AV allows magic item power creep. Am I overlooking something?

[Orcus Porkus]

I found this utmost interesting paragraph in the AV.
It basically allows magic item power creep.

Quote from the AV, page 198:

The use of the Enchant Magic Item ritual is straightforward enough,
allowing characters to make magic items
of their level or lower. However, the ritual can also be
used to place a property in a magic item that has no
property, or to upgrade a magic item to a more powerful
version 5 levels higher. This use of the ritual follows
the same rules for enchanting a magic item from a
mundane item but reduces the cost. The ritual caster
must still be high enough level to create the final item,
but the caster pays only the difference in cost between
the final version and the item in its current form.

This means I can place an item property into an item that has no property, but a daily power.

For example, combining these two items in one:

Belt of Blood
This bloodstained belt helps you recover from serious injuries.
Level: 10
Price: 5000 gp
Item Slot: Waist
Property: Your healing surge value increases by your Constitution modifier while you are bloodied.


Totemic Belt
This colorful hide belt infuses you with the ferocity of a wild beast, augmenting your attacks.
Level: 11
Price: 9000 gp
Item Slot: Waist
Power (Daily): Minor Action. Use this power when you charge. Gain a +1 power bonus to all Strength, Constitution, and Dexterity attack rolls and the subsequent damage rolls until the end of the encounter.

The new item would be:

Totemic Belt of Blood
Level: ?
Item Slot: Waist
Property: Your healing surge value increases by your Constitution modifier while you are bloodied.
Power (Daily): Minor Action. Use this power when you charge. Gain a +1 power bonus to all Strength, Constitution, and Dexterity attack rolls and the subsequent damage rolls until the end of the encounter.

According to RAW, this works. I place a property (healing surge thingie from Belt of Blood) into a magic item that has no property (Totemic Belt with only a daily). Yes/No?

 

[Paul Strack]

Reading the example from AV, it is pretty clear that the intent of the rule is to allow things like changing a generic magic weapon or armor into a specialized item or armor (e.g. +1 magic longsword to a +1 flaming longsword). It says pretty specifically:

"... magic item properties and powers cannot be stacked, so that a character cannot imbue a suit of sylvan armor with the property and power of sunleaf armor as well."

 

[Orcus Porkus]

Well the example doesn't refer to my claim. Sylvan has a property, and Sundleaf has both a property and a daily.
The example actually confirms that merging items that have either property or a daily would work.

Sylvan Armor

This brown and gray armor is favored by those who want to move like a leaf carried along on a forest breeze.
Level: 3
Price: 680 gp
Armor: Cloth, Leather, Hide
Enhancement: +1 AC

Property: Gain an item bonus to Athletics checks and Stealth checks equal to the armor's enhancement bonus.




Sunleaf Armor

Elf master crafters use the leaves of the sun tree to create radiant armor of cloth, leather, or hide.
Level: 7
Price: 2600 gp
Armor: Cloth, Leather, Hide
Enhancement: +2 AC

Property: Gain resist 5 radiant
Power (Daily • Radiant): Free Action. You can use this power when an enemy hits you with an opportunity attack. Deal 1d10 + Dexterity modifier radiant damage to that enemy.

 

[abyssaldeath]

I just read that section now. That use of the Enchant Magic Item Ritual does not do what you are trying to do. What it does is what Paul Strack said and it will let turn a +1 Flaming Sword into a +2 Flaming Sword without having to pay the full price. This use of the ritual is ment to upgrade magic items not not mismatch item properties and powers.

