Artifacts

[Bishmon]

Huh? Artifacts have been sentient since 1E.

I can't find any mention in the 3.5E DMG that even a single artifact was in any way sentient.

 

[Kraydak]

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

The Eye of Vecna is described as being able and willing to tear itself from the user's eye socket in the middle of battle, just 'cuz. The Axe explicitly "vanishes" when it wants to (being a reasonably considerate item, it tends to pick its departure time carefully). 4e artifacts are very much described as having the ability to teleport (or similar) away at will.

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.

Or if it find that its bearer is a "hopeless case". I would generally consider someone bent on my destruction as being a hopeless case with respect to fulfilling my goals. You wouldn't?

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.

Suicidal artifacts, already covered above. Potentially amusing plot concept: tired artifact trying to bully adventurers into destroying it at great peril to themselves.

 

[Shroomy]

I too love these new artifact rules. In 3.5e artifacts, especially the lesser ones, were often ways to create cool new magic items without having to employ the craptastic creation rules in the DMG. Hell, my upcoming Dungeon adventure features a lesser artifact that fulfills this very same function.

 

[hong]

What has happened to artifacts? First, they're all sentient now, with their own goals and motivations and attitudes towards the wielder. And second, the damn thing goes away after a few levels once you've either satisfied it enough or disappointed it enough.

They managed to take artifacts from cool, unique, powerful magic items to unique, powerful magic items that I wouldn't ever want to deal with. That's an incredible turnaround, and one I didn't think was possible.

Good. An artifact is not a normal magic item.

 

[Bishmon]

Good. An artifact is not a normal magic item.

Absolutely agreed.

I'm just not a fan of going from "let's not simply make this a +X weapon" to "let's give it sentience and motivations and the ability to just get up and leave whenever it wants"

I mean, there's gotta be some middle ground in there, right?

 

[Harshax]

I can't find any mention in the 3.5E DMG that even a single artifact was in any way sentient.

The sword of Kas has an Ego of 17 IIRC. And the hand or eye immediately turned the wearer to NE. And, I think all the orbs of dragonkind had egos.

The DMG didn't say exactly what every artifact's purpose was, but it was very clear that Artifacts had the goals and personalities that meshed with their creators.

 

[Mort]

The Eye of Vecna is described as being able and willing to tear itself from the user's eye socket in the middle of battle, just 'cuz. The Axe explicitly "vanishes" when it wants to (being a reasonably considerate item, it tends to pick its departure time carefully). 4e artifacts are very much described as having the ability to teleport (or similar) away at will.

And again they may not - again creative plot device.

Or if it find that its bearer is a "hopeless case". I would generally consider someone bent on my destruction as being a hopeless case with respect to fulfilling my goals. You wouldn't?

If the PC's are being that obvious about it then they don't deserve to destroy the artifact - so they lose it, lesson learned.

On the other hand - they PC's maneuver the artifact wielding villain to confront them where the artifact can be destroyed (say eye of vecna and near a volcano) - the villain is arrogant, overconfident and convinced of impending victory, the artifact shares these feelings. The villain is winning the battle, the artifact is even more confident and is not going anywhere.

The villain gets a little careless and moves close to the volcano (what does he care these measly beings are no threat). Suddenly one of the PC's rushes the villain, grabs him and plummets into the volcano with him - the eye of vecna being a purely selfish entity (incapable of even thinking of such self sacrifice) doesn't react in time to prevent its destruction. Boom - destroyed artifact and a great PC story.


The "moving on" mechanic is just a reminder to DM's that artifacts are not supposed to be permanent fixtures it's not some kind of comandment to DM's that they must teleport the artifact away.

 

[Mort]

Absolutely agreed.

I'm just not a fan of going from "let's not simply make this a +X weapon" to "let's give it sentience and motivations and the ability to just get up and leave whenever it wants"

I mean, there's gotta be some middle ground in there, right?

The middle ground is the DM designing a scenario where the artifact may not want to (or can't) leave. I've used the words plot device a few too many times in this threat, but they just simply cannot be stressed enough.

Again the point is to not treat artifacts as just some ultra powerful magic item - but as (sorry) a plot device.

 

[Bishmon]

The sword of Kas has an Ego of 17 IIRC. And the hand or eye immediately turned the wearer to NE. And, I think all the orbs of dragonkind had egos.

The DMG didn't say exactly what every artifact's purpose was, but it was very clear that Artifacts had the goals and personalities that meshed with their creators.

Ah, yes, didn't see the Sword of Kas. That certainly is intelligent, the DMG says as much and lists the relevant ability scores.

Orbs of dragonkind, not so much. It mentions containing the essence and personality of a dragon, but they don't use any of the intelligence mechanics, so who knows what to make of that.

And the Vecna items have a chance to turn the wielder evil, but that's a stretch, at best, to call that sentience.

And if the DMG was very clear in saying that artifacts had goals and personalities, I'd be interested in seeing it. From what I'm reading in the artifacts section and the intelligent magic items section, they don't even imply such a general thing, let alone make it very clear.

 

[Bishmon]

The middle ground is the DM designing a scenario where the artifact may not want to (or can't) leave. I've used the words plot device a few too many times in this threat, but they just simply cannot be stressed enough.

Again the point is to not treat artifacts as just some ultra powerful magic item - but as (sorry) a plot device.

First off, I don't think that's anything like a middle ground. In fact, that just sounds pretty much like how it is in 4E.

Secondly, I hate the idea of artifacts as plot devices. But maybe that's because I generally view things as a player, whereas others may view things as a DM. Because as a player, I loathe the idea of having a cool magic item with interesting abilities being subject to the mere whim of the DM and his plot. As a player, I would have absolutely no desire to ever try and recover an artifact that my character would otherwise covet, because I as a player know that that artifact's use is inextricably tied to the DM taking the artifact away when it no longer happens to serve his plot.

I don't want artifacts to be normal magic items, but I certainly don't want them to be deus ex machinas, either.