Delemental
First Post
I've been contemplating the way magic items are usually handled in D&D. It seems to me that many campaign worlds, especially the high-magic ones, must be littered with magical swords, armor, and other gear that adventurers have dropped as they find better goodies. Sometimes, this bothers me. It seems to encourage a very casual attitude toward magic items.
I tend to prefer the way magical items were handled in the Earthdawn system. That was also a high-magic system, but many magic items were designed to increase in power as you did. Basically, you would have to spend some xp to increase the item's power level, with higher levels requiring more xp. You'd usually also have to know specific information about the item, such as the name of the item itself, or who created it, or what hero first used it. Some of the more potent items also required quests to be completed to raise their power past a certain point.
Going back to D&D, I noted the other day that the current rules do support adding new abilities to an existing magic item (you pay the difference in cost, so it would cost 6000 gp to make a +1 sword into a +2 sword).
Anyone ever successfully used any sort of 'progressive power' system for the magic items in their D&D campaign? To me, the appeal would be:
1. The number of permanent magic items in existence in a world could be reduced without compromising a character's performance.
2. It would encourage characters to keep their original equipment throughout their career ("This is my father's sword, and his father's before him"). Rather than dumping items the minute something better shows up ("'Sure, Excalibur's a nice sword,' said King Arthur, 'but this one here will set things on fire!'"). While this isn't really a game-breaking issue, it does help if you're aiming for a more epic or story-based feel to your game.
3. It could possibly relieve the xp burden on casters with item creation feats. Though not in the core rules, I could see house rules implemented that would allow someone to spend their own xp to increase an item's power. For example, you either pay the full cost in gold, or pay half that and also spend xp as if you were making the item yourself (1/25 of the difference). So the +1 sword upgraded to a +2 sword would either cost you 6000 gold, or 3000 gold and 240 xp. Actually, I'd probably double the xp cost in these cases, just so casters who take item creation feats still have an advantage. I also wouldn't let characters turn nonmagical items into magical ones with this method (again, reserving that privilege for those who take item creation feats).
4. Using some sort of 'spend your own experience to boost your items' system, it would also allow characters to inherit gear from their ancestors without either having something that's way too powerful ("Starting your career as an adventurer, son? Here, take my +4 Shocking Burst Keen Ghost Touch longsword!") or having something that will quickly become useless ("The balor seems unaffected by your uncle's trusty masterwork flail").
There would be disadvantages, of course: not every magic item will work under this system (armor and weapons, yes, but a Figurine of Wondrous Power?) and you'd have to reduce the potential for abusing the system. It also makes those sundering/disintegrating bad guys even more annoying.
I tend to prefer the way magical items were handled in the Earthdawn system. That was also a high-magic system, but many magic items were designed to increase in power as you did. Basically, you would have to spend some xp to increase the item's power level, with higher levels requiring more xp. You'd usually also have to know specific information about the item, such as the name of the item itself, or who created it, or what hero first used it. Some of the more potent items also required quests to be completed to raise their power past a certain point.
Going back to D&D, I noted the other day that the current rules do support adding new abilities to an existing magic item (you pay the difference in cost, so it would cost 6000 gp to make a +1 sword into a +2 sword).
Anyone ever successfully used any sort of 'progressive power' system for the magic items in their D&D campaign? To me, the appeal would be:
1. The number of permanent magic items in existence in a world could be reduced without compromising a character's performance.
2. It would encourage characters to keep their original equipment throughout their career ("This is my father's sword, and his father's before him"). Rather than dumping items the minute something better shows up ("'Sure, Excalibur's a nice sword,' said King Arthur, 'but this one here will set things on fire!'"). While this isn't really a game-breaking issue, it does help if you're aiming for a more epic or story-based feel to your game.
3. It could possibly relieve the xp burden on casters with item creation feats. Though not in the core rules, I could see house rules implemented that would allow someone to spend their own xp to increase an item's power. For example, you either pay the full cost in gold, or pay half that and also spend xp as if you were making the item yourself (1/25 of the difference). So the +1 sword upgraded to a +2 sword would either cost you 6000 gold, or 3000 gold and 240 xp. Actually, I'd probably double the xp cost in these cases, just so casters who take item creation feats still have an advantage. I also wouldn't let characters turn nonmagical items into magical ones with this method (again, reserving that privilege for those who take item creation feats).
4. Using some sort of 'spend your own experience to boost your items' system, it would also allow characters to inherit gear from their ancestors without either having something that's way too powerful ("Starting your career as an adventurer, son? Here, take my +4 Shocking Burst Keen Ghost Touch longsword!") or having something that will quickly become useless ("The balor seems unaffected by your uncle's trusty masterwork flail").
There would be disadvantages, of course: not every magic item will work under this system (armor and weapons, yes, but a Figurine of Wondrous Power?) and you'd have to reduce the potential for abusing the system. It also makes those sundering/disintegrating bad guys even more annoying.
