Looks good. As a long time artificer player and general fan of creating magic items, I'd say this falls pretty much in-line with those rules, with the following two notes:
1.) It somewhat (very slightly) takes away some of the thunder from anyone who picked magic item creation feats, and those people get too few benefits from this. For instance, everyone can already juice up their own item, so some of the "role" of the one who takes the feats. Those who take the feats and work in conjunction with this system should, i would say, perhaps get two rolls for Spellcraft before the penalty of failure is levied, or maybe get like 10% more residuum/juice/mojo out of the recycled items, or something.
2.) My more important quibble is the clause about the item losing its enchantment within minutes of the ritual starting. The ritual takes at least one hour, so there exists the potential for the ritual to start, the juice to be gone, then a fight start up to disrupt the ritual and the player to have lost value. This would be more and more likely with the increased value of the item as that increases ritual time.
Makoto, as a follower of Shelyn, will never utilize this route. :)
Yeah let's get to level 5 though so you can make my sword talk.
It somewhat (very slightly) takes away some of the thunder from anyone who picked magic item creation feats, and those people get too few benefits from this.
Hadn't thought of this. Yeah, it makes Craft Arms and Armor *mostly* useless, as most characters already have a weapon (and armor is cheap). It's also much *faster* than crafting. Ah well, Makoto and I are taking crafting feats for flavor anyway.
Shelyn is about creation, never about destruction. Destruction is only okay when it prevents much, much more destruction; even Shelyn still carries one of the most evil artifacts in the universe - whether it is because it cannot be destroyed or not is not something for Makoto's paygrade to decide. :)
There will be evil, and I'm almost certain that there will be a cost for eating an evil item...
If there wasn't a budding settlement that could use these things I probably wouldn't have much to say. But doing it this way would prevent any kind of RP associated with trading in town. Or chance meeting up with outer groups while building the economy at the same time.
If I were to modify anything about the system while still keeping it intact it would be "You can only take the magical juju from similar items. Weapon -> Weapon, Ring -> Ring, Amulet -> Amulet so on." This way it would be more of a transference of magic and not cannibalism of it.
Re: Sold the item and used the gold to enchant it normally:
Option A: Without Crafting feats (by base rules):
I have a 2300 gp +1 longsword.
I find a place to sell it.
I sell said longsword for 1150 gp.
I do not have enough money to enchant my longspear to +1. I must bank the money until I have enough gold to get what I want.
Option B: With Crafting feats (by base rules):
I have a 2300 gp +1 longsword.
I find a place to sell it.
I sell said longsword for 1150 gp.
I have enough money (with a little left over!) to enchant my longspear to +1!
Option C: Without Crafting feats (with diablorie rules):
I have a 2300 gp +1 longsword.
I feed said longsword to my longspear, having found a space I feel is safe enough to perform the ritual.
I lose 150 gp but gain much of the benefit of a crafting feat.
Option D: With Crafting feats (with diablorie rules):
I have the option of B or C. B results in a very small return, if I go through the additional effort of finding an settlement that both has the money for, and desires said item. This results in crafting feats having a much-diminished impact, depending upon the team involved.
I'm not saying any of the ways things work out are particularly what are being 'gone for', but did want to point out the results of the change. I don't mind the 'middle-man' so much, though things tend to derail on forums in high-social situations. Ahem.
Either way, it doesn't overly impact me since I intended to grab crafting feats! :)
So, what items can be fused into weapons without paying the 50% tax? Nothing except specific magic weapons? Or are you going to allow stuff that could have reasonably been a magic weapon (for example +5 to a skill)? Would adding +5 diplomacy to my lance (let's say a magical pennant that shifts to be soothing towards whoever looks upon it) cost 3750 or 5625? The item I want the most is probably Horsemaster's Saddle. It doesn't seem like we'll be getting much wealth outside of our signature weapons any time soon. Would it cost 18000 or 27000 to fuse it into my weapon?
How do we calculate the expense of specific magic items? Specifically I'm looking at Gloom Blade (the same as adding +2 extra to the item + 500 GP?) and Dragoncatch Guisarme (without the +1 bane part, 5000 GP?).
