Artifacts

[Bishmon]

I don't quite understand. The problems you have with the artifacts in 4e are the reasons that they're iconic and monumental.

Huh. I never once considered an artifact to be iconic and monumental because it was sentient and would magically go away once it was satisfied or disappointed enough.

I really can't understate my dislike of this. Both from a lore perspective and a gameplay perspective, it's just the antithesis of what I would have wanted.

Oh well, this change obviously wasn't for me, but it was apparently for others out there.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Huh. I never once considered an artifact to be iconic and monumental because it was sentient and would magically go away once it was satisfied or disappointed enough.

Here are a few tidbits you might find interesting.

The appearance of an artifact or relic must always be the basis of an adventure. These items should never be casually introduced into play.
...
Artifacts and relics always possess dangerous and possible deadly side effects. These effects are all but irreversible, unaffected by wishes and most greater powers. Artifacts can only be destroyed by extraordinary means.
...
These unique objects were once held and used by gods and mortals far greater and more powerful than normal men. Often these items existed for an express purpose - to be used by a particular hero, to fight a particular foe. So closely associated is an artifact with a person, time, or place that its powers can seldom be fully used except by specific individuals who meet certain standards. A weakling could not hurl Thor's hammer, nor could just anyone command Baba Yaga's hut. An artifact may show its full powers only to deal with particular, very specific, threats or dangers. Artifacts have purposes, sometimes fulfilled long in the past and sometimes never-ending.
...
Once the adventure is over, it is best for you to find some way to get the artifact out of the players' hands. In essence, the artifact was a MacGuffin - the ting that made the plot go - not something you want to remain in your campaign now that the need for the item is gone. This is very much in keeping with the nature of artifacts and relics, since they have a maddening habit of disappearing once their task is done. To leave the artifact in the campaign is to invite abuse by the player characters, perhaps for noble ends, but abuse all the same. There are, even in a fantasy game, "some things man was not meant to know."

Apologies for not being able to locate a 1e DMG, but I think you would find similar text there. To many, this is the nature of an artifact, and 4e catches the feeling quite well in its mechanics.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Huh. I never once considered an artifact to be iconic and monumental because it was sentient and would magically go away once it was satisfied or disappointed enough.

I have three words for you:

The One Ring.

 

[Dausuul]

Wow!

From the sound of it, the answer to your question is "made them fantastic!".

Artifacts that are sentient, with their own goals and motivations and attitudes? That can be satisfied or disappointed with their wielder?

That 'move on' when the time is right to pastures new?

This sounds abso-fraggin-lutely fantastic!

I agree. I am really stoked to use artifacts now. This is how artifacts SHOULD be, dangit! None of this "just a bigger better magic item" that we see in 3.X.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

For the first time since I was 12, I might actually introduce an artifact into my campaign, once it converts to 4E, right in time for paragon and epic play.

 

[Mirtek]

And second, the damn thing goes away after a few levels once you've either satisfied it enough or disappointed it enough.

I heard that there's even an artifact that kills the wielder when it goes away (no matter whether the artifact was pleased or not).

Is this true? And if it's true, which artifact is this mean artifact?

 

[ThirdWizard]

I heard that there's even an artifact that kills the wielder when it goes away (no matter whether the artifact was pleased or not).

Is this true? And if it's true, which artifact is this mean artifact?

[sblock]
The Hand and the Eye of Vecna (2 artifacts).
[/sblock]

 

[robertliguori]

I have three words for you:

The One Ring.

When you consider that D&D characters are more along the lines of Gandalfs and Aragorns, who have a quite decent chance of mastering the ring, defeating Sauron physically and spiritually, then going on to send airship troop-carriers to Valar and reenact the War of Wrath before having a word with Eru about the whole Gift of Men thing (and about demonstrating appropriate gratitude for said gift), then yes, plot-device artifacts kind of stick in the craw. When I have the possibility of walking up and spinning-back-kicking Vecna in the face until he dies, having random bits of his anatomy throw around irresistible plot-effects on me smacks of laziness and failure to put together an internally-consistent (and therefore interesting) universe.

 

[fba827]

I prefer them this way - they should be DM plot devices (in my opinion) and such.
Besides, in 3.X they started to seem like expensive magic items (which is why I never used them, they had no real separation from magic items other than fluff)

 

[DreamChaser]

When you consider that D&D characters are more along the lines of Gandalfs and Aragorns, who have a quite decent chance of mastering the ring, defeating Sauron physically and spiritually, then going on to send airship troop-carriers to Valar and reenact the War of Wrath before having a word with Eru about the whole Gift of Men thing (and about demonstrating appropriate gratitude for said gift), then yes, plot-device artifacts kind of stick in the craw. When I have the possibility of walking up and spinning-back-kicking Vecna in the face until he dies, having random bits of his anatomy throw around irresistible plot-effects on me smacks of laziness and failure to put together an internally-consistent (and therefore interesting) universe.

Beg your pardon? Gandalf refused to touch the ring for fear that it would overwhelm him.

Plot devices are most importantly devices. The nice thing about them is that they don't have to be turned on if you don't want to.

DC