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

[CapnZapp]

I'd be interested to know where you two stand on my DM's ruling:
"To be fair to all classes, I'm not allowing Martial Power until the other ~ Power books are available."

'cos isn't it a little unfair when some classes get a splatbook and others don't?

While your DM has presented an excellent reason for disallowing Martial Power, it is still lacking somewhat.

This because it implies that the only reason MP is barred from the game is because of meta-game balance reasons, and that it will be allowed as soon as every power source gets its own book.

This blocks us from the real issue: the DM is free to run his game with only the PHB 1 if he wants, or even with a subset of this book. Sure, people may leave this game if they don't like the deal, but they can't do so because they have a "right" to access any and all powers from all sources. Such demands are BS, pure and fresh.

 

[CapnZapp]

Going back to the original topic..:

I would say that the clear intent of the text in question ("Enchanting Items" on pages 198-199) is only to allow a character to
1) transform a "plain" magic item into one [an existing one] with a property [property or power]. The example given is turning a +1 Longsword into a +1 Flaming Longsword.
2) "upgrade a magic item to another item with similar properties", with the DM's permission. The example given is turning a thundering bow to a thunderburst bow.

The original post of Orcus Porcus, the original poster (the OP of OP, the OP?) suggested a third use, adding a property to an item that had none. The example given was using AV items, so I'll use the first combination suggested by the PHB (one of them at least): taking Leather or Hide Bloodcut Armor and adding the property of Darkleaf Armor to it.

On the surface, this satisfies all requirements of the ritual (as expanded by AV).

Personally, I don't buy this. Apart from common sense, I have two specific rules-lawyery objections, somewhat related:
1) This creates new items, specifically items with a level of "undefined". This should clue you in to this usage being unintended.
2) As I see it, the text uses "property" in a loose way, referring not to specific headers of item descriptions, but to things like "flaming" or "lifedrinker". If you agree, this means AV does not allow the ritual for the suggested use, because it does not create a defined property.

But if I were to allow this, there is no guidelines on assigning a level to these items whatsoever. So (again with a big if) the natural reaction would be not to change the level.

This means that AV (hypothetically) allows Bloodcut Armor with the following line added to it:
Property: Gain a +2 item bonus to AC against the first attack
made against you in each encounter.
(taken from Darkleaf Armor)

Now, playing the devil's advocate: can you find the rules language that says this isn't Bloodcut Armor?

Because if you can't, a case can be made that "the ritual can also be
used to place a property in a magic item that has no property" indeed...

...for no increase in level, thus no monetary cost (other than the usual fee for an item of that level), thus we have power creep.

And with this we have arrived at the possibility suggested by the OP!

Now, I believe I have shot down this theory with the above objections, but feel free to add your comments anyway.

One note though: I believe one reason why we have felt as if we are talking beside each other is because some of you seem to assume avoiding power creep is simply a case of inventing an appropriate level for new items. While in practice you're right of course (and as a fellow DM, I encourage such practice) now we're dealing in theory.

Yes, rules lawyering. And there is no such thing as "assigning levels to new items". There are no rules for creating new items at all. Either an item has been defined by the rules, or it hasn't. Either an item has a level, or it remains undefined. By this I only mean that the argument "you avoid power-creep by changing levels of items" has no basis in the rules as written.

At this time, it is perhaps prudent to point out the fact I'm basing my objections to the OP's suggestion wholly without such recourse, completely basing my argumentation on actual rules text. I ask you to do the same, or the topic quickly becomes subjective, and thus pointless.

Of course, feel free to point out any errors and inconsistencies I might have made.

 

[Orcus Porkus]

You have a point by suggesting that it's probably not the AV's intention to allow the creation of completely new items. But perhaps it is? Who knows.

Regarding the levels of the new items: In your example of adding the darkleaf property to the bloodcut armor, I think it's clear that the new level would be 7.
"plain" +1 armor is level 1.
Bloodcut is level 4
Darkleaf is also level 4.
4 minus 1 is 3.
So the new level of the "upgraded" bloodcut armor is 7 then.
I can tell you that most players will simply not do this for one reason only: The enhancement is only +1, while you can already get a +2 enhancement for a "plain" armor at level 6.
Players who do the upgrading pay a hefty price for the additional power. Thus there is no power creep.

 

[Danceofmasks]

While your DM has presented an excellent reason for disallowing Martial Power, it is still lacking somewhat.

This because it implies that the only reason MP is barred from the game is because of meta-game balance reasons, and that it will be allowed as soon as every power source gets its own book.

