Augment Crystals - A Terrible Idea?

[Sir Brennen]

In general, I like the game mechanic of augmentation crystals, but not their physical description. I think the suggestion of having these be wraps or ribbons which could be applied to an item, or some other kind of fetish, is a good one, and seems more on par with a "move-equivalant" action to swap, especially if by their nature they can tie/loosen themselves on an item.

So, before throwing out the baby with the bathwater, decide if it's the interchangable crystals you have a problem with, or interchangable properties. If the former, you can always change the form to your liking. If the later... well, move along. Nothing to see here

Someone already pointed out the Guild Wars MMORPG method of doing it. There, wraps and "staff heads" are the ways it's done for spellcaster items. I could also see bowstrings which give a ranged weapon its particular property. However, swapping sword pommels and hilts would still not be that sensical of a mechanic IMHO, unless your world has Eli Whitney's Sword Factory.

Of course, in Guild Wars you can either place a new wrap on an item, destroying the old one, or try to salvage the old one first, with a 50% chance of destroying the entire item.

 

[Vocenoctum]

They sound sensible if you like magic items as interchangeable mass-produced technology. To me this approach goes in completely the wrong direction, away from the outlook Ed Greenwood pioneered in Dragon of making each item unique and historied. What's exciting about these? They seem just more bonuses to be bookkeeped, like RuneQuest II magic crystals.

I think it goes deeper than that though. In 1st edition we often sold items and bought new ones. I don't know of any campaign that ever said a +1 longsword was somehow "special" in any way shape or form. Certainly not FR, where guard captains had such. 3e might have brought it closer, by opening the system with a workable Crafting system for magical items. (As opposed to "your 9th level cleric prays" or somesuch. The old system seemed to make +1 swords sort of silly since they were as easy/hard to make as +5's usually.)

Any sword or magic item CAN be an epic storied item of power, as easily now as in 1st or 2nd edition. I happen to like having a single sword for most of my career and have taken Ancestral Relic or had my caster with the relavent feat in order to continue to enhance the blade I had. I think Weapons of Legacy is also a nice system with some quirks. I think these items are more likely to have a party retain the Storied Blade than any other edition actually, since you can enhance the bonus while using the Augmentations for extra stuff.

Heck, in most ways 3e allows a lot more chance to maintain the same sword, as compared to previous editions. You could start with a masterwork longsword, enchant it, add powers to it and keep Grand Daddies Sword from Huge Battle #54B throughout your career.

How was that ever an option before?

Basically, unless you gave previous edition PC's a Vorpal Sword at 2nd level or something, they were upgrading. If you made them wait until they stumbled on something, you either (IMO) disappointed them often (randomly generated treasure) or controlled what the player could do directly (assigning a weapon based on what you wanted them to have).

If you made sure that the players had useful magic swords that they liked, with a rich and detailed history, then you just did the players shopping for him. In addition, he STILL ditched the +1 longsword in favor of the new stuff.

 

[Felon]

I really don't understand this. Core fighters are weak. That's pretty much agreed. They are generally considered one of the weakest classes, probably just ahead of the bard, monk and possibly the paladin.

This sounds rather presumptuous. I certainly don't agree that fighters are weak, they just require a well-thought-out combination of feats. I encourage you to start a thread on the topic so we can see if there's a general consensus on the matter.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Someone already pointed out the Guild Wars MMORPG method of doing it. There, wraps and "staff heads" are the ways it's done for spellcaster items. I could also see bowstrings which give a ranged weapon its particular property. However, swapping sword pommels and hilts would still not be that sensical of a mechanic IMHO, unless your world has Eli Whitney's Sword Factory.

Pommel would of course mean "pommel ornamention", such as having a gem mounted there, or a dragons claw, or a holy symbol. I can see something there that would be changeable with a few seconds of action, same as changing the handwrap of a bow.

Changing the hilt would be a bit more, but perhaps even just the crossguard. Hence why I suggested having the Hilt/Bowstring be a more involved action.

Of course, in Guild Wars you can either place a new wrap on an item, destroying the old one, or try to salvage the old one first, with a 50% chance of destroying the entire item.

True, but Guildwars also makes the weapons escalate, so usually there is a good reason to trash the old item. You're destroying the old Bow (7-12 damage) for the new bow (10-16) or upgrading the old bowstring (+15 health) to the new one (+25 health).

I like the D&D method of being changeable so you can express things differently.

I think another issue here is that I'd rather have a guy with 1 or 2 weapons, and some extra Augmentations, rather than simply having 5 swords. ("this one is ghost touch, this one holy, this one is...")

Besides, it's not like these things are free.

