Multi-property magic items

[James McMurray]

One reason for not allowing the stacking of magical properties would be The Math. Assuming that you would need to trade something to gain the additional properties (ie, -1/extra property), you would end up falling behind on the expected numbers you should have, and would end up hitting less.

Not if your additional properties are in your off hand, as was mentioned in the OP. You can have your primary rod and also have your Rod of Corruption and Reaving +1 for instant annihilation of all minions unfortunate enough to be within 5 squares of another minion. Or any of a number of other combinations that aren't meant to exist.

The DMG doesn't mention anything about secondary properties that I remember, but AV does say they're not allowed, in a roundabout way. The Transfer Enchantment ritual lets you move magic from one item to another, but the target's abilities are wiped out in the process.

If you do allow it, I highly suggest against creating some sort of general formula. It's too open to abuse. Instead, look at every combination of powers as a new item altogether, compare it to current items, and find what level it should be.

 

[Hadrian the Builder]

The DMG doesn't mention anything about secondary properties that I remember, but AV does say they're not allowed, in a roundabout way. The Transfer Enchantment ritual lets you move magic from one item to another, but the target's abilities are wiped out in the process.

If you do allow it, I highly suggest against creating some sort of general formula. It's too open to abuse. Instead, look at every combination of powers as a new item altogether, compare it to current items, and find what level it should be.

With respect, as a previous poster stated, there are multi-property magic items in one of the FR books, so I don't think it's entirely fair to say that, "they're not allowed".

And while formulas are open to abuse, they are at least rational. A comparative method is going to fail right now (at this point in the edition) because there are not enough multi-property non-artifact items to compare to. So, how are we to KNOW what level a multi-property item SHOULD be?

Still, if I have understood your intent correctly, you seem to be saying:
'Try it. If the combination seems broken or too good for its estimated level, it probably is.'

 

[James McMurray]

With respect, as a previous poster stated, there are multi-property magic items in one of the FR books, so I don't think it's entirely fair to say that, "they're not allowed".

They're artifacts. If we're including artifacts, then anything is allowed and the balance risks are low because nothing gets out of the gate without having been created by the DM.

And while formulas are open to abuse, they are at least rational.

"Rational" is not a holy grail. The formulae in 3.x were rational, but that didn't do them any good.

A comparative method is going to fail right now (at this point in the edition) because there are not enough multi-property non-artifact items to compare to. So, how are we to KNOW what level a multi-property item SHOULD be?

Given that we can't know that everything in the books is correct (just look at drake swarms), we can't know that our house rules are perfect either. But what we can do is look at items, think "given the choice between +1 Flaming and Berserking or +1 Vampiric, which would I take." (to grab some random examples). If the obvious choice is the house ruled item, you move up a level and try again. We don't need examples of multi-property items to use judgement. It would certainly help, but I for one hope that WotC never puts that out, unless its via artifacts that can't be made by PCs.

Still, if I have understood your intent correctly, you seem to be saying:
'Try it. If the combination seems broken or too good for its estimated level, it probably is.'

Yes. Or to be more specific, I'm saying "investigate the ramifications of the combination, find what looks right to the best of your ability when compared to other items already out, try it in play, and change it if needed."

 

[Gruns]

As I said from the beginning, this is not something I would EVER just let the players be able to create or buy. This has to be solely in the DM's hands. I feel experienced enough to know when something feels right, and more importantly when it feels wrong. There's never going to be a +1 Rod of Corrupted Reaving of the Harvest of Blood in my campaign. The aformentioned +2 Flaming Berserker Axe? No problem. Although for a 14th level item, it's probably on the weaker side. But at least that's open to debate, which means it's probably just fine. And again, there needs to be a good story reason for this axe to exist. And it needs a cool name, too. It's not powerful enough that it needs to be considered an artifiact, and thus follow all of those rules, but it is somehwat unique, and therefore should stick out from the crowd a little bit. Sting probably fits this description. The short sword, not the singer...
Later!
Gruns

 

[LittleFuzzy]

The weapon gets all properties of both weapons. If there's a conflicting issue such as damage die size on crits, pick the WORST of the two. This has to be done because some powers are priced at 0 levels, but they have no extra damage on a crit.