You can cannibalize any item allowed, (see #6) and convert it into CVP. The cost of the enchantment is what costs 50% more if it is not standard to the item ( in the case of weapons, anything that is not on the weapon enchantment table). In addition, as you mentioned, if it is not the primary bonus ( again all weapons will start with at least a +1 probably), then there is additional tax. I don't want to get into deciding what fluff is reasonable enough to allow some other power to be added to a weapon without tax, because you could probably slide anything by if worded cleverly enough.
In terms of specific weapons, in some cases it doesn't make sense, and for balance purposes I won't allow them. The gloom blade could probably be added to other items, but the dragoncatch guisarme works because its a polearm with a grabby part. It doesn't make sense to add it to a dagger or club or most other weapons. I also don't want everyone and their brother going around and making sunblades on whatever weapon they have. By default, unless you have that specific weapon as your signature weapon, it won't be allowed. I will take each on a case by case basis and allow if I review it and it seems ok.
For gaining wealth, its a bit tricky given some of the encounters and the rapid advancement I have built in. It means there may be a few lean levels as you go up levels quickly (well comparatively for a PBP). Ultimately you will end up with WBL I hope, but not every level. The Signature Item is supposed to alleviate this somewhat.
--
Although your post didn't touch on it much, the only real goal of the Cannibalize process is to allow an extra avenue of getting rid of hard to sell items, nothing more.
"9) The cannibalized item loses ALL of its enchantments within minutes or starting the ritual. There are no partial enchantments left. "
Let's say the party finds a +1 Flaming Longsword. The party Ifrit says, "I need a +1 back-up weapon in case I'm disarmed, but the flaming doesn't do anything for me cause it doesn't stack with my natural abilities."
Does that mean you can't just drain away the Flaming part for CV and leave the +1 Longsword for the party ifrit?
No, its all or nothing. The goal is to make items that would normally be hard to sell ( due to being in some backwater village with no wealth, or because no one will by some obscure weapon that is enchanted evil and covered in skulls and demonic runes) easily converted into something usable. It isn't to really offer another system for customizing weapons. In your example, just cannibalize the entire thing and recreate the +1 effect in your signature item.
Does that mean you can't just drain away the Flaming part for CV and leave the +1 Longsword for the party ifrit?Personally, I think Special Abilities should be drain first since a weapon needs to have at least +1 Enchantment before you can add special abilities. And if this is the case, perhaps crafters or whomever can suck Unholy or whatever evil special abilities out of a weapon, then hand the still enchanted weapon to a crafter to add new abilities such as holy? I am guessing that will work?
CT?
All or nothing will probably stay, as I did consider the partial drain option, but it goes counter to my goals for the cannibalize option.
From the way I read it, you can drain an item partway, but the instant you start draining it, it loses all its enhancement bonuses. You can just cannibalize it further for "magic essence" or whatever
Yes, once you start the process it removes all the enchantments, but you can still leave 'points' left over for someone else to harvest.
Yeah, I don't want to make it too robotic and generic, or video game like. It still has to make some sense in my mind, and follow the rules of 'reality' as I see it in a world where magic and monsters exist.
Ok, so once the draining process begins, it removes all magical properties but the essence remains for someone else to drain it if not fully drained? Does the weapon at least remain masterwork? Also, you only receive half of the value you drain or all of it except for the price of the weapon and masterwork.
No, its all or nothing. The goal is to make items that would normally be hard to sell ( due to being in some backwater village with no wealth, or because no one will by some obscure weapon that is enchanted evil and covered in skulls and demonic runes) easily converted into something usable. It isn't to really offer another system for customizing weapons. In your example, just cannibalize the entire thing and recreate the +1 effect in your signature item."9) The cannibalized item loses ALL of its enchantments within minutes or starting the ritual. There are no partial enchantments left. "
Let's say the party finds a +1 Flaming Longsword. The party Ifrit says, "I need a +1 back-up weapon in case I'm disarmed, but the flaming doesn't do anything for me cause it doesn't stack with my natural abilities."
Does that mean you can't just drain away the Flaming part for CV and leave the +1 Longsword for the party ifrit?
