) rank, etc. This would limit item creation to those with time, resources and levels. I could even see an arguement for keeping the "rules" as they are, except for allowing for the transference of the "Essence" of the magic item into another item.
As mentioned for me anyway, the fluff is pretty much covered. It is the mechanics that are the glitch. After reading your post again, I didn't really respond because you mentioned many things I either didn't understand, didn't know about or didn't have. Not that this is a bad thing, we just need to break it down a little so I can catch up.
I would suggest that we actually post some mechanics here so that various people can offer improvements, point out areas lacking, and perhaps even blend ideas to form a mechanically sound set of rules. In regards to fluff, I think each person should also post how they would have the fluff work for their world in order to avoid making mechanics work only for certain fluffy approaches and not others. My campaign is pretty much been spelled out I think, but what about the others? _________________ Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
My apologies Mikel for having not responded to your post. I've been waiting for Bubba since he was playtesting some rules he worked out. Also I read a lot of this stuff after work so I am kinda tired and thus my comprehension level takes a serious drop. So lets see what we could come up with.
No worries on any of that. I'll be quite happy to elaborate on anything I can to make myself understood. :)
EileenProphetofIstus wrote:
I think I got lost right away. I don't have the Magic Item Compedium so maybe that is why I didn't understand (not sure). It's this sentence which really throws me off:
Quote:
If you sacrifice something to improve another, then you would gain the XP and GP of that item, and be able to transfer to whatever ability you want in your weapon.
If your player has a weapon they like and they get in treasure, for example, a +1 sword. The base cost of this item, at least the magic part of it, is 2000 gp. To create this item took 1000 gp in materials and 80 xp. My idea is to allow them to let this amount of GP and XP flow into the upgrading of another item through the use of a magical location specifically made for it. I'll type out my full idea for this in one location near the bottom of this post.
If I may take a moment to make a point, whether you play in low magic or high magic games, the Magic Item Compendium is actually a great resource for DMs and players alike. It introduces a LOT of low level magic items (a great variety of minor boots and gloves for example) that will not matter much to a high level party, but will mean a lot to a lower level party. It also introduces the concept of magic level. Similar to ECL, it ranks items by their price and appropriateness for certain levels of character. The items listed on the 4th level list, for example, would make perfect sense to any DM who has run adventurers of 4th level before, and equipped them with what is considered normal magic items. It takes a lot of guess work out that most experienced DMs gave figured out long ago, while making it easier for newer DMs. Honestly as soon as I saw it, it "clicked" immediately. It seemed to fit perfectly with what I understood about treasure placement and magic item creation (which is quite a bit, if I do say so myself *grins*). All in all, its a good book to add to your core collection of books as an extension of the magic item chapter of the DMG. Could you figure everything in it out yourself? Oh yeah. But to not have to is a wonderful thing.
EileenProphetofIstus wrote:
I liked the idea of it being a ritual because it fits in great with the fluff of my particular campaign. I think I have mentioned the fluff before in previous posts and how characters could benefit from it. Pretty much in my campaign all they would have to do is select a divine or arcane magical approach to the ritual. For divine, it would be a ritual handled by the different faiths. For the arcane, the ritual would be handled by schools, guilds, that sort of thing.
That's one of the reasons I mentioned it. Though to be honest, the idea more fully sprang from the descriptions of 4E magic. I like the image of using rituals to imbue magic items with power. Matches my image from Tolkien and R.E.H. (Conan, etc) of craftsmen using elaborate rituals to imbue magic in items.
EileenProphetofIstus wrote:
I have this book but haven't been able to properly read it in order to get the full concept out of the pages. From what I gather, it pretty much allows one to have a magic item which has various properties already in place which are unlocked through various methods as the character advances in level, am I correct. If so, having transfered magical properties of a magic item or two into those of the PCs and unlocking it later when it is level appropriate would be good.
Close. To unlock the abilities you must be able to make a knowledge check to unlock the greater abilities, and use them. The only downside to the system is that you, as DM, must set up the abilities the weapon has when you first create it. You don't necessarily have to reveal it to the PC, but you need to have done the work ahead of time. For major items like the deific weapons you mentioned, it would work well. For more basic items (Rings of protection, etc), its more problematic.
EileenProphetofIstus wrote:
I don't have any Ebberron materials so regretfully, I didn't really have much to say in return.