 

[billd91]

I disagree. When you fight an incorporeal creature, you really want that Ghost Touch. So much, that some people will enchant their weapon with it in order to be prepared. Doubling your damage output against a small group of foes can certainly be worth it, even compared to adding an additional 3.5 damage (with an energy enchantment) against most foes.

Personally, I prefer to have a few pots of ghost touch oil, silver sheen, an align weapon scroll, or whatever for these cases rather than a crystal in a slot. I'd rather see more of that than crystals for some of these fairly minor and uncommonly used properties. I'd limit the crystals to the more significant powers, ones really worth that +1 or more.

 

[Faraer]

I don't know of any campaign that ever said a +1 longsword was somehow "special" in any way shape or form. Certainly not FR, where guard captains had such.

Realms sources frequently give mechanically minor magic items unique descriptions and histories, and assume that most have them. Magic things don't have to be ancient or mechanically unique to be special.

Any sword or magic item CAN be an epic storied item of power, as easily now as in 1st or 2nd edition.

I'm not arguing editions, I'm talking about augment crystals, which as presented in the article are boring.

Heck, in most ways 3e allows a lot more chance to maintain the same sword, as compared to previous editions. You could start with a masterwork longsword, enchant it, add powers to it and keep Grand Daddies Sword from Huge Battle #54B throughout your career.

How was that ever an option before?

You can perfectly well find a mage to enchant your sword in previous editions: there just aren't extensive rules for it, which is a matter of approach. Another way is for an item to have several abilities which the PC discovers over time, either designed initially or improvised by DM and/or player.

Ed Greenwood was late to that particular party.

You can find earlier examples in print, but Ed was certainly one of the main pioneers of that approach in the 1980s, with his many "Bazaar of the Bizarre" and "Pages from the Mages" articles.

 

[thedungeondelver]

hahaha this is the worst idea presented for D&D since the MANUAL OF THE PLANES for 1st edition.

 

[Rolzup]

In general, I like the game mechanic of augmentation crystals, but not their physical description. I think the suggestion of having these be wraps or ribbons which could be applied to an item, or some other kind of fetish, is a good one, and seems more on par with a "move-equivalant" action to swap, especially if by their nature they can tie/loosen themselves on an item.

Now that, I like. A lot. The crystal thing doesn't really appeal to me, but various amulets fetishes, charms, and suchlike? Nice. Kinda reminds me of Hellboy, who fills his pockets with every kind of talisman he can find.

That's something that I can work with.

 

[Razz]

I really don't see what the big deal is. This Magic Item Compendium assumes that DMs let their players go to the city and purchase magic items at the nearest Magic-Mart.

Not in my games. Never.

Economically, it doesn't make sense either. History-wise, it makes even less sense. Roargar the Mighty Chieftain slays the great white wyrm with his +3 flaming burst dragon bane greatsword, yet a PC can waltz into a metropolis and purchase a similar weapon with ease?

The way I have it in my games is I don't show my players magic items, they get them in random treasures, gifts, or through research and lore in the game. Never do I let them open a book up and start shopping unless they're making a character with a high ECL.

So this problem with augment crystals will never come in my games. My players won't even know about since I will have Magic Item Compendium and only I will know about these crystals and I will randomly place them when I see fit and when it serves a ROLE-PLAYING purpose and not a ROLL-PLAYING purpose.

 

[Vocenoctum]

You can perfectly well find a mage to enchant your sword in previous editions: there just aren't extensive rules for it, which is a matter of approach.

This is going from memory, so I may be wrong. You cast Enchant Item and then some other spell for each +, there was no benefit to "only" making a +1 sword. In addition, I don't recall any method by which to ADD further enchantment to an existing magic item.

Another way is for an item to have several abilities which the PC discovers over time, either designed initially or improvised by DM and/or player.

Right, in 3e, there's the OA samurai, Ancestral Relic, Weapons of Legacy, etc. In previous editions, I remember something from a dragon magazine I think, but was there any official method for having a weapon which grows?

You can find earlier examples in print, but Ed was certainly one of the main pioneers of that approach in the 1980s, with his many "Bazaar of the Bizarre" and "Pages from the Mages" articles.

Right, and a lot of the new books with magic items also link flavor to item. My point is simply that flavor and function are not tied in any mandatory manner, it's up to the DM to use such a system.

Magic Item Compendium however, seems to be more of an "encyclopedia" format, and so I doubt you'll get that here.

For myself, I like published settings, I like published adventures and I like new stuff. That doesn't mean I allow everything, or that any of this stuff is not filtered through my own personal DMing style. Augment Crystals will see use in my games, though I'll most likely alter them a little in flavor.

I just think that all the calls of "magic mart" and such are looking at previous editions through rose-colored glasses. Randomly determining magic items and handing them out without any regard for allowing the PCs to customize their equipment just seems a good way to kill interest.