New Spell - Enchantment Transfer

[N'raac]

The wealth by level assumptions already commoditize magic - that ship has sailed.

The current model assumes you will have certain wealth per level, and will have free access to magic items. So the character has a 3rd level spell that can change the magic sword to a magic Ogrehook. If the alternative is to sell the magic sword for half value, then have the wizard Craft an Ogrehook with the same enchantments, how different is that?

The wizard had to take a feat, maybe we have to pay full price for the mundane weapon (unless a character can Craft those) and it takes some time. The result is the same.

Add a restriction that the spell fails on artifacts, and set the king's sword as an artifact, based on its legendary history, and move on. Isn't the King's Sword, with that legend attached, worth way more gold to the right buyer than a "no history" weapon with the same enchantments anyway? So, wouldn't a valid purchaser be very willing to swap for a freshly enchanted Ogrehook with the same enchantments?

 

[afstanton]

Personally, I'd make it higher level, and perhaps restrict it to transferring enchantments that the caster could actually put on an item themselves. Probably a more expensive mat comp, too - perhaps 1/10 the value of the item.

Also I'd make sure it specifically excluded artifacts and relics. "Baba Yaga's Split Level Condo? What?"

 

[Ramaster]

Personally, I'd make it higher level, and perhaps restrict it to transferring enchantments that the caster could actually put on an item themselves. Probably a more expensive mat comp, too - perhaps 1/10 the value of the item.

Also I'd make sure it specifically excluded artifacts and relics. "Baba Yaga's Split Level Condo? What?"

I can see someone not wanting to have the spell affecting artifacts (I wouldn't allow it). But I don't understand you reasons to ask for higher level/cost.

To me whole point of the WBL system is to let the DM know if the characters are under/over equipped. HOW they acquired the wealth is pretty much meaning less (mechanically speaking).

The purpose of this spell is to allow the players to make minor changes on their item's composition. "Wow, this adamantite longsword is awesome! too bad I already have a +3 flaming longsword... well, guess I'll just sell it". With enchantment transfer you can give the spotlight to Special Materials. On regular play, by the time they appear, the characters already have magic weapons/armor of mundane materials (most of the time).

Spells, just like every other thing in the game, are tools. Trust your players interesting tools and they will surprise you.

 

[Anguish]

This is a whining spell.

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

By definition if a rule is accepted at a table by the DM, it's not cheating. Doesn't matter if it's a house-rule, a rule in a book published by Paizo, or if it's just... a spell custom crafted by doing research as is allowed by - get this - the Core Rulebook.

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

All? As in, even the background stories of the vast majority of random +1 shortswords that tend to be found on groups of rogues at mid-level? Even the background story of all the +1 longbows those crazy evil elven archer hordes carry?

Or by "all" you mean "the very few items that ever have a back-story to start with"?

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...

Seriously? You've got a player who's invested four feats into Weapon Focus(x), Weapon Specialization(x) and the Greaters, and you begrudge him looking askance at the antique y of intense and angstful nostalgia with one cool ability? Or the player who's spent their entire career working out fun tactics that involve reach weapons and attacks of opportunity, and now they've found a dagger of rare usefulness... you think they're somehow Doing It Wrong because they covet a particular aspect of that dagger which might actually be handy... if only it was five feet long instead of five inches?

Look, I'm supportive of a DM building an immersive world and getting into back-story and narrative. It's just... being scornful of a player who might not want the bauble you lovingly crafted (while absolutely not reading the room) the way it is... that's over-the-top.

 

[Micp]

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...

I don't think you seem to grasp the difference between an artifact and a magical weapon. A magical weapon is a weapon imbued with magical abilities and as such not in itself anything special, whereas an artifact (that may be a weapon) is something that is in itself magical. Take for instance the master sword from the legend of zelda. that is an inherently magical sword. sure it may go through changes during the games, but these are changes no other random sword could go through. as such the master sword is an artifact and no one would be able to transfer it's powers to any other weapon. However a magical sword is something else completely with powers you could potentially mass produce for an army if you had the means. As such i don't see the problem in transferring the imbued effect from one weapon to another.
If we are to look at it from a metagame point of view it also makes getting loot a lot funnier for the gamers because they are no longer just recieving stuff to sell but recieving stuff they can use which is always more interesting for them. Not to mention it let's the GM better control what buffs he wants their weapons to have. In all the games i have both played and gm'ed we have usually found ways to do this when it was needed, either through magical anvils or whetstones or as a favor from the gods on certain occasions. This way we get a spell to do this for us. Still i would make the spell a higher level or put some limitations on it if it was me.

 

[N'raac]

Or by "all" you mean "the very few items that ever have a back-story to start with"?

Seriously? You've got a player who's invested four feats into Weapon Focus(x), Weapon Specialization(x) and the Greaters, and you begrudge him looking askance at the antique y of intense and angstful nostalgia with one cool ability? Or the player who's spent their entire career working out fun tactics that involve reach weapons and attacks of opportunity, and now they've found a dagger of rare usefulness... you think they're somehow Doing It Wrong because they covet a particular aspect of that dagger which might actually be handy... if only it was five feet long instead of five inches?

Look, I'm supportive of a DM building an immersive world and getting into back-story and narrative. It's just... being scornful of a player who might not want the bauble you lovingly crafted (while absolutely not reading the room) the way it is... that's over-the-top.