In essence the artificer has the class ability (once they reach a certain level) to rip the XP out of an item and add it to their "craft pool", a pool of xp that renews itself each level and can be used to create items. The Artificer is in essence a class devoted purely to making magic items. Its long been one of the points against the setting by many. Others, like myself, see it purely as an evolution of magic item creation and human ingenuity. YMMV.
EileenProphetofIstus wrote:
As mentioned for me anyway, the fluff is pretty much covered. It is the mechanics that are the glitch. After reading your post again, I didn't really respond because you mentioned many things I either didn't understand, didn't know about or didn't have. Not that this is a bad thing, we just need to break it down a little so I can catch up.
I would suggest that we actually post some mechanics here so that various people can offer improvements, point out areas lacking, and perhaps even blend ideas to form a mechanically sound set of rules. In regards to fluff, I think each person should also post how they would have the fluff work for their world in order to avoid making mechanics work only for certain fluffy approaches and not others. My campaign is pretty much been spelled out I think, but what about the others?
To that end, I'll now post my full idea. I should have done so before hand, sorry. :) There is a chart in Magic Item Compendium that is necessary for this, and I'll check into its OGL-ness (is that a term? If not I just made it up :p ). If its not, then I can reproduce something similar from the actual OGL magic item creation rules. Its really just already broken down so you don't have to do the math.
-------
Ritual: Magic Item Power Transference
By the use of this ritual, a spellcaster with the proper knowledge of magic item creation can modify existing magic items with the abilities of other magic items. This ritual requires a specially prepared ritual space, with a cost in equipment equalling 500 times the highest level spell used in item creation. For most common items, this is a fairly low cost. For example, to use the power in a ring of protection and transfer its bonus into a suit of armor, would require a magical preparation space of 500 gp (Shield of Faith [1st level spell] x 500 gp). The materials in this cannot be reused, except as a means of increasing another ritual space, or sold for scrap parts. As scrap metal and rare materials, it would be worth its value divided by 5.
The crafting spellcaster makes a caster level check against a DC of 10 + the caster level of the item having its power transferred. If successful, then the item's power is transferred into the magical construct of the ritual space (this could be an elaborate pylon system, a gem of large size and elaborate setting, or whatever the DM decides on). The power of the item is equal to 90% of the gold peice and xp components used in its creation. This can then be used to upgrade an item, as per the following chart [coming next time I post, promise].
-------
My idea is that nothing is free when it comes to magic, so a 10% cost of the "recycled" item is a relatively small price to pay. Feel free to rewrite the ritual as you like it, and repost it in this thread. Honestly, I think this is a pretty good idea for any magic level campaign. It will make more sense once I can post the chart I mentioned earlier. The gist of the chart merely explains that it costs, for example, 3000 gp and 240 xp to increase a magic weapon from a +1 enhancement bonus to a +2 enhancement bonus (bringing the total amount of gold and xp in the item to 4000 gp, and 320 xp; the same as if you had made a +2 weapon from scratch all at once).
For combining items, or putting effects into slots they don't normally go into (dexterity items in weapons or headgear, strength items in shoulder items such as cloaks, etc), then use the modifiers already built into the system for effects in the wrong slots, and non-slotted bonuses. (For example a weapon that adds +2 to Dexterity, would cost 4000 gp and 320 xp; base price of 4000 gp for +2 to dexterity, double [non-slotted item modifier], which makes for 2000 gp creation cost, double [non-slotted item modifier], and xp equal to 1/25 of the modified base price for the effect added.
Weapon provides a +2 bonus to dexterity
Base Price: (4000x2) 8000 gp
Cost to Create: (2000x2) 4000 gp and 320 xp (1/25 of 8000 gp).
An item with affinity for the slot is different. To add invisibility (20,000 gp) to a ring of regeneration (90,000 gp) would cost 20,000 x 1.5, or a base cost of 30,000. The actual creation cost of this would be 15,000 gp and 1200 xp, bringing the total cost of the item to 120,000. (not to mention making one heck of a ring for a rogue or fighter who sometimes has to accompany said rogue - something well worth a history and a name).
Again, all of the rules are in the SRD and DMG, but they are explained in detail and with numerous examples in Magic Item Compendium. Oh, and they have new treasure tables, ranked by EL with new items, etc.
If I have managed to obsfucate anything worse than before say so, and I'll try and make it slightly clearer than mud. I'll post that chart soon.
