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

[Cadfan]

OP said "This means I can place an item property into an item that has no property, but a daily power." and after some initial discussion we concluded this in fact was true.

Now, how isn't this powercreep?

Because the newly created item has to be assigned a level.

Lets say you have the Nosering of Fireballs, which allows you to cast a fireball once per day, and you want to upgrade it by adding the property Resist Fire 5. Suppose the Nosering of Fireballs is a level 9 item.

Once you upgrade it to add Resist Fire 5, its no longer a level 9 item. Its a level X item, where X is a level assigned by the DM based on the power level of the item in question.

And you can't create a magic item unless its of your level or lower.

So unless you are at level X, where level X is defined by the DM to be a level appropriate for ownership of the Resist Fire 5/Nosering of Fireballs, you can't make it.

Ergo, no power creep is possible.

 

[Lord Sessadore]

Once again, Cadfan said what Keterys and I have been saying. This doesn't seem to be clear enough, so perhaps this will help.

First, we have two cases:

• 1. A "property", as mentioned in the AV version of Enchant Magic Item, is only something like flaming (for a weapon) or deathcut (for an armor). If this is the case, the OP is incorrect, and this whole discussion is moot.

• 2. A magic item has a "property" if it has a line labelled Property: in its item description. If this is the case, the OP is correct, and the rest of this discussion ensues. For the sake of clarity, this means that you can use the ritual to add a property to an item which does not already have a property.

So, assuming case #2 is correct, we have a further two cases:

• 3. The resultant item exists already in some rules source. In this case, the ritual then follows the formula described in AV. That is, the ritual caster must be of a level equal to or greater than the level of the resultant item, but he only pays the difference between the cost of the initial item and the final item.

• 4. The resultant item does not exist in any rules source.

Expanding case #4 gives a final two cases:

• 5. Placing a property (as defined in case 2 above) in an item does not increase its level if the resulting item does not already exist.

• 6. If the resultant item does not exist already, it must be given an appropriate level. The ritual then follows the formula described in AV. That is, the ritual caster must be the same level or higher than the new item in order to cast the ritual, but he only pays the difference between the cost of the initial item and the final item.

I think we can all agree that following case #5 is patently ridiculous. As an example, this would mean that you can take your +1 longsword and add the property from a Vorpal Weapon, with no cost or required caster level. So, the fact that there is no item which gives a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls which also gives you exploding dice does not mean that this item has the same level as a +1 magic weapon.

Case #6 is what we are supporting. That is, according to the ritual as written, you can add the property from a Vorpal Weapon to a +1 magic weapon. But the resultant item has a higher level than a +1 magic weapon. This level might be lower than, equal to, or greater than the level of a vorpal weapon. The DM must determine the level of this new weapon, the ritual caster must be at least that level to cast the ritual, and the cost is whatever it would cost to make that item from scratch minus 360 gp (the cost of a +1 magic weapon). In other words, the ritual caster doesn't get any shortcuts - it ends up being exactly the same as making the weapon from scratch, except that the item he is enchanting is already enchanted to begin with.

Depending on the base item and the property to be added, the end result's level might be in between the base item and the item which the property came from, or it might be of a higher level than both. It entirely depends upon the item and property in question; I do not believe that there exists a formula that can determine the proper level of such an item.

The onus is on the DM to give the new item an appropriate level. As long as this occurs, power creep is not possible. It is exactly the same as the DM having to assign an appropriate level to any custom item proposed by a player.

Hopefully that clears things up. I know it's long and wordy, but precision and disambiguity was what I was going for. I really think we're all agreeing, we're just not understanding each other fully.

 

[Orcus Porkus]

Oh well I guess I shouldn't have said that the AV allows power creep, because it doesn't
It merely expands the use of Enchant Magic Item.
It allows to add a "property" to items that don't have one yet (that could be a "plain" amulet of protection, but also to an item that only has a certain "power", but no property yet.)
It also clearly defines how this is done without the danger of power creep. By disallowing more than property being added this way, or any stacking of powers, or adding powers to item that have only properties, I think everything is good. Also not allowed is transferring properties from one item slot to another.

When there is a doubt about the new level, I would simply add 5 to it whenever doing the "property" upgrade.

