Artifacts

[robertliguori]

Beg your pardon? Gandalf refused to touch the ring for fear that it would overwhelm him.

Plot devices are most importantly devices. The nice thing about them is that they don't have to be turned on if you don't want to.

DC

Gandalf was of the same class of being as Sauron, and served a more powerful (if subtler) patron. If Galadriel had an expectation of being able to claim mastery of the ring on account of magical pussiance and willpower, Gandalf could as well. It's just that doing so would slap his alignment firmly into the "Melkor" category, and he didn't want that.

And for the second, well, the nice thing about tabletop RPing is that there are multiple authors present, and Forgotten Phlebotinum usually doesn't get to slip under the radar without being called out, to generally superior storytelling results. If you have developed a universe in which you can't tell a particular type of story conveniently, ignoring or editing elements of the universe until you get what you're looking for tends to drain the resulting story of pathos once it becomes clear that the circumstances around the story were induced and engineered.

 

[Harshax]

First, they're all sentient now, with their own goals and motivations and attitudes towards the wielder.

Huh? Artifacts have been sentient since 1E.

 

[Kraydak]

One downside of 4e artifacts is that you can't really destroy them: they will always "move on" before you deal the final blow.

If you put in a technic to keep it captive, you can use it as long as you want. If you don't, no artifact destruction plots for you.

 

[Mort]

One downside of 4e artifacts is that you can't really destroy them: they will always "move on" before you deal the final blow.

If you put in a technic to keep it captive, you can use it as long as you want. If you don't, no artifact destruction plots for you.

Well except for the fact that the DMG expressly states that each artifact has a unique means of destruction and that a character can research that means if it fits within the campaign (it then gives a suggested means of destruction for the eye of vecna)- so I'm not sure where you got that bit from.

 

[Logos7]

Unless the plot calls for it,

Having the dm keep in mind that the players don't necessarily need to keep the artifact of ogre slaying +9 after all the ogre slaying is done seems to me to be a lot less drastic then what some are talking about,

guess we'll see after i get the suckers

Logos
~At worst invisible christopher walkin takes it away to moria to be melts into invisible bling, what's not internally conisistant about that?

 

[Kraydak]

Well except for the fact that the DMG expressly states that each artifact has a unique means of destruction and that a character can research that means if it fits within the campaign (it then gives a suggested means of destruction for the eye of vecna)- so I'm not sure where you got that bit from.

Of course there is a theoretical way to destroy an artifact. The problem is, if you try and perform it, the sentient artifact will:
1) Notice (some serious Concordance hits I presume, unless the artifact is suicidal) and
2) Leave. Because it can, and doesn't want to be destroyed (again, unless it is suicidal).

You can get around point (2) at the expense of being able to have artifact leave at the DM's discretion.

 

[Mort]

Of course there is a theoretical way to destroy an artifact. The problem is, if you try and perform it, the sentient artifact will:
1) Notice (some serious Concordance hits I presume, unless the artifact is suicidal) and
2) Leave. Because it can, and doesn't want to be destroyed (again, unless it is suicidal).

You can get around point (2) at the expense of being able to have artifact leave at the DM's discretion.

No one said destroying an artifact should be simple - but there are plenty of examples where an artifact won't want to (or can't) leave and then suddenly it's too late. Easiest example of course - the one ring (both its ultimate goal and its destruction are in almost the same place).

Another great example occurs in the Rise of a Demon Lord novels (great series by Blackdirge available at this site on PDF).

Point is destruction of an artifact requires creativity on the part of the DM and the player - and that's exactly as it should be.

 

[Kraydak]

No one said destroying an artifact should be simple - but there are plenty of examples where an artifact won't want to leave and then suddenly it's too late. Easiest example of course - the one ring (both its ultimate goal and its destruction are in almost the same place).
...

4e's version of the One Ring would have the ability: teleport to Sauron, at will, ignore all anti-teleport effects.

The above is what the "move on" aspect of 4e artifacts is. Not a "slightly bend fate to eventually get you where you want to go", but rather a "poof, you are there" or at least a "poof, you are gone".

You need the 4e version to be able to take artifacts out of PC hands, and you can't afford the 4e version if you want an artifact destruction plot. Choices, choices. There isn't a right choice in general, though there might be for a specific gaming group.

 

[Mort]

4e's version of the One Ring would have the ability: teleport to Sauron, at will, ignore all anti-teleport effects.

The above is what the "move on" aspect of 4e artifacts is. Not a "slightly bend fate to eventually get you where you want to go", but rather a "poof, you are there" or at least a "poof, you are gone".

Sorry but even per the DMG - this is just simply wrong.

An artifact moves on if and only if it is "meant to move on" and in a manor appropriate with the artifact (ie may be blatant, may be subtle) hence its status as a plot device.

Why would an artifact stick around when it's destruction may be at hand? easy:

a good artifact may realize its destruction is at hand but that the greater good is served.

an evil artifact may sense its ultimate glory and just can't bring itself to move on.

maybe certain conditions prevent it leaving (encase it in gold a la Eddings)

Or just simply - artifact motivations are completely beyond "mortal" understanding sometimes they move on, sometimes they don't - hence again plot device.

Point to all this - I think 4e presents a very good way to handle artifacts and gives some decent suggestions for doing so.

 

[Kzach]

I absolutely love the way artefacts have been done in this edition.

I honestly could not have hoped for any better way to do them. They are simply pure awesome.