Last edited by MikelAmroni on Thu Feb 21, 2008 12:11 pm; edited 1 time in total
As an aside from using this ritual as written, you could concievably leave one of these matrixes in an enemy spellcaster's lab, charged with some amount of gold and xp. This would create a situation where the PCs either have to destroy the construct so as to deny it to others, or have to hang around long enough to take advantage of it. This could lead the to PCs taking up temporary strongholds in enemy territory. Might be fun to run the PCs on the defensive for an adventure or two; not so much as to drag down the game, but definately enough to give them an idea of how to create a defensible area and give them new insights into getting around a dungeon. Then send a group of enemies at them and let their defenses fall or stand on their own merit. Might be a good one shot game for another set of players if you have any, running the precreated and equipped bad guys through the PC created traps. Good con game I'd say. :)
If I have managed to obsfucate anything worse than before say so, and I'll try and make it slightly clearer than mud. I'll post that chart soon.
No actually that was pretty easy to follow. I liked the idea quite a bit. It is very close to the thoughts bouncing around in my head which were never written down. The math seems simple and in my campaign, a lot of this would be calculated outside of game time anyway. There are some assorted ideas which were mentioned in the previous posts that I would like to include in order to round out some things that would come up in the game. As mentioned, I haven't read Weapons of Legacy all that much and thought about using the concept for this but it seemed like a difficult fit because your suppose to figure out everything in advance and then place the treasure in the game. I was looking for more of a free style idea which is the direction your heading.
I see some openings that could be worked with as well. Earlier feats were discussed. Using your idea, one could also select feats which might help modify costs or concepts involved. Have to think about this. The idea of your cost for the ritual is similar to what I use for placing divine magical abilities into items. The math is different but there is a cost associated with it for having the service performed. When my character performs it the cost is still paid as there are material components used, not to mention using the temple space and dedication of the character to the temple itself.
One area I would like to work with some more is this.
Mike wrote:
Quote:
For combining items, or putting effects into slots they don't normally go into (dexterity items in weapons or headgear, strength items in shoulder items such as cloaks, etc), then use the modifiers already built into the system for effects in the wrong slots, and non-slotted bonuses. (For example a weapon that adds +2 to Dexterity, would cost 4000 gp and 320 xp; base price of 4000 gp for +2 to dexterity, double [non-slotted item modifier], which makes for 2000 gp creation cost, double [non-slotted item modifier], and xp equal to 1/25 of the modified base price for the effect added.
Weapon provides a +2 bonus to dexterity
Base Price: (4000x2) 8000 gp
Cost to Create: (2000x2) 4000 gp and 320 xp (1/25 of 8000 gp).
I'd like to come up with a method which offers some guidlines for what item will work with what item, nothing overly complicated though. Unlikely matches which are still functional should be more expensive which is what you did if I understood you correctly. It is tough to picture some magic items being transferred into another which have no correlation between one another. For example, it is easy to picture a sword casting a spell or providing a spell effect. It is tough to visualize a weapon increasing a ability score (at least for me). I think setting some ground rules would be easy enough though.
For myself, I would be interested in trying it out if that is ok with you? Mind if I give it a try? Eventually I could get back to you and discuss the success of it. Playing has been really slow these past several months but this really interests me. Thank You very much Mike, your efforts are greatly apreciated. _________________ Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
Yeah, feel free to nab and use whatever. In fact if you get it rewritten in a manner that makes more sense, repost it. All I ask is credit for my part in it, which I'm fairly positive you would have given anyway. :)
The only thing my idea really adds is a means of harvesting the GP/XP of an item and being able to use that to transfer into normal magic item creation. Beyond that its pretty much standard item creation. I gave the sword adding dexterity as an extreme example, although its not without precedent in fantasy fiction. It would likely be better done as an AC bonus (dodge or morale perhaps) rather than a dex bonus, but as I said, it was merely an example.
And saying that the item must have some correlation to the ability given is purely one of individual DM judgement. The rule itself stands alone and apart from it. I personally would not place that limit, but its far from heretical to say that the items detroyed must have an impact on the item improved. That would end up being fluff for the individual DM to determine (IMO).
If we get it tested and done, it might not be a bad idea to post this as an article. When we get to that point, let me know and I'll help. As a side note written into the text of the ritual is that the user must know how to create items. I left that broad for a reason - specifically if a DM doesn't want characters wasting time on Magic Item Creation feats, then he can merely assign knowledge based on time spent learning. Or if he allows players (and they choose) to use Item Creation, then its fairly specific in saying you have to know how to item creation feat for the item in question. Of course any NPC crafters could do this already, but I'm mentioning this specifically for PCs.
