Augment Crystals - A Terrible Idea?

[blargney the second]

I'm all for new options, but they do need to be balanced against the old ones.

They're deliberately not balancing against the old magic items. (And I think it's a good thing.)
-blarg

 

[blargney the second]

Yes, but the expectations around ease of purchase I find often differ between GM and Player(s).

Absolutely - it's really important to let players know ahead of time that not everything is going to be universally available. And then remind them. Constantly.

 

[Nightfall]

Jeremy,

Glad to see I'm not the only one that noticed.

 

[Joshua Randall]

I think the augment crystals are an attempt to address one of the perceived problems with D&D: that no one is attached to a magic weapon; that they just treat it as a disposable item, to be discarded as soon as you find a better one.

For example, if your fighter finds a +1 longsword at low level, is he going to keep it when he finds a +2 flaming longsword at mid level, or a +4 holy keen longsword at high level? No, of course not.

With the augment crystals, in theory, your fighter would keep the +1 longsword and add crystals to it (for flaming, then for holy, then for keen). This still doesn't address the need for a bigger plus [unless there are augment crystals for that as well -- I haven't read the preview], but it's a start. Now your fighter's sword has been with him through thick and thin, getting more powerful in conjuction with the character.

There have been other attempts to address this idea -- PrC's or feats -- but those are usually suboptimal choices. (Why should the character have to spend resources to make the weapon better?) At least the augment crystals improve the proper thing; i.e., the weapon.

 

[Piratecat]

Yeah, 3.5 sure messed it up. In that way, the augment crystals might not be so bad, but I still agree with Schmoe. I prefer magic items having a history and being interesting, at least primarily.

I'm not sure I see how this stops you from letting augment crystals have an interesting history. Say they were originally made by a mysterious earth elementalist, or they're formed from crystallized illithid thought bubbles, or whatever. Just because an item is new or less expensive in no way prevents it from having a cool back story.

 

[Shade]

I'm not sure I see how this stops you from letting augment crystals have an interesting history. Say they were originally made by a mysterious earth elementalist, or they're formed from crystallized illithid thought bubbles, or whatever. Just because an item is new or less expensive in no way prevents it from having a cool back story.

Indeed. It even allows for additional back story...

"The blade of the elements was formed with a crystal of each element in its pommel. Although the gems were since scattered, it is said that to find each and reassemble the great blade will unlock untold power..."

 

[Bayushi Seikuro]

I agree with Piratecat's notion on the background. I mean, as an example, what of the focusing crystals for lightsabers? If I remember right, they have rules for upgrading those - obviously not as move actions, but to gain damage bonuses, etc.

I agree that they offset the problem with not having the right weapon for the right occasion. In too many games I've played in, there's the effect we call the Golfbag of Doom - a sword for every occasion, of every special material etc.

I like the concept - I also like the item set bonus concept, also from Diablo II - but I agree a DM has to balance it with what's consistent in their world. Is there only one place to get these things? Do you need to craft them? Maybe the item creation is a secret a PC stumbles onto? That'd prevent the Magic Mart syndrome, I'd think.

I digress.

 

[Himoura]

I think the crystal idea is a good one, as it stands a +1 weapon can hit and damage everything, but with the introduction of these new crystals getting those +2 and +3 weapons makes it worth it.

a +1 weapon can't have the greater truedeath crystal all it can have is the lesser which is a +d6 damage to undead. no big deal a cleric using the alternate turning rules for damage can often do more.

my old ranger/wizard used to have a +1 bow which i was adding elemental damage to it, slowly. but now it would be far better to go to a +3 bow and put a crystal in it.

As i understand it only 1 crystal can be added to the weapon at any time, so i don't see the changing crystal in the middle of battle being a problem, if your fighting firey creatures first round put an icy crystal in and your set for the battle.

IMO as it stands getting a +1 weapon and then adding elemental damage is better then getting a +2 weapon. D6 extra damage VS +1 to hit and +1 damage.

 

[Felon]

I'm not sure I see how this stops you from letting augment crystals have an interesting history.

Well, I guess it's because once you make something interchangable, utilitarian, and perfunctory, it becomes a waste of time to try to give it personality. It's like trying to give your roll-on deoderant an interesting backstory...

 

[Felon]

a +1 weapon can't have the greater truedeath crystal all it can have is the lesser which is a +d6 damage to undead. no big deal a cleric using the alternate turning rules for damage can often do more.

my old ranger/wizard used to have a +1 bow which i was adding elemental damage to it, slowly. but now it would be far better to go to a +3 bow and put a crystal in it.

As i understand it only 1 crystal can be added to the weapon at any time, so i don't see the changing crystal in the middle of battle being a problem, if your fighting firey creatures first round put an icy crystal in and your set for the battle.

IMO as it stands getting a +1 weapon and then adding elemental damage is better then getting a +2 weapon. D6 extra damage VS +1 to hit and +1 damage.

This is a compelling arguement that does make me at least want to give the crystals a shot.