The Economics of Magic Items (RE: Naked Adventurers)

[jgbrowning]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: attended items

\

Heh, now all my magic is brittle as a butterfly's wings but my cracked leather boots can resist anything. Awesome! Why bother with Walls of Force? A mundane Wall of Paper can hold back anything!

a determined mind will pervert anything.

thanks for the assistance mr. delacroix. Next please...

joe b.

 

[Christian]

For cryin' out loud! Didn't anyone consider pointing the poor guy to the rule instead of making fun of him? Sheesh!

PH p. 150, 'Items Surviving after a Saving Throw':

"Unless the descriptive text for the spell specifies otherwise, all itmes carried and worn are assumed to survive a magical attack. If a character rolls a natural 1 on his saving throw, however, an exposed item is harmed ..."

You're welcome.

 

[jhanzur]

Thank you Christian.

 

[jgbrowning]

thanks

yes, thanks.

i dont mind being wrong, i do mind people saying im wrong and not helping me become right.

anyway, im going to keep using my system. I think any object in a fireball is effected by the fireball, unattended or not. A sword in hand is worth a sword in the Bush.. hehe (ok maybe not)

joe b.

 

[The Sigil]

Re: thanks

anyway, im going to keep using my system. I think any object in a fireball is effected by the fireball, unattended or not. A sword in hand is worth a sword in the Bush.. hehe (ok maybe not)

joe b.

Just had to bring this full circle...

So, if everything has to save on every attack, that means we'll be seeing a lot of Naked Adventurers once the sparks start flying, eh? After all, clothes will go up in flames, too - they're much less durable than magic swords. There. We're back to where this all started - Naked Adventurers.

--The Sigil

PS Thanks Christian for a reference and not a belittling.

 

[Squire James]

Just put it this way... a single Mordenkainen's Disjunction would essentially destroy everything a Fighter or Rogue is carrying due to weak Will save, and probably 25% of a Cleric or Wizard's gear as well. A party of 4 adventurers of 18th level stand to lose about ONE MILLION gp of items from one spell! That's 200 True Resurrections, folks!

I suspect a bull market for Rings of Greater Counterspelling when my players think of that trick... this is another reason why I believe the fighter/mage imbalance still exists in high-level D&D. The spellcasters can still function at full power without equipment (wizards less so, but a full load is still potent). The fighter and rogue types take a HUGE hit in power!

 

[Buttercup]

Yes, thanks Christian. If everyone were helpful like you, instead of mean like some, I might be more willing to ask questions around here.

 

[Greybar]

Re: augmenting enchantments

Back to the idea of scaling up magic items instead of trading dear-ol Dad's longsword for the newer, shinier model.
I really like what this might imply for the world. To take the earlier example:
"Dad cut down the vampire gnoll with this sword, and I'll be damned if I'm going to give it up. However, the family has come into money again, and before I give this sword to my son, I want to make it even better."

So what you get is a +3 flaming holy sword that has a *real* history.
Great-grandfather was given this because of his service to the Duke of Albirot and made an officer. (Now +1) Grandfather prospered as an adventurer and his boon companion was a mage who increased its power. (Now +3) Mother took up the sword when the ice-trolls invaded back in '08, and commissioned the forge-mage to imbue it with fire to battle the regenerating beasts. (Now +3 Flaming).
That could be fun!

Rules wise:
I don't know about requiring a higher caster level.

However, I think you should require a test of some sort. Perhaps a Craft skill test with synergy bonuses from Spellcraft or somesuch. In any case, the DC should be higher based on the original level of enhancement. Let's say 20 + (5/+1equiv), so that a +1 sword is a DC25, +1 flaming is (offhand, no DMG) DC35.

Failure indicates loss of spell and all gp/xp invested - all of the special components went into the forging fire and didn't come out.

Failure by more than 20 indicates that the original magics have been ruined.

Critical Failure indicates explosion or other traumatic event of the DM's devious creation. Perhaps that flaming sword drew its power from a connection to the Elemental Plane of Fire. The failure of re-enchanting has burst open that connection into a chaotic gateway...

John

 

[Quasqueton]

damaging equipment concept furthered

First: I really like the write-up that started this thread. This is one of the most insightful and informative posts I've seen here. Thank you for starting it.

Second: I like the concept of items being damage/destroyed when caught in an area effect spell or environment. But as some have joked on, it could be quite impractical to use such a rule in game. And I try to keep Rule 0 and House Rules to a absolute minimum.

How about this: Attended items take damage if and when the character "attending" them becomes unconscious. At -1 hp and below, a character's equipment becomes "unattended" objects.

If the character with 20 hp takes 25 hp from the fireball, he falls unconscious from the exersion/heat/burns. His items are now unattended and subject to damage.

I just now thought of this idea, so I haven't given it any extended thought on its ramifications (be gentle with it/me, please):

Would the equipment be vulnerable from the effects that dropped the character right then? Or would they only be vulnerable to effects that come/occur after the "killing" effects (like a second fireball in the area)? A compromise might be that the equipment is vulnerable from the "killing" effects, but only vulnerable to the "overage" damage. Using the 25 hp fireball above as an example, perhaps the equipment is vulnerable to only 5 hp damage (the amount that took the character into unconsciousness). 5 hp would probably only ruin cloth-like items.

I hate to make rules more complicated, but I do like the idea of equipment getting damaged by area effects.

I presume everyone would agree that equipment on a dead character is unattended and subject to full effects?

Quasqueton

 

[jasper]

?Subject: Seven billion Chickens!
According to the DMG a community with 30,000 adults will
have 7,500,000,000 chickens. [DMG p 137]

0.5 x the GP limit [100,000] x 0.1 x the population [30,000]
is the total value available. Thus at any given time the
metropolis will have 150,000,000 GP's worth of chickens
available. At 2 CP/chicken this will be 7.5 billion chickens.

These rules are very broken?
Nice joke. Does not take in the fact the chickens would eat all the wheat which would zero out the bread, and flour. Does not take into account the chickens would scratch up the grass to get to the seeds and destroy the grass so there go the cows and cheese.
Also does not take common sense into account that the limit is total limit of goods and services. Your math error is treating each category separately. The town that did have 7.5 billion chickens would just sell chickens. They have no money or resources to buy cows, arrowheads, and wheat. They just sell chickens. Except for Jasper would be selling fertilizer. But nice number crunching.