Artifacts

[Harshax]

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.

Page 156:
Many of these items tend to make their possessor reclusive, secretive, arrogant, and/or greedy. These effects are best to handle through manipulation of the player by means of powers, non-player characters, etc.

---

I guess I mentally extracted that artifacts have personalities, because it was not appealing for me to thing all artifacts have the same psychological effects.

 

[Bishmon]

Page 156:
Many of these items tend to make their possessor reclusive, secretive, arrogant, and/or greedy. These effects are best to handle through manipulation of the player by means of powers, non-player characters, etc.

---

I guess I mentally extracted that artifacts have personalities, because it was not appealing for me to thing all artifacts have the same psychological effects.

I'm guessing you're not looking in the 3.5E DMG, right? Because I'm just seeing a lot about the elemental plane of fire on page 156.

Anyway, the part you quoted, I read it as those effects being a result of a person being in possession of an incredibly powerful magic item that is desired by most people that have heard of it. It's easy to imagine how the artifact's power could make the possessor arrogant, the same way a schoolyard bully gets more arrogant if he's got a group of friends backing him up. And it's just as easy to imagine the possessor becoming secretive or reclusive because he wants to make sure this uniquely powerful item remains his.

 

[Mort]

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'm not sure how to respond to that really, the whole point of an artifact is to not be just some magic item.

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

And a good DM should find the middle ground. Artifacts should be part of a cool campaign arc not some obvious horrible rail road.

 

[hong]

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.

Your problem is not that artifacts are bad. Your problem is that you have come to conceive of normal magic items as boring and uninteresting.

 

[Bishmon]

Your problem is not that artifacts are bad. Your problem is that you have come to conceive of normal magic items as boring and uninteresting.

And your problem seems to be that you form opinions when you're woefully unqualified to do so.

 

[Bishmon]

I'm not sure how to respond to that really, the whole point of an artifact is to not be just some magic item.

I'm not sure where you get 'just some magic item' from. I'm not sure if you're merely misunderstanding what I'm saying, or if you're just mischaracterizing it to make a point.

And a good DM should find the middle ground. Artifacts should be part of a cool campaign arc not some obvious horrible rail road.

Ok, if artifacts should be part of a cool campaign arc, why does that necessitate sentience and getting rid of the item when it no longer serves the plot? In fact, the latter of which seems more likely to cause an obvious horrible railroad than a cool campaign arc, so I'm not following how you're getting from point A to point B here.

 

[Ten]

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.

This, I believe, is where we depart. I am a player too, so I can understand some of your views. But there is no way in hell I see Artifacts as "Super items". They AREN'T designed to be the super cool item to cap off your character and make them uber. If they were, I could understand where you were coming from. My character is my character, and if the DM started to encroach on what my character could do too much, I can get ticked. But this isn't the case with artifacts. They are a plot device, not a weapon.

Take what I thought of right away: The Dragonlances. I could never imagine a Dragonlance campaign where I quested for a Dragonlance to just "use". It would be an artifact I could quest for for a VERY specific purpose. But after I kill the evil dragon with it, I don't expect to keep poking orcs and drow with it. That's just silly. It disappearing would be sad, but it would be expected and I would move on.

Same with, say, The One Ring. Yes, it has powers, but it is a plot device, not a character item.

 

[Mort]

I'm not sure where you get 'just some magic item' from. I'm not sure if you're merely misunderstanding what I'm saying, or if you're just mischaracterizing it to make a point.

I'm just going by your responses - you want the item and effects but not the consequences of dealing with a potentially dangerous entity that may leave at an inopportune moment - please correct what I'm getting wrong (not being snarky here).

Ok, if artifacts should be part of a cool campaign arc, why does that necessitate sentience and getting rid of the item when it no longer serves the plot? In fact, the latter of which seems more likely to cause an obvious horrible railroad than a cool campaign arc, so I'm not following how you're getting from point A to point B here.

Because at some point artifacts outlive their usefulness; they may become too much of a crutch or prevent the PC's from moving on to their next adventure (or by moving on the artifact may introduce the next adventure). Yes it's a fine line, but good DMing always is

 

[Bishmon]

This, I believe, is where we depart. I am a player too, so I can understand some of your views. But there is no way in hell I see Artifacts as "Super items". They AREN'T designed to be the super cool item to cap off your character and make them uber. If they were, I could understand where you were coming from. My character is my character, and if the DM started to encroach on what my character could do too much, I can get ticked. But this isn't the case with artifacts. They are a plot device, not a weapon.

Take what I thought of right away: The Dragonlances. I could never imagine a Dragonlance campaign where I quested for a Dragonlance to just "use". It would be an artifact I could quest for for a VERY specific purpose. But after I kill the evil dragon with it, I don't expect to keep poking orcs and drow with it. That's just silly. It disappearing would be sad, but it would be expected and I would move on.

Same with, say, The One Ring. Yes, it has powers, but it is a plot device, not a character item.

How about making it apart of an epic destiny then?

Imagine maybe acquiring this artifact midway through the epic destiny, and then the final epic destiny quest thing could be to use that weapon to slay the BBEG. When that's done, it's over, the PC exits the campaign with his artifact and his legend makes him immortal.

These mechanics are essentially in place already with the 4E epic destinies and how they exit characters from a campaign, so this wouldn't be difficult at all.

This is what I mean by middle ground. I can understand not wanting artifacts to be used to kill run-of-the-mill kobolds. But I don't think taking it to the other extreme and having the item "move on" when it is satisfied or disappointed in whatever is a good idea, either.

 

[Bishmon]

I'm just going by your responses - you want the item and effects but not the consequences of dealing with a potentially dangerous entity that may leave at an inopportune moment - please correct what I'm getting wrong (not being snarky here).

It's the requirement of those consequences that I have issue with. (Well, that's part of the issue.)

I've got no problem with some artifacts being sentient, having personalities, being unreliable, disappearing, etc.

I'm just not a fan of that being the basic premise of an artifact.