How do you end up dealing with the Daily Uses per day issue? Sure we only get 1/2/3 depending on tier and an additional one with each milestone, but there's also the restriction that each item can only be used once a day, regardless of how many total Daily Uses you have. Do you give a Use for each Daily property or do players just benefit from the flexibility of a second option?

 

[Jhaelen]

Sorry for asking a question that's probably been discussed already, but what is the low-down on magic items with more than one property?

(As in official recommendations and DMG guidelines, not just the "do whatever you like, its your campaign" talk)

For example, could a Flaming Berserker Battleaxe +2 even exist?

But as I said, I can't find anything on this. Does that mean such weapons are actively discouraged, or merely that there's no rules on them yet. (Or possibly that I'm just blind, and there is a page reference waiting...)

TBH, I don't understand where you're coming from.

You seem to be asking for rules how to create a magic item combining two properties, because you couldn't find any.

Well, where did you find rules how to create a magic item with a single property?

3E started with 'guidelines' on how to create items and later added formulas to calculate prices. Then, with the MIC, the turned around and basically said: "forget the guidelines, forget the formula." Create new magic items (i.e. those not from official sources) at your own risk.

4E is the logical next step. Zero rules on creating new magic items, regardless if they have one, two or n properties. Similarly you get zero rules on designing new powers, feats, rituals, or classes. IOW, you only get rules on designing things that cannot ever end up in the hands of players, like monsters and traps.

Is that a good thing or is it 'too limiting'? That's the question everyone has to answer for him-/herself.

 

[Gruns]

Unchanged

How do you end up dealing with the Daily Uses per day issue? Sure we only get 1/2/3 depending on tier and an additional one with each milestone, but there's also the restriction that each item can only be used once a day, regardless of how many total Daily Uses you have. Do you give a Use for each Daily property or do players just benefit from the flexibility of a second option?

Don't change anything regarding the daily use rules. Still just once per item per day. So basically, yeah, there's just a bit more flexibility. But really, there aren't too many item Daily powers worth writing home about...
Later!
Gruns

 

[Runestar]

I don't think it wouldn't be nice with a general rule that allowed this. The idea that properties can be combined in that way stems from 3ed and it was a bad idea even then leading to mindboggling +1 weapons of flame, frost, acid, lightning.

So WOTC please leave such special weapons to the individuals DM's discretion and don't ever write any official rules on the matter.

What was wrong with the unified item creation rules in 3e? In the very least, they allowed the PC to access gear custom-crafted to complement their unique abilities, rather than having to pour through multiple splatbooks, and hoping that the unique item they wanted was printed somewhere...

I certainly had no qualms with the party fighter wielding a +1 weapon with +9 worth of weapon properties, augmented to +5 via greater magic weapon...

 

[James McMurray]

If you didn't mind it, there was nothing wrong with the rules. If you did mind having to tell people they couldn't get a jock strap of Mage Armor for tons cheaper than Bracers of Armor +4, or boots of Expeditious retreat instead of Boots of Speed, then they were problematic. The rules were a good framework, but too easy to abuse without a firm GM to do the grunt work of comparing what the players came up with to what was already available so they could ensure the pricing was correct.

 

[CapnZapp]

You seem to be asking for rules how to create a magic item combining two properties, because you couldn't find any.

Well, where did you find rules how to create a magic item with a single property?

You're right of course.

But where do I come from? I come from a place where it isn't out of the question to have a magic item with two or more properties, without that item necessarily being a full-blown artifact.

I know there aren't "rules" for creating properties. But there sure are guidelines - and a bunch of examples - on what makes a good level 1 item, or a level 30 item.

For starters, the +1 magic bonus per five levels seems to be very strong theme. I could have called it a rule, but again, there aren't any rules. And using the PHB items as examples, I could make up my own properties and dailies and such. Rules or no rules.

But what I can't do is stat up a weapon with more than one property. There aren't any examples. At all. Zilch. Nada. And this is what suddenly felt so very artificially limiting when I was reading the books. Sufficiently so, that this thread came about, in fact.

Unless 4E is your very first rpg, and the notion is completely alien to you, I expect you to understand where I'm coming from...!