I think what's important to note is that it's a house rule to NOT allow this.
There is no need to house rule this though. Yes, there are occasions where you can combine some powerful stuff that fits your build and wouldn't otherwise be possible because there is only one item per slot. But you also give up on other more powerful items. So it's balanced.

The Totemic Belt of Blood should be level 15. At level 15 you find items like Girdle of the Umber Hulk, with a property (+2 to Fort) and a power (Daily: You gain a burrow speed.)

Or the Girdle of the Dragon, which also grants +2 on Fort, and Daily power with two attacks that deal 3d6+Str and grab the target.

I think that compared to these powerul item the new Totemic Belt of Blood is not overpowered. Your healing surge value increase by CON, and once per day you can add +1 to charge attacks for the rest of the encounter. Powerful? yes. Overpowered? No.

 

[Caliban]

I think what's important to note is that it's a house rule to NOT allow this.

I think it's important to note that this is not actually true. Nothing in the AV is core rules, it's a supplement book. It's completely up to the DM whether or not anything from the AV is allowed.

 

[Regicide]

I think it's important to note that this is not actually true. Nothing in the AV is core rules, it's a supplement book. It's completely up to the DM whether or not anything from the AV is allowed.

Saying something isn't core means nothing. If it has WotC's stamp of approval on it the only argument a DM can make for not allowing something is because "they don't want it." That DM is going to end up without players.

 

[Lord Sessadore]

I also think it's important to note that it's not necessary to house rule to disallow a specific combination. Any upgrades that don't boil down to "adding a plus" or adding something to a vanilla item is explicitly under the purview of the DM. Anything the DM thinks is unbalanced or overpowered or inappropriate in any way can get a "no" - it's written right in there.

Granted, a DM should only do that in extreme cases. Most of the time the DM should find a way to say "yes", even if that means setting the item level too high for the character currently.

Essentially, this boils down to a discussion about appropriate levels for player-created items.

 

[Caliban]

Saying something isn't core means nothing. If it has WotC's stamp of approval on it the only argument a DM can make for not allowing something is because "they don't want it." That DM is going to end up without players.

I think it's quite a stretch to say that Mr. Porkus's reading of the rule has "WOTC's Stamp of Approval" on it.

Those in favor of his reading make some interesting points, but given all the unanswered questions regarding the implementation of their interpretation, I doubt that is what is actually intended. I'd be interested in seeing some clarification from WOTC on the issue.

As for a DM not allowing something from a supplemental book because "they don't want it", that's really the only justification a DM needs. I've used it myself (without any objections from my players), and so have DM's I've played with (without any objections from me).

So your final statement "That DM is going to end up without players" is merely wishful thinking on your part. The game is not about giving the players all the goodies they want for their PC's (although getting toys for your character is certainly part of the fun).

 

[Moon-Lancer]

Saying something isn't core means nothing. If it has WotC's stamp of approval on it the only argument a DM can make for not allowing something is because "they don't want it." That DM is going to end up without players.

How about this? both mp and av add options that are clearly better then their phb counterparts. Thus the monsters become weaker in the process. Without stronger monsters the game becomes easier and in effect less fun (see game where monsters take no actions). With stronger monsters, the game becomes a war of proliferation and will eventually collapse on itself.

That's whats implied and embedded when a dm wants to play with only core.

I liked 3.5 supplements when the game was more subjective. But I am seeing options now that clearly are superior to the phb versions in all ways. Like fighter and weapon talent vs tempest technique seeing how tempest grants a +1 bonus on attack as well as all the other options.

(edit) oops probably should have made another thread.

 

[Regicide]

How about this? both mp and av add options that are clearly better then their phb counterparts.

That can't be true. 4E was structured from the ground up to be balanced. WotC devs say so. They can't be wrong, they made the game! AV and the like have WotC on them so they're balanced and intended to be used. It is how 4E is meant to be played. Besides, they were clearly intended to be in the PHB, they just ran out of room. AV should be considered part of the PHB, just like martial powers and the other books.

 

[Caliban]

That can't be true. 4E was structured from the ground up to be balanced. WotC devs say so. They can't be wrong, they made the game! AV and the like have WotC on them so they're balanced and intended to be used. It is how 4E is meant to be played.

No more kool-aid for you!