I would go one step further and suggest that the DM who places magic weapons with detailed backstories and unusual, useful abilities that are outside the area of expertise of the PC's, who have been carefully and lovingly crafted by their players every bit as much as the DM has carefully and lovingly crafted that magic item's backstory, he is adopting a very adversarial style.

Would you expect to read a fantasy novel where the main warrior protaganist is a well-trained expert Axe Wielder - this is the core of his combat skills - and the Prize Magical Item of the tale (and the realms) is a mace, so the protaganist stuffs it in his backpack since he never really learned how to use a mace beyond clubbing someone? The story, the setting and the characters need to fit together. If I'm looking at the 12th level Axe Specialist and a module with the Magical Maguffin Mace intended for the party warrior, it's about to become the Amazing Axe of Awesomeness so the plot will fit the characters.

 

[Munktar]

First

I try to make background stories for almost all magic items and weapons found in my game (I could post za few if you like)

Second there is nothing wrong with the Axe wielding hero to find out that the magical mace of great power is sometimes better then the Axe he is wielding, although he mainly uses his axe.
He might even have a magical weapon for each situation...

Third as I think more about this spell I think the caster should have the appropiate craft feat to pull this spell of. And there are so few wizard with craft arms and armor that i know off that if might be hard to find a wizard to cast this spell

 

[N'raac]

First

I try to make background stories for almost all magic items and weapons found in my game (I could post za few if you like)

So, with all that work going into magic item backgrounds, do you also tie the backgrounds of the items to the backgrounds, skills and abilities of the PC's? They are the stars of the stories, not the magic items.

Second there is nothing wrong with the Axe wielding hero to find out that the magical mace of great power is sometimes better then the Axe he is wielding, although he mainly uses his axe.
He might even have a magical weapon for each situation...

When you read a good fantasy novel, how often is a powerful, legendary magical weapon one which runs counter to the established skills,. or even preferences, of the protagonist expected to use it? I generally find, if the Hero is a swordsman, the Weapon of Legend is seldom an axe or a mace. If it is, the Hero is an axe wielder, or expert in use of the mace. The story is about the characters, not the magic items.

Third as I think more about this spell I think the caster should have the appropiate craft feat to pull this spell of. And there are so few wizard with craft arms and armor that i know off that if might be hard to find a wizard to cast this spell

I don't think requiring a wizard know the Craft feat to move an enchantment when it is not required to create the enchantment is anything but a deliberate impediment to the use of the spell.

If the characters all use 2 weapons, and they sell a +1 Shield, no biggie. If they all use 2 weapons, I'm not going to introduce the Blessed Shield of Bartholemu the Bold, with its eight page backstory, and frustrate the players who now must choose between using the Mighty Maguffin or using the feats they have already committed to. They can't use it effectively, so they should sell it off , and all my backstory work goes to the Lost Bin. Maybe I should have designed a legendary magic item that is a good fit with this group of PC's.

That's my gaming style, and other valid and logical approaches certainly exist, but I view the PC's as the reason for the game. The setting and the magic items should be, as much as possible, trappings for use in telling their tales, not plug & play settings for any PCs's that randomly come along.

 

[Munktar]

So, with all that work going into magic item backgrounds, do you also tie the backgrounds of the items to the backgrounds, skills and abilities of the PC's? They are the stars of the stories, not the magic items.


When you read a good fantasy novel, how often is a powerful, legendary magical weapon one which runs counter to the established skills,. or even preferences, of the protagonist expected to use it? I generally find, if the Hero is a swordsman, the Weapon of Legend is seldom an axe or a mace. If it is, the Hero is an axe wielder, or expert in use of the mace. The story is about the characters, not the magic items.



No Magic items create the background fluff, and should not be the things that make the heroes STARS. Their abilities should ne enough, so powergaming for every plus on every magic item is not what makes a hero a star



I don't think requiring a wizard know the Craft feat to move an enchantment when it is not required to create the enchantment is anything but a deliberate impediment to the use of the spell.


I think the caster should know what he is doing aka have the feat, else you will get enchantments tha tmake permanent magic items as well. that way nobody needs feats




If the characters all use 2 weapons, and they sell a +1 Shield, no biggie. If they all use 2 weapons, I'm not going to introduce the Blessed Shield of Bartholemu the Bold, with its eight page backstory, and frustrate the players who now must choose between using the Mighty Maguffin or using the feats they have already committed to. They can't use it effectively, so they should sell it off , and all my backstory work goes to the Lost Bin. Maybe I should have designed a legendary magic item that is a good fit with this group of PC's.


That's my gaming style, and other valid and logical approaches certainly exist, but I view the PC's as the reason for the game. The setting and the magic items should be, as much as possible, trappings for use in telling their tales, not plug & play settings for any PCs's that randomly come along.


I try to run more a persistant world, so yes the 2 weapon fighters might encounter the blessed shield of bart, but it will be more likely that they heard stories of the knives of Bast that or the twin Ibis swords of the holy engulved of the for deserts. But they will also hear the stories of the shield so they have the choice if they would like to hunt down a legendary magic item, and all magic items have a story or legend...

...

huh

 

[afstanton]

You know, it just occurred to me that this could be used by NPCs as well. A not uncommon event in characters' lives is to have valuable stuff taken from them, giving them a quest to recover it.

Now imagine the annoyance factor of the duelist who recovers his beloved Adamantine Keen Rapier of Wounding has been changed into...a Gnome Hooked Hammer.