A -1 flaming burst sword

[Thia Halmades]

Cheiromancer: *blank stare* Again, full evidence I can't always cover all the angles. Well, I see three possible rulings:

- That the weapon would count as magical based on a final calculation (i.e., a -4 Vorpal is a +1)

- That it just doesn't, because it's cursed, and has no "magic" modifier; i.e., it'll never penetrate a Magic +4 DR, because the point of the build is to eschew those basics; that's an inherent limitation

- That it does, "ignoring" the cursed status out of convenience and to not completely eff the players.

I'm torn, really, between the middle ground (net) and extreme (it is no longer a "magic" weapon for overcoming DR, as we don't count special abilities). Does anyone know the RAW off the top of their heads?

 

[DamionW]

Good morning, y'all.

Morning Thia (OT: I posted my fire barbarian if you're interested)

Part of what they're asking is this: Would it actually make more sense, and be cheaper and more easily abused, to create "negative" weapons which trade the penalty (say, simply, -1) to balance out the bonus (Shocking Burst, +2) thusly allowing you to create a cheaper weapon. If yes, is the cheaper weapon better?

I totally understand where you're coming from. I had a similar initial thought, specifically, "Sure, guys, it KIND of makes sense, but is it even legal?" Once we established that this is purely an HR, I loosened up a bit and tried to think of interesting ways it could be introduced.

I understand all this, and for HRing away, I'm all for that. Coredump, if you just really feel like giving out a -1 Flaming Burst sword, just Rule 0 it, forget the character wealth chart and include it. If you like the flavor, you like the flavor and that's cool. However, what I'm seeing here is enough discussion about cost mechanics and different examples to consider this is a regular treasure item and to make it available to players as a purchase alternative to a simple +1 sword.

My fundamental question there is, why would this stop at weapons? If in your campaign world, wizards who make weapons trade off penalties to their users in order to gain specific advantages, why aren't they trying this with every item? Why are weapons the so special category to have this min/max creation case.

If I was a power-gamer in that campaign and saw these -1 flaming burst swords and -4 shocking keen corrosive weapons, I'd start wondering what else I could get away with. Say I have blindfighting as a feat. Could I get a set of glasses that blind me but give me a +5 to strike in melee. Say I'm designed as a big slow bruiser type of fighter. Could I get a cloak that sticks to me like web and slows me down, but I get a +3 AC bonus? I might not care if I'm less mobile, but I sure would like the extra AC. That's what I'm trying to get at.

Other things you might want to consider are people who are building these bad-boys en masse to make a quick buck. Magic Item Snake Oil Salesmen. They build the weapon - an enchanted longsword, say - sell it to for "a bargain" - 5% off, because they have to "Feed their kids" or some BS - and then run. I mean RUN, despite the fact you'll have trouble hitting them. They could also come from a cursed forge (which is how I plan on integrating them into my Ravenloft campaign).

My $0.02 on world integration (which I think is what you're asking about).

This is exactly the kind of thing I'm getting at. If there are wizards operating like this, why aren't they flooding the market with actual snake "oils," low cost min-maxed potions that hurt the user, but also have a benefit. Here's the bottom line:

If you decide you're going to allow weapons with both penalties and bonuses that cancel each other out, you have to think of some justification. It could be an accident in creation, or a reckless wizard, or shortcuts used in making the weapon, or whatever. Once you have that justification in mind, ask yourself "Why can't this justification be used for all magic items in the world?" If you don't have an answer, you have a problem, because then there should be tons of these items in all fields of endeavor.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Well, only weapons and armor compute the final price by adding up the pluses. The fact that you add up the pluses means that any minuses in there will do some cancelling.

When you compute the price of another magic item, however, you look to the level of spells used to make the item to calculate its cost. And this is always positive; there are no spells whose spell level is negative.

So adding a slow effect to armor will actually add to its cost. Giving goggles an extra ability (even if it is just blinding the user) will make them more expensive. Maybe just a little bit more expensive; perhaps blind self is only a cantrip or a first level spell instead of a 2nd level spell, but it is not a negative level spell.

