New Spell - Enchantment Transfer

[Ramaster]

Hi everyone!

Longtime lurker firstime poster! (as they say)

Anyway, I came up with this new spell for the Pathfinder game I'm running and I wanted some feedback on it.

Enchantment Transfer
School transmutation; Level Sorcerer/Wizard 3

CASTING
Casting Time 10 Minutes
Components V, S, M (100 Gp worth of gem powder)

EFFECT
Range touch
Two magic items touched
Duration Instantaneous
Saving Throw will (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)

DESCRIPTION
Upon completion of this spell you touch one magic item and one mundane masterwork item. All enchantments of the magic item are transferred to the mundane item. Both items must be of the same type (both ranged weapons, both shields, both rings, etc...). If the recipient mundane item could not be affected by the transferred enchantment (for example, a blunt weapon being given the keen ability) the spell fails.

Let me know what you think. Thanks in advance!

 

[udalrich]

It looks reasonable to me. It solves the "we just found a Rapier of Much Niftiness but the fighter is focused on Greatsword" problem. I'd add that the target magic item cannot be intelligent (or at least gets a large bonus on its save).

A couple of corner cases need clarification.

What happens with weapons that can be both melee or ranged, like a dagger or a spear? The spell specifically calls out ranged weapons, not just weapons. Dagger to dagger or dagger to spear should work. As a source, I definitely don't see a problem if the destination is a subset of the categories of the source, so dagger to greatsword is not a problem. I don't think there is a power problem with the reverse (e.g., greatsword to dagger), but the flavor can get a bit strange. In particular, you could move enchantments from a greatsword to a dagger and then to a bow (assuming that thrown weapons count as ranged weapons), which isn't possible with a single casting.

That points to the other corner case: is there a distinction between thrown weapons and ranged weapons that use ammunition?

I don't think there's an answer to any of these questions that makes the spell a problem. But they should be clarified before a player tries to use them in the game.

 

[billd91]

It also solves the "I'm a halfling and every magic weapon I find is medium sized" problem.

 

[Ramaster]

Mmm, I haven't thought of that, mainly because PCs of my game only use it on weapons/armor of the same category... "If the destination item couldn't normally be enchanted with the property you are trying to transfer, then the spell fails." something like that should do the trick.

Therefor, you CAN transfer +1 Distance (from a longbow, for example) to a dagger, but not to a greatsword.

 

[rgard]

Hi everyone!

Longtime lurker firstime poster! (as they say)

Anyway, I came up with this new spell for the Pathfinder game I'm running and I wanted some feedback on it.

Enchantment Transfer
School transmutation; Level Sorcerer/Wizard 3

CASTING
Casting Time 10 Minutes
Components V, S, M (100 Gp worth of gem powder)

EFFECT
Range touch
Two magic items touched
Duration Instantaneous
Saving Throw will (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)

DESCRIPTION
Upon completion of this spell you touch one magic item and one mundane masterwork item. All enchantments of the magic item are transferred to the mundane item. Both items must be of the same type (both ranged weapons, both shields, both rings, etc...). If the recipient mundane item could not be affected by the transferred enchantment (for example, a blunt weapon being given the keen ability) the spell fails.

Let me know what you think. Thanks in advance!

Looks good. We had a version of this in 1e days.

You can make a higher level version of the spell that allows for specific properties to be transferred as opposed to all the properties.

In addition to the other suggestions it's great for confusing enemies who are looking for a specific weapon. For example, the enemies are divining to find the person who wields a keen frostbrand longsword (which your party just looted from the enemies' friend), but you've already parsed out the magical abilities of the sword to other weapons.

Warning...old D&D human interest story:

We used the spell to transfer the vorpal and +5 enchantment boni of a Githyanki silver sword to a different weapon, but left the ability to cut the astral cord on the original weapon. Then gave the original to a church we didn't like. The Githyanki went after their sword and ended up fighting a war against that church while we went on our merry way.

Edit: iirc, the spell was 6th level in 1e.

 

[Ramaster]

The spell was developed by a a character of mine and it became so popular in-world that other wizards began using it.

He also made a more powerful, 7th or 8th level version that not only lets you transfer the enchantments, but you can also redistribute them. For example, you can turn a +1 flaming weapon into a +2 weapon, etc...

It only works with properties that have a non-fixed cost (the ones that are equivalent to +1, +2, etc... bonuses) and the material component is increased to 500 gp.

The funny thing is that the character is not a transmuter, but an evoker! He studied evocation because he got a scholarship for Evocation Studies (He his an admixturer), but his true passion has always been transmutation.

 

[Munktar]

This is a whining spell.

Oh no we dont get the magic items we want so we look for a cheap way to cheat.

This way all background stories of all magic items will be ruined...

This sword was made for a king to rule and slay the evil blah balh but then fell into the hands of a powergamer and was changed into an Ogrehook cause someone thought it wopuld be more usefulll...

 

[thundershot]

This is a whining spell.

Oh no we dont get the magic items we want so we look for a cheap way to cheat.

This way all background stories of all magic items will be ruined...

This sword was made for a king to rule and slay the evil blah balh but then fell into the hands of a powergamer and was changed into an Ogrehook cause someone thought it wopuld be more usefulll...

We do the same thing. I mean, the options are a) transfer the abilities of the weapon to something one of them actually USES, or b) chuck it into a bag and never use it, or c) sell it.

I'd much rather my players USE something and have fun with it than to just sell it because it's a weapon none of them use.

 

[Ramaster]

This is a whining spell.

Oh no we dont get the magic items we want so we look for a cheap way to cheat.

This way all background stories of all magic items will be ruined...

This sword was made for a king to rule and slay the evil blah balh but then fell into the hands of a powergamer and was changed into an Ogrehook cause someone thought it wopuld be more usefulll...

That is, certainly, one way to look at it. But, in my opinion (on the case of king's sword whose enchantment got transferred to an ogrehook) the value of the weapon as a piece of history is no on the enchantment, buy on the item itself. Maybe even the king got the original enchantment from a horsechopper or something like that and transferred it to his own personal sword!

If it is absolutely necessary for the original weapon to keep the enchantment, other things can be done. Restricting the amount of "+1s" that can be transferred based on your caster level, making the item somehow immune to the effect, talk to the PCs out of character and convince them that switching the king’s sword enchantment out could upset the people (or have an NPC tell them that),etc...

 

[Munktar]

Whith spell like these the DM should just always give you the treasure you want ... or else