First, my apologies for being so tardy with my reply. Work, followed by a car wreck, followed by hospitalization, followed by (much, much) more work got in the way. However, I have had time to playtest a few ideas with my gaming groups and here's what I've come up with:
First, the reasoning behind the conclusion.
1) There are several feats currently available that allow a PC to have an extra magic item slot. My proposal, however, in effect allows a PC to have an infinite number of item slots, thus its cost is high.
2) While a ritual makes more sense to me in terms of fluff, a feat was chosen for the simplicity of the mechanic and because most campaigns do not include rules for ritual magic (which is a pity, IMV).
3) I definitely like the idea of there being a risk of destruction in the system, but as written the current game system prefers costs over risks. Thus no risk is included, though I highly recommend individual DMs come up with one for their own campaigns.
The feat I've come up with isn't currently in the official format, but here's what it does (I'm currently calling it Transfer Dweomer for lack of a better title):
A PC with this feat can transfer an enchantment from one item to another, combining both enchantments in a single item. Both items must be of the same type (weapon, armor, wondrous item, staff, etc.) and the PC must meet the requirements of each item as though crafting them individually. The cost for combining enchantments in this way is equal to the XP and gp costs of the two items to be combined, plus 500 XP and 1,000gp. In all cases the item requiring the highest caster level (CL) to produce will receive the properties of the item requiring the lowest CL. If both items require the same CL, the item costing the most XP to produce receives both enchantments. If this, too, is equal in both items, the PC combining the items can choose which receives the increase in powers.
Aligned items cannot be transferred into items of other alignments and cannot receive transfers from items possessing other alignments. Two items with the same alignment can be combined.
Intelligent items cannot under any circumstances have their properties transferred into another item. They can, however, receive properties from other items provided that the other item does not have a different alignment and does not require a higher caster level to produce.
Opposing magical properties cannot be combined in a single item. If an item's enchantment is transferred into an item with an opposing property, the property causing the conflict is lost. For example, if a +3 holy longsword's enchantment were transferred into a +4 unholy mace, the holy property would be lost but the +3 bonus would transfer normally. In such cases there is no reduction in the XP or gp costs to transfer the enchantment.
If for some reason the receiving item's (nonmagical) physical properties would not allow a property to function, the property is lost. For example, if a weapon with the keen property had its enchantment transferred into a blunt weapon, the keen property would be lost.
First, my apologies for being so tardy with my reply. Work, followed by a car wreck, followed by hospitalization, followed by (much, much) more work got in the way. However, I have had time to playtest a few ideas with my gaming groups and here's what I've come up with:
Well first and foremost Bubba I hope whomever was involved in the car wreck is all right in the long run. Now we have two good ways of working with this issue. I suspect I shall actually try and do both at the same time. First I'll figure it one way in the game, then before anything is said and done, I'll try the other method. The end result being well...whatever it is. I would like to thank everyone for responding and as soon as I jump back up on the horse (so to speak).
I'll be looking for easy math, great fluff, and easy to remember rules. Thanks again. _________________ Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
Glad to hear your going to be allright. I had no idea if you were in the accident, your wife, children, other family members, or a close friend. Hope there are no serious/longterm effects involved. You know, if you had Istus as your deity and the Luck Domain, you could have re-rolled that driving check. Anyway, sincerely hope your all right.
I apologize for my short post on your efforts in this thread. I haven't been myself lately so I didn't want you to think I was indifferent towards your post, I wasn't. I will be trying out the feat as mentioned. You said that you play tested it and I was wondering if you can give me a run down on what happened in the game in regards to this feat.
Who used it, what they combined, what did your players think when you introduced the idea, did they like it, not like it, indiferent, can you give me specific costs that you dealt with, what fluff if any did you involve, was it done at a temple, wizard lab/college, middle of the dungeon, details please.... _________________ Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
1. My evil twin.
2. Ill.
3. One of Mort's evil cultists in disguise.
4. The crabby nurse with the cold bedpan. _________________ Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
I can easily imagine you as the crabby nurse, but the thought of you wielding the anal thermometer makes me cringe.
