Multi-property magic items

[Jhaelen]

What was wrong with the unified item creation rules in 3e?

I recommend digging through 3E forum archives! I've looked at hundreds of threads discussing problems with the item creation 'guidelines'.

Having said that, haven't you been one of the very few reliable sources regarding magic item creation over at WotC 3E equipment forum?

Unless 4E is your very first rpg, and the notion is completely alien to you, I expect you to understand where I'm coming from...!

I think, I understand very well where you are coming from which should partly explain my replies to you.

The way I see it you're complaining about something before knowing if there is something to complain about. Imho, it's exactly like saying '4E necromancers suck!' or slightly less annoying: '4E sucks because there is no necromancer class'.

You have no way of knowing if what you're looking for won't be right in the next supplement. Yet you conclude that 4E obviously cannot support it because we don't have an example so far.

 

[Runestar]

I recommend digging through 3E forum archives! I've looked at hundreds of threads discussing problems with the item creation 'guidelines'.

Having said that, haven't you been one of the very few reliable sources regarding magic item creation over at WotC 3E equipment forum?

Well, I am not sure of what sort of "status" I enjoy at gleemax. Though you are right in that the item creation guidelines are ultimately just that - guidelines. For instance, you shouldn't be able to create an item of persistent mage armour on the cheap, because its effects duplicate bracers of armour (and should therefore follow the latter's pricing structure). They are more for when there is no precedent in the splatbooks. Likewise, a wondrous item letting you use cure minor wounds would clearly be too strong for its cost of 2000gp. I admit there are quite a few outliers (where items end up being too expensive or cheap for its effect), but overall, I felt that it was still fairly okay.

 

[CapnZapp]

The way I see it you're complaining about something before knowing if there is something to complain about. Imho, it's exactly like saying '4E necromancers suck!' or slightly less annoying: '4E sucks because there is no necromancer class'.

You have no way of knowing if what you're looking for won't be right in the next supplement. Yet you conclude that 4E obviously cannot support it because we don't have an example so far.

I think you're somewhat unfair here...

Obviously anything "currently missing from the rules" can appear right around the corner. That doesn't disqualify me from the right to complain it isn't in the main rules, where it belongs (if you ask me).

I'm not claiming "4E can't support it!"

I'm incredulously asking "isn't 4E supporting it?"

Note the difference

 

[CapnZapp]

One of the FR books has "Minor Artifacts", which are basically items that are more magical than normal magical items (ie, PHB, AV) but less magical than true artifacts. That'd be a good place to start, I think.

Thanks! Do you have a reference?

One reason for not allowing the stacking of magical properties would be The Math. Assuming that you would need to trade something to gain the additional properties (ie, -1/extra property), you would end up falling behind on the expected numbers you should have, and would end up hitting less.

Not sure this holds up.

Basically, leave it up to the PC to judge for himself the relative advantages and disadvantages of the magic items available to him.

Sure, if a +6 Flaming Longsword drops to +0 when you add a second property, that's probably not worth it, regardless of which second property you add.

But then again, that would suggest the rule behind that drop is too harsh, and needs to be relaxed.

On the second try, perhaps the weapon costs double and drops one plus (not six). That could be a much more reasonable trade-off, I don't know.

In the end, The Math can give another answer than the one you seem to take for granted!

 

[CapnZapp]

As I said from the beginning, this is not something I would EVER just let the players be able to create or buy. This has to be solely in the DM's hands. I feel experienced enough to know when something feels right, and more importantly when it feels wrong. There's never going to be a +1 Rod of Corrupted Reaving of the Harvest of Blood in my campaign. The aformentioned +2 Flaming Berserker Axe? No problem. Although for a 14th level item, it's probably on the weaker side. But at least that's open to debate, which means it's probably just fine. And again, there needs to be a good story reason for this axe to exist. And it needs a cool name, too. It's not powerful enough that it needs to be considered an artifiact, and thus follow all of those rules, but it is somehwat unique, and therefore should stick out from the crowd a little bit. Sting probably fits this description. The short sword, not the singer...
Later!
Gruns

I agree to everything, except the (possible) implication that anything "solely in the DMs hands" needs to stay out of the rulebooks.

Now I'm hearing I should look in "one of the FR books", and while that certainly is much better than nothing, I still believe it wouldn't have hurt to have one or six of these items in the core books...

 

[CapnZapp]

Somewhat related to this:

Has anyone experimented with magic arrows?

(That is, magical ammunition. The tie-in to this thread would be: "how would the properties of the ammo interact with those of the weapon firing them?")

 

[James McMurray]

There are some alchemical ammunitions in AV.

 

[CapnZapp]

There are some alchemical ammunitions in AV.

Thanks, but those pretty much bypasses the entire focus of this discussion: having multiple effects interact (=stack)...

Alchemical ammunition not only ignores the magic of the weapon that's used to fire it, but its enchantment bonuses too. Not to speak of its proficiency bonus! In fact, it's utterly generic, with the wielder's abilities having next to no influence on the attack whatsoever! (Only his level)

I realize this makes it easy to balance and it ensures abuse can't happen (unless you count giving a poor quality bow and a bunch of these arrows to a high-level dwarven melee fighter who's Dex was crippled, giving him a much better chance of hitting than he'd otherwise have...), but that's taking it way too far for my tastes.

Thank you for making me aware of this, James, but if that is the only recommendable alternative, I must honestly say I prefer the "it can't be done" alternative...

 

[shadowoflameth]

There was a ritual that covered this I believe. It was in one of the setting books and as I recall it was something like this, you combine the Properties only of the two items. At-will or other powers are not kept, but the properties are. The higher enhancement bonus is kept, (they do not stack), and the cost is determined by the combined levels of the items. i.e. a 5th level weapon combined with a 10th level weapon would have a 15th level weapon's cost, and both original items are subsumed in the ritual. It was, I believe a 26th- or 27th level ritual so no items of a higher level than that could be made, so no +6 vicious vorpal greataxe. Other than not wiping out the properties of the lower level item, it worked a lot like transfer enchantment. Does anyone know the source on this, I was thinking it was in the FRCG but that isn't it.

 

[LightPhoenix]

I've been tinkering with a general guideline for combining magical types... basically, you ignore the enhancement bonus, determine the lowest level for each magical prefix you want (ie Heroic Flameburst vs. Paragon Flameburst), add the levels together, and then determine the enhancement bonus from that.

So, for example:

Pelor's Longbow (Flaming Fireburst Longbow) Level 8

Heroic Flameburst: 3 + Heroic Flaming: 5 = 8
Therefore, +2 Enhancement bonus
Use the highest critical (I think offhand they're both +1d6)
It has all the properties and daily abilities of both prefixes.

If anyone is interested I can fork a thread over to House Rules to discuss the reasoning a little bit more in depth.