For example, a 5th-level ritual caster wishing to
imbue a +1 longsword (1st level, 360 gp) with the
properties of a +1 flaming longsword (5th level, 1,000
gp) needs to pay a component cost of only 640 gp.
Likewise, a 6th-level ritual caster could spend 1,440
gp to make a +1 wand (360 gp) into a +2 wand (1,800
gp), while a 10th-level ritual caster could spend
4,640 gp to make a suit of +1 chainmail (360 gp) into
+2 exalted chainmail (5,000 gp), a huge leap in the
armor’s potency.
The Enchant Magic Item ritual cannot convert one
item property into another. For example, a character
could not use the ritual to turn a +1 flaming longsword
into a +2 lifedrinker longsword. However, at the DM’s
option, a character can upgrade a magic item to
another item with similar properties. For example, a
thundering bow might be upgraded to a thunderburst
bow in this way.

 

[CapnZapp]

While I agree the AV expansion of the ritual isn't intended to allow this usage, I can't see any rules language actually preventing it.

In other words, instead of concluding "AV allows magic item power creep" like the OP I would simply assume the designers made a mistake, creating a loophole.

More generally though: by allowing supplementary products (like AV or Martial Power or Forgotten Realms Player's Guide or Dragon etc etc) power creep is introduced.

By you. You are the DM that allows the greater selection, and thus the ability to cherry-pick only the stuff that's more attractive than the PHB options, and so you are the one introducing it. Not WotC or anybody else.

 

[Turtlejay]

The Enchant Magic Item ritual cannot convert one item property into another. For example, a character
could not use the ritual to turn a +1 flaming longsword
into a +2 lifedrinker longsword. However, at the DM’s
option, a character can upgrade a magic item to
another item with similar properties. For example, a
thundering bow might be upgraded to a thunderburst
bow in this way.

It clearly says "at the DM's option". And the example it gives are all fairly straightforward, weapons upgrading to similar but not identical enchantments.

Also, the magic items are *upgrading*, not combining. In the example it is not a thundering and a thunderburst bow, just one of them.

And all of this is still at the DM's option.

Jay

 

[Cadfan]

Well the example doesn't refer to my claim. Sylvan has a property, and Sundleaf has both a property and a daily.
The example actually confirms that merging items that have either property or a daily would work.

Logic does not work that way.

At best, the example fails to disprove your theory, but even that doesn't provide you with much inductive support since it fails to even address your theory.

 

[CapnZapp]

No the OP has a point.

If "property" is a defined rules term specifically for those powers marked "Property:" as opposed to powers marked something else.

Now, chances are this isn't true, and a Daily power is a property just like any other. In this case, lines with the header "Property:" only say so because when it isn't a daily, encounter, or at-will that's what they say. Instead of "Other:" or "Misc.:" or something similar, that is.

And, of course, even if Wizard's in error, it is very likely accidental rather than intentional.

In other words, it's fairly clear that the overall design principles of 4E wouldn't allow something like what the OP suggests.

And what does all this mean? Pretty much nothing at all - I percieved a "mind gap" between the original post and the answers so far and wanted to clarify

 

[keterys]

Feel free to allow it to transfer properties... but remember you still have to determine the final item's level and pay the cost difference.

For example, in your example of a level 10 and level 11 belt, let's say that a combined version was a level 20 item*, so you'd have to pay (lvl 20 - lvl 11 - lvl 10) worth of gold to make the change... and be 20th level in order to do the ritual.

Of course, you could also just be 20th level and make the belt to start - or whatever level the actual combined item should be. Nothing there lets you avoid setting the proper level for an item that is balanced for the game.

 

[CapnZapp]

Well, we're not primarily talking about how to create balanced multi-property rules here.

As I understand it, this topic discusses what "...in a magic item that has no
property" means legally.

Does it mean "an item without any Property: lines" (as suggested by the OP)?
- or -
Does it mean "an item without any properties, including Daily powers and the like"?

I suspect a careful reading of the rules (in the PHB magic chapter?) will reveal that all powers are indeed "properties" and thus the AV expansion of the ritual only applies to "basic" magic items, those without any properties at all.

And, more to the point, even if a clear answer can't be had, I agree that this is the intended usage, and that the OPs suggestion should be considered an abusive and unwanted loophole any DM should close and keep closed.

Cheers,
Zapp