Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Multi-property magic items
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="77IM" data-source="post: 4612450" data-attributes="member: 12377"><p>DEFCON has given me a good idea for a meta-mechanic. Certainly, the DM can do anything he wants, and I've given out multi-trait items under the label of "minor artifact." But any rigid pricing guideline could be abused by players.</p><p></p><p>So how about a rule similar to the 3.5 "spell research?" Like this:</p><p></p><p>1. The player describes what sort if item he wants to make (e.g., a <em>flaming frosting double sword</em>).</p><p></p><p>2. The DM decides on the minimum level and cost-adjustment of the item using whatever system or guidelines he sees fit. (E.g., I'm thinking of a system where the minimum level of a <em>flaming frosting double sword</em> is level 10, for a +2 version, which costs 2x what a normal level 10 item would cost. But it's up to the DM how to arrive at these figures.)</p><p></p><p>3. The PC then needs to succeed at three Arcana checks (with a DC assigned by the DM, based upon the level and/or cost of the item). Each check takes 8 hours research and design. Failing a check means you wasted your 8 hours, but can keep trying until you get 3 successes. (E.g., under my guidelines, the DC would be 10 + 1/2 level + 2x bonus, or 24 for the <em>+2 flaming frosting double sword</em>.)</p><p></p><p>4. Once the research is complete (the PC has three successes), the DM tells them whether the item is allowed or not. The DM can forbid the item for any reason but needs to explain to the player what the reason is, so that the player won't make the same mistake when designing his next item. (E.g., a <em>+2 flaming frosting double sword</em> doesn't seem imbalanced compared to just wielding two separate enchanted weapons, so I'd allow it. If the player wanted a +1 version, though, I'd explain that it's not allowed because it is too much better than a <em>+1 flaming double sword</em> for not enough cost.)</p><p></p><p></p><p>What's the point of requiring research and checks? Why not just have the player and DM discuss the item and decide on the level and cost? Mostly, it's to prevent a player from coming to the DM with a list of a dozen multi-trait items. Since each one requires research time, the player will only be able to find out about one or two of them. In an ideal situation the DM will explain to the player ahead of time his balance guidelines so that most item research will be successful.</p><p></p><p> -- 77IM</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="77IM, post: 4612450, member: 12377"] DEFCON has given me a good idea for a meta-mechanic. Certainly, the DM can do anything he wants, and I've given out multi-trait items under the label of "minor artifact." But any rigid pricing guideline could be abused by players. So how about a rule similar to the 3.5 "spell research?" Like this: 1. The player describes what sort if item he wants to make (e.g., a [i]flaming frosting double sword[/i]). 2. The DM decides on the minimum level and cost-adjustment of the item using whatever system or guidelines he sees fit. (E.g., I'm thinking of a system where the minimum level of a [i]flaming frosting double sword[/i] is level 10, for a +2 version, which costs 2x what a normal level 10 item would cost. But it's up to the DM how to arrive at these figures.) 3. The PC then needs to succeed at three Arcana checks (with a DC assigned by the DM, based upon the level and/or cost of the item). Each check takes 8 hours research and design. Failing a check means you wasted your 8 hours, but can keep trying until you get 3 successes. (E.g., under my guidelines, the DC would be 10 + 1/2 level + 2x bonus, or 24 for the [i]+2 flaming frosting double sword[/i].) 4. Once the research is complete (the PC has three successes), the DM tells them whether the item is allowed or not. The DM can forbid the item for any reason but needs to explain to the player what the reason is, so that the player won't make the same mistake when designing his next item. (E.g., a [i]+2 flaming frosting double sword[/i] doesn't seem imbalanced compared to just wielding two separate enchanted weapons, so I'd allow it. If the player wanted a +1 version, though, I'd explain that it's not allowed because it is too much better than a [i]+1 flaming double sword[/i] for not enough cost.) What's the point of requiring research and checks? Why not just have the player and DM discuss the item and decide on the level and cost? Mostly, it's to prevent a player from coming to the DM with a list of a dozen multi-trait items. Since each one requires research time, the player will only be able to find out about one or two of them. In an ideal situation the DM will explain to the player ahead of time his balance guidelines so that most item research will be successful. -- 77IM [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Multi-property magic items
Top