Well I will have to give you this one. Once again I have been bested by superior wit. Anything I write would most likely be pretty darn funny but would go beyond Canonfire appropriatness. God Job!
Hey how about that.... we hijacked our own thread.....can we do that? _________________ Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
However, I have had time to playtest a few ideas with my gaming groups and here's what I've come up with:
First, the reasoning behind the conclusion.
1) There are several feats currently available that allow a PC to have an extra magic item slot. My proposal, however, in effect allows a PC to have an infinite number of item slots, thus its cost is high.
I disagree with your reasoning there, but I do understand it. I would say that a feat slot is a significant expenditure of advancement, and using it to gain another magic item slot is an appropriate reward for giving up a feat (and setting you back on any feat trees you might be on). But, this is one of those things that a DM has to decide for himself.
bubbagump wrote:
2) While a ritual makes more sense to me in terms of fluff, a feat was chosen for the simplicity of the mechanic and because most campaigns do not include rules for ritual magic (which is a pity, IMV).
Well it was my intent that you could use the ritual as a ritual only, or as the mechanics for a feat - depending on how the individual DM handled it. And I agree with your thought that ritual magic is not used more being a pity.
bubbagump wrote:
3) I definitely like the idea of there being a risk of destruction in the system, but as written the current game system prefers costs over risks. Thus no risk is included, though I highly recommend individual DMs come up with one for their own campaigns.
The feat I've come up with isn't currently in the official format, but here's what it does (I'm currently calling it Transfer Dweomer for lack of a better title):
Man I like that name!! Would you mind if we used it for both processes? or the combination of the two if we can come to some agreement on combining them?
As for the risks statement, if the PCs were giving up nothing, I'd agree, risks all the way. But from a player standpoint, giving up XP and gold and having it blow up in your face because you rolled a low number is as anticlimatic as it gets. Both are significant costs to pay and having it have a chance of blowing up in your face. Just my opinion though
bubbagump wrote:
A PC with this feat can transfer an enchantment from one item to another, combining both enchantments in a single item. Both items must be of the same type (weapon, armor, wondrous item, staff, etc.) and the PC must meet the requirements of each item as though crafting them individually. The cost for combining enchantments in this way is equal to the XP and gp costs of the two items to be combined, plus 500 XP and 1,000gp. In all cases the item requiring the highest caster level (CL) to produce will receive the properties of the item requiring the lowest CL. If both items require the same CL, the item costing the most XP to produce receives both enchantments. If this, too, is equal in both items, the PC combining the items can choose which receives the increase in powers.
Aligned items cannot be transferred into items of other alignments and cannot receive transfers from items possessing other alignments. Two items with the same alignment can be combined.
Intelligent items cannot under any circumstances have their properties transferred into another item. They can, however, receive properties from other items provided that the other item does not have a different alignment and does not require a higher caster level to produce.
Opposing magical properties cannot be combined in a single item. If an item's enchantment is transferred into an item with an opposing property, the property causing the conflict is lost. For example, if a +3 holy longsword's enchantment were transferred into a +4 unholy mace, the holy property would be lost but the +3 bonus would transfer normally. In such cases there is no reduction in the XP or gp costs to transfer the enchantment.
If for some reason the receiving item's (nonmagical) physical properties would not allow a property to function, the property is lost. For example, if a weapon with the keen property had its enchantment transferred into a blunt weapon, the keen property would be lost.
On that last part with keen, you could exchange it for impact, which is essentially keen for blunt weapons.
The primary difference of your system and mine is that you assume the magic of the item itself flavors the magic that is ripped from it, while I think that the magic of the item, once free of its confines and shaping, becomes raw energy capable of being reshaped. To use a playdoh as a crude analogy, you think each item is made up of many different colors of playdoh, and you can only use each color for the purpose it was orginally intended. I think the playdoh is all the same color, and the shaping gives it the form and function. Neither version is incorrect, but I really don't see them as working well together, unfortunately. I hope I'm wrong, because you have some good ideas, but in general seperating all the bonuses like you have creates a much more DM intensive workload. But, you've actually playtested yours, and I haven't playtested mine. So you've already had to work through some of the issues I haven't even thought of yet.
Just offering constructive criticism, feel free to ignore it as needed/desired.
You said that you play tested it and I was wondering if you can give me a run down on what happened in the game in regards to this feat.
I playtested this with 3 of my 4 current groups. Collectively, these groups contain 1 wizard, 2 sorcerers, a hexblade, a duskblade, a spellthief, a warlock, and a warmage. I gave each of these the feat and told them to do with it what they will, using it as often as possible.