 

[DamionW]

Cheiromancer, I guess I'm just talking more thematics than mechanics. Why do these min/maxed weapons exist in the first place in the scope of the game's reality? Sure you can shoehorn pluses against minuses and cancel each other out. The math works. I'm stopping not to ask 'How?' but instead to ask 'Why?' Like I said, pick a plot reasoning why these weapons have minuses. Say the wizard messed up when making the item. Ok, so magical weaponsmiths are by nature more incompetent than magical brewers? Say they just are more reckless and take shortcuts. So now they're by nature less meticulous than any other item creator? If you can come up with a reasoning to make these magical weapons work mechanically, I can come up with a reason those hypothetical items I discussed could exist a-mechanically. I'm discussing theme less than mechanics. If the OP just wants to run with this idea and use it, he doesn't need my ok. I'm just asking him to stop and ask why these items are the only ones to have this min/maxed approach to their creation.

 

[Thia Halmades]

*chews nails, thinks*

One of the ideas that I had for developing flavor in my world is brand-name merchandise, which I'm going to shoot for in the Ravenloft campaign. It isn't unheard of; for example, we have Startivarius violins; Zildjian drums; Son of Sandler leather boots; all sorts of things can be 'brand named' or 'designer.'

Amusing justification: You have a young guy developing his initial business who's making cheap (CHEAP) but effective weapons. You have another developer who has a trademark style (one of the only ones who can make, say, Mercurial weapons). Another guy who's an elementalist, but can only produce Medium Grade (max bonuses: +4) magic weapons.

The thought of these people (who are no longer random NPCs, but are now individuals with strengths and weaknesses in development) is interesting to me as a world-building exercise. Would Strativarius attempt to sabotage Zildjian? Would they have a polite exchange of ideas? Would they start mass-producing weapons to edge out smaller competitors? Perhaps an evil, greater motive?

Sorry, just how I think. I'm with DamionW on this - I'm in accord that it should be justified. And on a mechanical level I totally agree (I sort of have to agree) with Cheiromancer, but I do think (if you've played Morrowind) that it's possible to get different 'grades' of a potion; that it would be a simple matter (and an interesting one) to Rule 0 spoiled potions, a potion of Cure Serious Wounds/Blindness, but Cheiromancer's point - that it's a spell, and as such stacks against the total cost of the potion, is unfortunately irrevocable.

I would almost suggest doing a Rule 0 destabilization. The potion was poorly prepared; rather than have a "spell" associated with it, simply build a chart of possible detrimental effects. For example: Your CMW potion inflicts Nausea for a number of rounds equal to total points healed. The goggles which render you Blind would make sense as a training tool for any number of combat-oriented stealth/monk groups. Those are actually pretty ph4t, Damian.

*glanes sideways... STEAL*

I've gotten more awesome magic item material off of this thread than I have in years. I love outside the box thinking.

 

[DamionW]

I would almost suggest doing a Rule 0 destabilization. The potion was poorly prepared; rather than have a "spell" associated with it, simply build a chart of possible detrimental effects. For example: Your CMW potion inflicts Nausea for a number of rounds equal to total points healed. The goggles which render you Blind would make sense as a training tool for any number of combat-oriented stealth/monk groups. Those are actually pretty ph4t, Damian.

*glanes sideways... STEAL*

I've gotten more awesome magic item material off of this thread than I have in years. I love outside the box thinking.

That's all I'm trying to get at. If you do have justification, min/max items all you want. I just think it's a little strange to arbitrarily make one class of magic items designed with flaws and nothing else has them. And outside the box thinking is good, and what this forum's about.

 

[Cheiromancer]

You could design spells that have drawbacks, I suppose. A form of mage armor that gives +8 natural armor, but imposes a -4 penalty to your Dex. Or something. These could be the basis of magic items with drawbacks.

And the house rules forum is a good place to have them evaluated.

I personally think a form of invisibility that blinded you would make lots of physical sense. (Your eyes don't interact with light, so you can't see).

 

[DamionW]

You could design spells that have drawbacks, I suppose. A form of mage armor that gives +8 natural armor, but imposes a -4 penalty to your Dex. Or something. These could be the basis of magic items with drawbacks.

And the house rules forum is a good place to have them evaluated.

I personally think a form of invisibility that blinded you would make lots of physical sense. (Your eyes don't interact with light, so you can't see).

Very true. But then, would that mage armor spell only be used for armor to enchant? Or would enterprising wizards put it into rings of (semi-)protection, bracers of (semi-)armor, and other items? For example, if the flaming swords and shocking hammers that are flawed could be designed by a limited school of elementalism that has its drawbacks in item creation. Well, then you could make flawed wands, flawed staves, tons of flawed elemental items. No need to stick to weapons. Like I said, for any reason these items exist, if it could be used elsewhere, then it shouldn't be limited. That's my $0.02 on the matter.