This blocks us from the real issue: the DM is free to run his game with only the PHB 1 if he wants, or even with a subset of this book. Sure, people may leave this game if they don't like the deal, but they can't do so because they have a "right" to access any and all powers from all sources. Such demands are BS, pure and fresh.

Well, some players, myself included, play D&D competitively.
I'll play everything from Vampire to GURPS in a casual manner, but when it comes to D&D, I'm as powergamey as they come.

 

[CapnZapp]

You have a point by suggesting that it's probably not the AV's intention to allow the creation of completely new items. But perhaps it is? Who knows.

Regarding the levels of the new items: In your example of adding the darkleaf property to the bloodcut armor, I think it's clear that the new level would be 7.
"plain" +1 armor is level 1.
Bloodcut is level 4
Darkleaf is also level 4.
4 minus 1 is 3.
So the new level of the "upgraded" bloodcut armor is 7 then.
I can tell you that most players will simply not do this for one reason only: The enhancement is only +1, while you can already get a +2 enhancement for a "plain" armor at level 6.
Players who do the upgrading pay a hefty price for the additional power. Thus there is no power creep.

Well, this is a house rule (no matter how obvious it may seem, AV doesn't have anything on assigning levels to items that aren't specced already) and so it can't be used as an argument on whether the rule allows power creep or not.



In summary, just to reiterate for clarity:

My stance on the original question is "no, it can't be done and thus no there isn't any power creep". My main argument is that if it is done, we can arrive at an undefined state by the game rules, and this should be taken as an indication it is in fact not an intended or allowable usage. My secondary argument is how the term "property" is used (i.e. to mean things like "flaming" or "bloodcut" in general, regardless of whether these use properties or powers in their implementation).

But assuming the defenses against this usage should fall, which they can even though I don't believe they will, my stance then becomes "as it can be done, there is power creep because the game does not allow for general re-evaluation of item levels".

But of course, also "if you do allow the usage, be sure to whip up a quick and easy house rule that prevents power-creep".

Guess that's all from me on this /Zapp

 

[inkmonkeys]

That section of AV refers to the general state of a magic item having any properties beyond being magical, using the English language understanding of the word "property". You can upgrade, you cannot combine.

Perhaps the use is confusing, but we strive to use plain English when possible. Given that it took this long and this many eyes before someone came to this conclusion, I don't feel too bad.

 

[Orcus Porkus]

oh wow, thanks for jumping in on this. Too bad, I thought I had found something interesting!

 

[Lord Sessadore]

That section of AV refers to the general state of a magic item having any properties beyond being magical, using the English language understanding of the word "property". You can upgrade, you cannot combine.

Perhaps the use is confusing, but we strive to use plain English when possible. Given that it took this long and this many eyes before someone came to this conclusion, I don't feel too bad.

Don't feel bad - I think you captured your intent just fine, especially taking the example into account. I doubt this discussion would take place at the vast majority of gaming tables, or that it would be allowed by an even greater majority of DMs. CapnZapp is right, in order to pull this off you have to make house rules, which is probably a whole lot more headache than it's worth.

And yes, thanks for the input! Much appreciated!

 

[mlund]

Let's also keep in mind that the example given in the AV entry itself is of converting a +1 Longsword into a +1 Flaming Longsword. A cursory examination of the Player's Handbook reveals that a Flaming weapon has no "Property:" - only an "Enhancement:," "Critical:," At-Will Power, and Daily Power.

Ergo, the writer must be using the plain English definition of "properties."

From the examples given in the Adventurer's Vault it seems quite clear that the ritual can increase the Enhancement of an Item and/or convert a baseline magical +X item into a +X [special type] item.

- Marty Lund

 

[Turtlejay]

Does anyone else find this argument silly? The text states:

As normal, this use of the Enchant Magic Item

ritual does not allow a character to ignore restrictions​

on the creation of magic items

The enchant item ritual in the PHB, as written, allows:

You touch a normal item and turn it into a magic item of
your level or lower

The additional rules in the AV allow:

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

And the much glossed over section:

This use of the ritual follows

the same rules for enchanting a magic item from a​

mundane item but reduces the cost.

To me that says that the end result of the Enchant Item ritual, by RAW, is a magic item of your level or lower. All that the new rules do is allow you to reduce the cost by beginning with a magic item of the same enchantment, or on with no property. If you want to use the ritual to turn a Belt of Blood into a Totemic Belt, by all means go for it. You will take a 5,000 gp item, spend 4,000 gp in ritual components and have a 9,000 gp item, no net increase.