Unfortunately I didn't take note of every combination of magic items or every situation in which the feat was used. I opted instead to simply keep track of the results mentally, with only a note or two to keep from forgetting anything significant I noticed. (Sloppy, I know, but I'm not getting paid for this, after all.)
The players all seemed to enjoy the feat at first, and all of them used it several times. The transferral was performed sometimes in the dungeon, sometimes at home, and only a couple of times in a laboratory. The first thing I noticed is that my earlier thoughts on cost were far too low. Practically every magic item the PCs found got combined with something else, and before long every character in all 3 parties was carrying lots of uber-items with multiple powers. The PCs quickly shifted from depending on spells and other abilities to depending on magic items. Also, they began to have a really hard time keeping up with it all, and play slowed down quite a lot. They also got distracted away from the main plot and went off here and there to acquire more magic items that they could combine. It was a mess. Increasing the cost to its current level cleared this up, and yet the feat was still a popular choice since it effectively allows the PCs to have a broader range of powers available.
The limitation on what sort of item could be transferred into what sort of other item also came about because of some of the odd combinations that occurred, such as a necklace of fireballs with the powers of a +2 holy longsword. While it was possible to make alterations in each case, doing so became excessively awkward and ate up too much playing time.
Personally, I'd rather have a much less restrictive method that allows for more creativity and player input. I'd also like to have something with a little more fluff for roleplaying purposes. Unfortunately, many of my players have only the core books and/or very little experience, so I had to keep things simple for their sakes. I regret not having kept better notes, but I didn't think I'd need them. Sorry.
I disagree with your reasoning there, but I do understand it. I would say that a feat slot is a significant expenditure of advancement, and using it to gain another magic item slot is an appropriate reward for giving up a feat (and setting you back on any feat trees you might be on). But, this is one of those things that a DM has to decide for himself.
I thought a feat was enough of a cost at first, too. I didn't want to charge more than a pittance of gold to perform the transferance, and no XP (since I don't like paying XP for magic items anyway). However, in play it quickly became apparent that a greater restriction was necessary. For example, a 3rd level fighter was eventually using a +5 keen holy longsword with the powers of a wand of cure light wounds. One wizard had more spells available from his shield (yes, I said "shield") than he could cast on his own. I had to impose the cost to stop such things from happening.
MikelAmroni wrote:
Well it was my intent that you could use the ritual as a ritual only, or as the mechanics for a feat - depending on how the individual DM handled it. And I agree with your thought that ritual magic is not used more being a pity.
Yes, I'm quite fond of ritual magic in my own games and use it quite extensively. However, I wrote this feat with players in mind, many of whom play in campaigns that don't use ritual magic. I wanted it to be something that anybody could use instead of something just for me.
MikelAmroni wrote:
Man I like that name!! Would you mind if we used it for both processes? or the combination of the two if we can come to some agreement on combining them?
Feel free. Consider it "open content".
MikelAmroni wrote:
As for the risks statement, if the PCs were giving up nothing, I'd agree, risks all the way. But from a player standpoint, giving up XP and gold and having it blow up in your face because you rolled a low number is as anticlimatic as it gets. Both are significant costs to pay and having it have a chance of blowing up in your face. Just my opinion though
You have a point there. Perhaps a risk of failure and/or injury is a bit too much. I'll have to think on that some more.
MikelAmroni wrote:
On that last part with keen, you could exchange it for impact, which is essentially keen for blunt weapons.
Agreed, but I wrote this with players in mind, many of whom don't have all the splatbooks. Early in the testing process it was possible to combine any items without restriction. When apparent conflicts arose it was possible to work out all sorts of combinations, justifying them in all sorts of ways. However, some of the combinations didn't work logically, such as a sword having both holy and unholy properties. Also, conflicts arose concerning uses per day and so forth. Both DM and player had to spend a boatload of time working out the details of how a resulting magic item worked. For example, in one 6-hour session I recall we spent almost the entire time trying to make 2 combinations work. Changing it the way I did fixed that, and now the players can easily work these details out for themselves.
I like the idea of simply draining an item's XP and using them for other creations, but that raises problems of its own. For example, the gold spent to create the original item is wasted. Frankly, I think all this is arising from a weakness in the 3.5e magic item creation system. While it's a whole lightyear better than the 1e system, it's still imprecise. Keep working on your option, since I don't think it's compatible at all. I know my design is far from perfect and has several details yet to be worked out.
