Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 6289537" data-attributes="member: 27160">The only ones of these I'm really not in favour of are XP cost and Attribute loss. Either make it possible for PCs to make the items or make it not possible*, but don't make it a self-nerfing project to do so.I don't think having both an &quot;Enchant Item&quot; and a &quot;Permanency&quot; spell makes sense - they are effectively the same thing if you view &quot;magic items&quot; as including tattoos and boons and such like.The only one I have come to think of as a really important inclusion is the &quot;resource to make magic items&quot;. Although I think &quot;residuum&quot; is a poor name, I think a separate resource for item creation has a number of important advantages. Firstly, it disconnects magic items from money. The more scarce the resource used for items is, the higher magic items' cost will be and the &quot;lower magic&quot; the world; world creators can set the scarcity of residuum (or whatever you call it) at whatever level they choose - it becomes a &quot;dial&quot;. Secondly, a magic &quot;resource&quot; makes a great plot hook. Politically, control of the supply of residuum/whatever will be critical. New sources of residuum/whatever will be magnificent finds that bring practical and political concerns in abundance. Thirdly, it allows magic items to be valuable, even if they are not of any obvious use to the characters; items still &quot;contain&quot; some of the precious resource that could allow other - perhaps more useful - items to be made.*: Or both. As I have said elsewhere, I think the 4E concept of &quot;magic items&quot; that PCs can make and &quot;artifacts&quot; that they cannot is a very sound design basis. It allows players (including GMs) who like player control over magic items' form to have their game while also allowing those who prefer magic items to be totally under the GM's control to have their game, too. Have rules for both and make it clear that any item could conceivably be assigned to either group (i.e. you could have a +1 dagger and call it an &quot;artifact&quot;) and everybody has system tools for their game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 6289537, member: 27160"] The only ones of these I'm really not in favour of are XP cost and Attribute loss. Either make it possible for PCs to make the items or make it not possible*, but don't make it a self-nerfing project to do so. I don't think having both an "Enchant Item" and a "Permanency" spell makes sense - they are effectively the same thing if you view "magic items" as including tattoos and boons and such like. The only one I have come to think of as a really important inclusion is the "resource to make magic items". Although I think "residuum" is a poor name, I think a separate resource for item creation has a number of important advantages. Firstly, it disconnects magic items from money. The more scarce the resource used for items is, the higher magic items' cost will be and the "lower magic" the world; world creators can set the scarcity of residuum (or whatever you call it) at whatever level they choose - it becomes a "dial". Secondly, a magic "resource" makes a great plot hook. Politically, control of the supply of residuum/whatever will be critical. New sources of residuum/whatever will be magnificent finds that bring practical and political concerns in abundance. Thirdly, it allows magic items to be valuable, even if they are not of any obvious use to the characters; items still "contain" some of the precious resource that could allow other - perhaps more useful - items to be made. *: Or both. As I have said elsewhere, I think the 4E concept of "magic items" that PCs can make and "artifacts" that they cannot is a very sound design basis. It allows players (including GMs) who like player control over magic items' form to have their game while [I][B]also[/B][/I] allowing those who prefer magic items to be totally under the GM's control to have their game, too. Have rules for both and make it clear that any item could conceivably be assigned to either group (i.e. you could have a +1 dagger and call it an "artifact") and everybody has system tools for their game. [/QUOTE]

Verification