• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Magic Item Compendium: The Diablo II gems have made their way to D&D!


log in or register to remove this ad

Tharen the Damned said:
Yeah, a +1 Undead Bane Weapon with a lesser Truedeath Crystal for only 10.315 gp gives you a Ghost Touch +3 Longsword with +3d6 vs, Undead.
ThirdWizard said:
Hmmm... using a bane weapon to get past the enhancement bonus requirement does sound RAW legal. That was probably unintentional, though.
Actually, to apply a lesser crystal you only need a +1 enhancement bonus.
 

One problem with 3.0/3.5 as it currently stands is the lack of reason to make a high + weapon. The ubiquity of Greater Magic Weapon means you should (almost always) get a +1 weapon w/other modifiers.

If (and this is a big if) gems are written in such a way that GMW (and by extension bane effects) do not allow one to add a greater gem, then a +3 weapon w/ a gem will be more expensive than a +1 w/special abilities and GMW cast, but a +3 weapon w/ a choice of gems will probably be cheaper than a golfbag of +1 w/special abilities weapons. If you go for the one-size-fits-all weapon strategy, you won't use gems. If you want multiple specialized weapons, you will probably want gems. If GMW doesn't allow gems, they'll turn out to be a lot like the mystic theurge, taking a very sub-par concept (in this case, burning your cash on lots of weapons for special situations) and making it work. If GMW does allow gems, well, oops.

-Kraydak
 

I like the idea in general. But I think changing the gems should be a more long-term thing that takes anywhere between an hour to 8 hours.
 

I'm sure Final Fantasy had them before Diablo. IIRC, they were called materia. Any FF fans like to comment?

Materia had some differences, though the seed of the idea was definitely there. Put Fire materia into your sword, you'd do fire damage. Put it into your armor, you'd resist fire damage.

Materia also had levels, kind of like this, but it would count for both. Like, if you had a greater Fire materia, it would do MORE fire damage in a sword, and it might reduce the damage form fire even more, or negate it entirely, or even absorb it as healing.

In that respect, they were a bit more flexible.

And they also taught you magic spells. Imagine if a least truedeath crystal, when it became lesser, also taught you disrupt undead, kind of.

I'm not sure if this pre-dated Diablo, but the concepts are close cousins.

....Ah, glad to see D&D is 10 years behind the curve. ;)
 

this seems wrong cost-wise. i can now get a weapon of +3 and add some gem to it for extra abilities instead of buying a +3 weapon with those extras already in palce (making it probably +5 cost-wise).
so instead of paying the 50,000 gp for a +3 that and that all-killing swords, i only pay 18,000 + 5,000 for the gem and get the same weapon (or at least the same power level).... does anyone see anythiong wrong here?
 

Not too fond of them as they stand now. It'd be much different if the required enhancement bonus was +2 and +4 for the last two. Of course, assuming he GMW thing can't work either.
 


anyone see anythiong wrong here?

It truly seems more powerful than the core. I'm not sure I disagree, though. The desire to include interesting and flavorful items as treasure at lower levels is a project ideology I can fully get behind. Too often, treasures are bland as heck, especially at lower levels. If this gives characters access to +2 ghost touch weapons before they could afford +3 weapons, I don't think it's a problem, myself.
 

EyeontheMountain said:
Are they that strapped for ideas? Last think we need is diablo style magic items.
Well, they were one of the first types of magic items added to 3E, in the Diablo II D&D book. I'm not at all surprised to see them in this book with the numbers filed off.

Now if only someone would do the same thing for the far-superior 2E Diablo I book.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top