MikelAmroni wrote:
Just offering constructive criticism, feel free to ignore it as needed/desired.
No problem! Constructive criticism is always welcome. I've often said that I don't have a creative bone in my body. If I couldn't leech from everybody else's critiques and ideas I'd never get anything done.
Or, if you don't like to criticize, I'll also accept mindless gushing about how great I am. Either way works for me.
Unfortunately I didn't take note of every combination of magic items or every situation in which the feat was used. I opted instead to simply keep track of the results mentally, with only a note or two to keep from forgetting anything significant I noticed. (Sloppy, I know, but I'm not getting paid for this, after all.) I regret not having kept better notes, but I didn't think I'd need them. Sorry.
Hmmm....check was already sent Bubba. In return what do I get, excuses....
I have some questions for you which I will post late in the wee hours of the night when I have more time. Thanks for the response and I shall talk to you later.
Guess I got back to things sooner than I expected.
Bubba said:
Quote:
The players all seemed to enjoy the feat at first, and all of them used it several times. The transferral was performed sometimes in the dungeon, sometimes at home, and only a couple of times in a laboratory. The first thing I noticed is that my earlier thoughts on cost were far too low. Practically every magic item the PCs found got combined with something else, and before long every character in all 3 parties was carrying lots of uber-items with multiple powers. The PCs quickly shifted from depending on spells and other abilities to depending on magic items.
Ok, I can see how it could be difficult to keep track of everything when several items were transferred into one magic item. Here's where I am a bit confused.....Now if the adventurers were say exploring a dungeon and found four magic items, each selecting one item, transferred the new items powers into ones they already owned, understandably, these items become more powerful. Now lets say they go through dungeon #2 and the exact same thing happens, again the items are transferred into the same items the PC started out with. Again now they are more powerful. The question is how is this more powerful or unbalancing than if they each retained the separate items? I can understand how it would be more to keep track of but I'm missing how it is overall more power than if they each had the individual items.
Quote:
the feat was still a popular choice since it effectively allows the PCs to have a broader range of powers available.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by how they had a broader range of power? Again, if each PC had kept the items individually, they would still have the same amount of power right? So unfortunetly I'm not understanding what your conveying.
Quote:
The limitation on what sort of item could be transferred into what sort of other item also came about because of some of the odd combinations that occurred, such as a necklace of fireballs with the powers of a +2 holy longsword. While it was possible to make alterations in each case, doing so became excessively awkward and ate up too much playing time.
Personally, I'd rather have a much less restrictive method that allows for more creativity and player input.
Going back to some of my original thoughts, I had in mind much stronger limitations and transferrance involving items which had obvious parallels with one another so the powers seemed quasi-related. Did you do a bit of a free for all when you play tested things in order to find out what kind of restictions if any you would want or need to put in place? The above comment indicates that you'd like to see less restrictions. So I think I'm a little lost on what your getting at here.
I had some ideas for magic items with plusses, say a +1 hammer being transferred into a +3 sword. The effect wouldn't be a +4 weapon. I was thinking of having lesser items having to accumulate before raising the magical plus of the said weapon/armor/shield. For example, If the PC has a +3 battle axe and finds a +1 hammer it doesn't become a +4 weapon but rather it would take a few +1 or +2 weapons to reach the +4 bonus. Say a number of plusses equal to the current weapon before it could be raised another +1. Thus it would take four +1 weapons or two +2 weapons, or a combination thereof before the increase occurrs in the battle axe above. More things to keep track of, yes, better for balance, quite possibly. It would also discourage players from trying to sell these lesser items as well since they are eventually getting something out of the deal, it would also prevent them from becoming packrats and keeping every little item they find.
I would opt for some limitations to other odd combinations. I don't find it that weird to have a weapon cast a spell (though it depends upon the spell) or for a shield/armor to cast a spell if it is somewhat defensive for example. I have a carpet of flying, a device which is used for transport. The carpet also allows 1 use of Word of Recall per day as well, a transportation spell. So together, to me, these seem like a good fit. The wizard has figurines of wonderous power (lions) which have a fear effect. Again, seems like another good match.
