Magic Items: When do they become "Artifacts"

[Rebecca Borgstrom]

Pants cannot be created using the Item Creation rules either. Magical pants, yes, but not plain old pants.

Note that pants do not cease to function in an antimagic field. In fact, there are only three ways to stop pants from functioning:

* removing them from the character;
* compromising their physical integrity; or
* an act of deity.

This makes them more durable than most other artifacts, since nonmagical pants cannot be affected by even the most successful uses of the spell Disjunction.

See also 'culottes'.

Rebecca

 

[Centaur]

Two Types of Artifacts!

The DMG classifies two types of artifacts, Minor and Major.

Minor Artifacts are items that once could and possibly still could be made by extremely powerful Spell Casters. Perhaps requiring the ELH feats but not necessarily.

As an option, Minor Artifacts could have some sort of value benchmark set by the DM for his campaign. A level of 250,000gp may be a good threshold.

Major Artifacts are in all cases unique and typically have an Epic History or story about them.

 

[kreynolds]

In fact, there are only three ways to stop pants from functioning:

* removing them from the character;
* compromising their physical integrity; or
* an act of deity.

Well, in my games, there's a fourth way. I have a spell called Wild Embarrasment, which is basically just like disintigrate, but it only destroys inorganic material on the target. Yes, with one casting, you too can strip anyone naked. Besides, the mental image of a fighter who's clothes have been disintigrated but his magical chainmail remains is really funny to me.

 

[LordAO]

"Artifacts" are items that cannot be created using the Item Creation rules.

This is true, though it's sure funny how many atifacts in the novels and even some mentioned in gaming materials were created by mortal spellcasters. The Sword of Kas is an excellent example. It, a greater artifact, was created by Vecna before he bacame a diety. There are many artifacts in the forgotten realms setting also that mention they were created by spellcasters.

So, yes, you are unfortuantely correct about the 3e rules not allowing the creation of artifacts, but that rule is not true to the D&D game or setting. DMs are encouraged to ignore any such rule.

 

[Pax]

The point is that it takes more than just thge feats, LordAO; the Sword of Kas isn't a good example; it's creator, Vecna, is now a GOD ... obviously, he wasn't JUST a mortal spellcaster.

Making the Sword of Kas involves more than just Craft Arms and Armor and a menu of weapon special abilities. Just what that somethng is, is unique to each artifact in most cases.

The ELH further defines some artifacts -- typically the lesser ones -- as simply very powerful items, the means of making which were ONCE known, but now are lost.

 

[jeffhartsell]

To answer the original posters question, I'd recommend that an artifact be whatever the DM deems -is- and artifact.

I had a simple +1 orc bane warhammer as an artifact. It was the Hammer of the Ancients and it had the potential to become an intelligent weapon with other powers if it's will was unlocked.

As far as campaign flavor of high vs. low magic, that is up to the gaming group. As a GM, I allow all of the crafting metamagic feats. So, if I make it too hard to craft items, well, I'm screwing those that like to craft. However, using sunder and stealing stuff every so often helps keep GP useful and prevents too much power-up.

Anyway, to each their own as far as campaign style.

 

[kreynolds]

I see. The whole "A chicken is a chicken 'cause I say it's a chicken" approach. While never the end of a discussion or argument, it makes at least one person feel better about the whole thing. Of course, that one person is generally the DM, but ah well.

 

[Li Shenron]

Let's not forget that the core ruleset, so the DMG, is supposed to work without ELH, which remains an option even if so many of us "boarders" seem to own it. If you don't consider for a moment that Epic stuff exists, then Arctifacts from DMG make very sense when compared to the standard magic items and their hard limits.

Once you start taking the use of epic rules for granted, with their theorically limitless powers for PCs, you have to face that the label Artifact may not imply higher power; effectively, with ELH it happens the same with the label Deity, since you can always think of a PC high-level enough to outshine anything.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I like to think of an Artifact as something that has power beyond what most magic items are capable of. Usually, this is the kind of power that isn't really useful to PCs, but is extremely useful to the DM as a plot device.

An Artifact might have the power to merge two planes into one.

An Artifact might have the power to create a new race of beings, the same Artifact having been responsible for such a creation in the past (perhaps lizardfolk or kobolds.)

An Artifact might be able to alter the fundamental Nature of reality, (such as creating the Undead by altering the Nature of Death).

An Artifact might, for a single instant, link the minds of every living creature in the world.

Thinks like that.

 

[Centaur]

Why Base the Definition on Power?

What if you didn't base the definition of what is and isn't an Artifact on what it can do or it's releated GP Value. This get a little away from the original post but:...

An item could be an Artifact (or Relic to use old terminology) if it has a History of Signifigance. To put it planely, if the item played a significant role, or was weilded by someone who played a significant role in a major historical event, then it could be considered an Artifact.

This could mean that while most +3 Vorpal Swords are not Artifacts, you could find one wielded by the first king of some kingdom and since lost. Since the sword and it's weilder played a significant role in shaping the kingdom, it is considered an artifact.

This is of course, simply a campaign flavour issue.