Stacking multiple effects on items?

[Flamepheonix]

I was wondering if there are rules for stacking multiple effects on items (ie combining armors etc..). I can't seem to find anything on it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

No, nothing in the official rules. Artifacts naturally have multiple powers and to some extent AV2 "sets" can achieve an additional property or two, but they aren't associated with a specific item in the set.

I really can't see any reason why a single item couldn't just count as several magic items. It would have to cost as much as both items, and probably should cost more. The only questionable part about it is that it effectively allows the character to equip more magic than they normally would be able to. For a good number of items this isn't really a serious issue, but for a lot of others it could be. I'd do it with a bit of caution.

There is also room in the game for items that are sort of intermediate between basic magic items and artifacts. AV2 talks about intelligent items for instance. Something like that could have an added property or power associated with its background or purpose. It would raise the level of the item, but it might give the DM a bit more flexibility in terms of making interesting stuff.

 

[CapnZapp]

The ultra-quick answer is "no".

The slightly less quick answer is "as long as you only allow this on items you the DM build (and hand out as treasure and shoppable items), you'll do fine".

The real answer is "whatever you do, don't ever allow PCs to stack multiple effects on items they create. Any such rules framework will either be horribly broken or completely uninteresting."

 

[Turtlejay]

This might be a cool way to build your own artifacts without having to extensively house rule or invent. Eladrin Chain gains the Dwarven property for having assisted an ally of the artifact, for instance.

Jay

 

[Dan'L]

The PCs cannot do it with the Enchant Magic Item ritual.

From PHB p. 304 (bolded bits for emphasis are mine):

You touch a normal item and turn it into a magic item of your level or lower

So, once an item has one enchantment on it, it is magic, and cannot be enchanted again with this ritual.

A DM can place whatever they want into their campaign.

-Dan'L

 

[Steve Jung]

Nor can you do it with the Transfer Enchantment ritual from Adventurer's Vault.

You can transfer an enchantment to an item that already contains a lower-level enchantment, but the receiving item's previous magic is lost.

 

[DracoSuave]

3rd edition was the only edition to allow combined properties like that. No other edition has without a DM going 'here you have this'.

And, given that 4th edition is designed around having less item slots in general, the idea of combining multiple items into one item slot (which is what you're really doing) is something only the DM should have a say on.

So the rule is 'If your DM allows it, and most of the time he should not.'

 

[CapnZapp]

the idea of combining multiple items into one item slot (which is what you're really doing) is something only the DM should have a say on.

This is clear and good.

So the rule is 'If your DM allows it, and most of the time he should not.'

Are you suggesting the players should be able to combine multiple items into one slot at least some of the time?

Because if you do, I disagree.

It is when the players are given a free hand combining any powers and properties into items there is abuse and cheese.

The DM can allow the idea of multiple property weapons, but he should limit this idea to items he himself creates.

He should not open up this possibility to the players - not without heavy restrictions in any case. Finding a magical fire that allows the PCs to dip a single weapon in it for it to have the Firebrand property added (without
losing its existing property) is probably okay, because it is so very limited, and because the DM can control which properties that are added in this way.

Allowing the PCs to mix and match properties and powers willy-nilly however is doomed to failure.

Either the rules framework can be abused, resulting in some horribly overpowered items. Or the framework is adequately restrictive, which means it doesn't allow much at all and thus will come across as boring and ungenerous. So simply don't do it (in any other way than a highly controlled one, like the example above)

 

[DracoSuave]

Are you suggesting the players should be able to combine multiple items into one slot at least some of the time?

I hope that's not the impression I gave with 'Only the DM should have a say on' and 'only if the DM allows it, and most of the time he should not.'

There might be a situation where it is the right thing to do, but that's the same sort of situation where the DM hands out an artifect. It's not the player's decision and they shouldn't even be asking.

 

[Ryujin]

There are no rules for doing so and if you're a DM, then it should only be done after a great deal of consideration. I only do that sort orf thing with additional powers that would normally be in an item that doesn't occupy a slot, or that is otherwise limited in use.

For instance I gave the Paladin in the party I'm DMing a sword that also acts as a holy symbol. I did this for a couple of reasons. This way I'll level the sword up as he gets to the point he would normally acquire those items, meaning that I simply cut the treasure parcels at those times to compensate. He's more than happy with that idea. He can only have one holy symbol on him at a time, so it's self-controlling. One less thing for me to track.

Wondrous Items are a good candidate for inclusion in an item that occupies a slot. A mace and a Heroic Tier Power Gem, for example. Now the Cleric has a mace that lets him recover a level 1-3 encounter power once a day, when he reaches a milestone. No more powerful than many of the weapon properties, now is it? Less so, in fact.