Now the items I am describing are those which have received a divine ability using the house rules I have spoken about before. I'm mentioning it because I as a DM have set forth some guidline rules as to which divine power the PC may seek to match the magical item in question as well as their faith. It is a free for all in the sense that the PC gets to select what they want following the guidlines I established. Guidlines are based on spell level matching character level. Essentially, if a spell effect can be cast by a character of that level it is then it is level balanced. The next requirement is that it matches the magic item from a logical sense (no carpet of flying that casts fireball or create water for example), and finally, the limitation that it follow the general tenants of the religion. Pretty much just common sense calls on the part of the player and DM. As DM I have the final say on whether it is acceptable. I think this basic concept would be useful in our transferance topic. Common matches in magic and possibly incorporating a character level balance. In the transferrance, PCs could always transfer the magic now but be unable to use it until they hit an appropriate character level. This prevents unbalance and the PC would be looking forward to it as they advance in level.
Quote:
I'd also like to have something with a little more fluff for roleplaying purposes. Unfortunately, many of my players have only the core books and/or very little experience, so I had to keep things simple for their sakes.
I can see how the fluff would make a lot of difference in introducing this concept into the game. My previous comments have talked about it significantly but from my campaign point of view, which clearly is different than your or anyone elses. As mentioned before, I think that when the mechanics are in place, the fluff needs to go along with it. Otherwise I don't think the entire transferrance idea is really worht a whole lot in the long run. Developing the campaign should be primary and the rules exist to give that campaign flavor and life, which is where the fluff comes in.
Quote:
I regret not having kept better notes, but I didn't think I'd need them. Sorry.
Apologies completely unnecessary. You chose to do the ground work, and that deserves a thank you. _________________ Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
I thought a feat was enough of a cost at first, too. I didn't want to charge more than a pittance of gold to perform the transferance, and no XP (since I don't like paying XP for magic items anyway). However, in play it quickly became apparent that a greater restriction was necessary. For example, a 3rd level fighter was eventually using a +5 keen holy longsword with the powers of a wand of cure light wounds. One wizard had more spells available from his shield (yes, I said "shield") than he could cast on his own. I had to impose the cost to stop such things from happening.
I think the best thing would be to establish a chart with the maximum a character can spend at a certain level. Yet again, I need to copy that chart out of MIC. I'll do that tonight, promise. As the chart is based on the concepts in DMG, it should be completely OGL, so no worry there. Regardless I know we can use it ourselves, whether it is or not. A spending limit is certainly within the right of the DM to impose, and certainly has precedent. I think it may be worth our time to add it to both versions.
bubbagump wrote:
Feel free. Consider it "open content".
Sweet!
bubbagump wrote:
Agreed, but I wrote this with players in mind, many of whom don't have all the splatbooks. Early in the testing process it was possible to combine any items without restriction. When apparent conflicts arose it was possible to work out all sorts of combinations, justifying them in all sorts of ways. However, some of the combinations didn't work logically, such as a sword having both holy and unholy properties. Also, conflicts arose concerning uses per day and so forth. Both DM and player had to spend a boatload of time working out the details of how a resulting magic item worked. For example, in one 6-hour session I recall we spent almost the entire time trying to make 2 combinations work. Changing it the way I did fixed that, and now the players can easily work these details out for themselves.
I like the idea of simply draining an item's XP and using them for other creations, but that raises problems of its own. For example, the gold spent to create the original item is wasted. Frankly, I think all this is arising from a weakness in the 3.5e magic item creation system. While it's a whole lightyear better than the 1e system, it's still imprecise. Keep working on your option, since I don't think it's compatible at all. I know my design is far from perfect and has several details yet to be worked out.
To me the idea of combining items and using the abilities as written would result in the confusion you experienced. In fact that's why I suggested using the gold and xp of the item you're harvesting, as opposed to its ability. The concept of harvesting magic, in my view, should harvest usable magic. And since a VERY large portion of the cost to create an item lies in the consumables used in the enchantment process, I see no reason a significant portion of the process couldn't be reclaimed. The idea of integrating a control component to allow for this is more a way of regulating when and were it can be done. I don't think it should or could be done in a dungeon, unless you have access to magnificant mansion and the DM allows it to be a single mansion that you keep opening the portal to. Or a Daern's Instant Fortress. Or Rod of Security or....
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
Man I like that name!! Would you mind if we used it for both processes? or the combination of the two if we can come to some agreement on combining them?
So you've already had to work through some of the issues I haven't even thought of yet.