 

[Coredump]

My fundamental question there is, why would this stop at weapons? If in your campaign world, wizards who make weapons trade off penalties to their users in order to gain specific advantages, why aren't they trying this with every item?

First step was to investigate weapons, and then maybe expand it. But, it may not get expanded. Magic items are a much art as science. By the 'rules' you can make a continuous ring of healing, but boy is that way broken. I have no problem with magic items that have trade-offs. Weapons (and armor) however, are unique in that all of their abilities are focused at the same thing, doing damage. Thus raising one ability, and lowering another, is inherrently offsetting. (at least to an extent.) Plus, they are unique in that all abilities have already been balanced against each other. We know flaming is balanced with vicious. But how is an amulet of blindness and invisibility balanced? We can hope, but not know for sure.
Looking at the cursed items highlights this. They do not follow a 'rule', they are determined fairly ad hoc depending on how useful the item might be.

Furthermore, even weapons have been limited (so far) that the only negatives are the -X variety, thus they negatives can *not* be avoided. (They can be compensated for, but that is different.) Now, a weapon of Holy (+2 modifier--damages evil 2d6) and reverseunholy(-2 modifier--heals good 2d6) would not be balancing, and should not be allowed.

So, my answer thus far, is that weapons are already treated differently, and I have no problem continuing that. If there are ways to create give-take magic items for cheaper, I have no problem with that. But only if they help offset each other.

Say I'm designed as a big slow bruiser type of fighter. Could I get a cloak that sticks to me like web and slows me down, but I get a +3 AC bonus? I might not care if I'm less mobile, but I sure would like the extra AC.

Do you think that would be unbalancing? Then how do you feel about heavy armor??

Why are weapons the so special category to have this min/max creation case.
...I'd start wondering what else I could get away with.
...low cost min-maxed potions
...etc.

I do not agree that these items are 'min/maxed' To me, min/max is when you combine a disadvantage that does not hurt you, with an advantage that does benefit you. A fighter that takes a -4 Cha to get a +4 Str. Or an item that gives the mage +1 caster level, but a -2 BAB. These weapons have advantages and disadvantages, but they offset each other in use. Such as Rapid Shot giving an extra attack, but both attacks being at -2.
The Holy, ReverseUnholy would be min/maxing.

Say I have blindfighting as a feat. Could I get a set of glasses that blind me but give me a +5 to strike in melee.

Maybe. Probably not +5, but perhaps +2 or so. There are still drawbacks to being blind, even with blindfighting.

Again, the pos and neg would have to actually offset each other in use, not just on paper. Rapid Shot would not work if it gave an extra ranged attack, and a -2 on all melee attacks that round.

If there are wizards operating like this, why aren't they flooding the market with actual snake "oils," low cost min-maxed potions that hurt the user, but also have a benefit.

For the most part, potions recreate spells. Some spells have pros and cons, so do the potions. Pros and cons balance a lot of things in the game.
Also, potions are cheap for adventurer types, so they dont' want to deal with the negatives to save a couple of gp. But they are very expensive to normal folks, who can't afford them with or without the negative side effects.

OTOH, think of this: For 21,000 gp I will sell you a wand that will turn you invisible for 7 rounds, and you can do whatever you want.
Or I can 'offset' some of the cost by using the 'added negative' that if you attack you turn visible, but now it will only cost 4,500 gp.
(Granted, the second wand will also last longer, but I think you see the point. These trade-offs are already part of the system.)

If you decide you're going to allow weapons with both penalties and bonuses that cancel each other out, you have to think of some justification.

Because it is easier to do. It is easier to paint a room if you have the 'offsetting negative' that you don't care if it is messy. It is easier to add flaming burst if you don't care if it is a bit harder to weild.

Once you have that justification in mind, ask yourself "Why can't this justification be used for all magic items in the world?"

It can. (Though I have not worked out all the details at this point...) But there is a difference from adding two 'offsetting' magics, and two different magics-even if one is good and one is bad.
Plus, I still believe that they can be handled differently, since weapons are already kinda different.


Hey, thanks a lot for your time and effort thinking about this.

 

[Coredump]

Like I said, pick a plot reasoning why these weapons have minuses. Say the wizard messed up when making the item.

While some items are 'messed up' during creation, I think of those as just not working, or becoming cursed. You don't plan those, and you deal with those on a case by case basis. (A sword that makes you lose Str everyday?)

I am viewing these as conscious decisions during the creation process. (again, that is just my flavor, others might do differently. The first hurdle was if they were balanced, and it appears they are.)