While I understand, and it makes sense, your advice I don't think would work, as I specified "back-up" as in like "oh, my signature item got disarmed, this is the weapon I switch to after that".
Looks good. As a long time artificer player and general fan of creating magic items, I'd say this falls pretty much in-line with those rules, with the following two notes:
1.) It somewhat (very slightly) takes away some of the thunder from anyone who picked magic item creation feats, and those people get too few benefits from this. For instance, everyone can already juice up their own item, so some of the "role" of the one who takes the feats. Those who take the feats and work in conjunction with this system should, i would say, perhaps get two rolls for Spellcraft before the penalty of failure is levied, or maybe get like 10% more residuum/juice/mojo out of the recycled items, or something.
2.) My more important quibble is the clause about the item losing its enchantment within minutes of the ritual starting. The ritual takes at least one hour, so there exists the potential for the ritual to start, the juice to be gone, then a fight start up to disrupt the ritual and the player to have lost value. This would be more and more likely with the increased value of the item as that increases ritual time.
In response
1) It does somewhat take away the thunder somewhat, however, it only allows cannibalizing to put into your signature item, which people can already spend MCP to upgrade, so this shouldn't step on toes too much, as it is still cheaper to create separate non signature magical items from cash since your primary item will likely impose a tax (as Xanya noted) for adding additional powers, and the base power was likely already added at lower levels.
2) In theory this could happen. I could rule that you can restart the ritual over from scratch and still access the stored value without a total loss. Mostly I want to be able to have a point where the item is no longer usable, but it could be at the end of the ritual I guess. *I will make a note of it.
Makoto, as a follower of Shelyn, will never utilize this route. :)Yeah let's get to level 5 though so you can make my sword talk.
It somewhat (very slightly) takes away some of the thunder from anyone who picked magic item creation feats, and those people get too few benefits from this.Hadn't thought of this. Yeah, it makes Craft Arms and Armor *mostly* useless, as most characters already have a weapon (and armor is cheap). It's also much *faster* than crafting. Ah well, Makoto and I are taking crafting feats for flavor anyway.
So far, my rules have prohibited your signature items from being intelligent. I forget why I originally limited this, but others have asked about it, so I will review it again and may lift the limit or put a level limit on it or some of the powers.
If there wasn't a budding settlement that could use these things I probably wouldn't have much to say. But doing it this way would prevent any kind of RP associated with trading in town. Or chance meeting up with outer groups while building the economy at the same time.
If I were to modify anything about the system while still keeping it intact it would be "You can only take the magical juju from similar items. Weapon -> Weapon, Ring -> Ring, Amulet -> Amulet so on." This way it would be more of a transference of magic and not cannibalism of it.
It is still advantageous to sell the items over cannibalizing them, since cash is more flexible, because cash can be used to make other magic items or purchase other supplies. This is largely to help when you can't sell the Butter Knife of Ineffable Evil that is only usable by evil characters and has curse attached to it.
I wouldn't want to restrict it by category because then it limits the ability of characters to effectively split up and share in cannibalizing the item's value, which if they were able to sell it, would just split the gold.
The main goal is just to help that reduce the pains of that process. it does introduce some new mechanics to that end, but my interest is only to work towards that goal, not create something to either limit or greatly add more power to players.
Ok, so once the draining process begins, it removes all magical properties but the essence remains for someone else to drain it if not fully drained? Does the weapon at least remain masterwork? Also, you only receive half of the value you drain or all of it except for the price of the weapon and masterwork.
yes the base item still remains, weather its a masterwork weapon or a shiny diamond ring that in and of itself is still worth 3000gp.
Also I did move the removes enchantments to the end of the ritual. I will move it back if this creates some issues.
While I understand, and it makes sense, your advice I don't think would work, as I specified "back-up" as in like "oh, my signature item got disarmed, this is the weapon I switch to after that".No, its all or nothing. The goal is to make items that would normally be hard to sell ( due to being in some backwater village with no wealth, or because no one will by some obscure weapon that is enchanted evil and covered in skulls and demonic runes) easily converted into something usable. It isn't to really offer another system for customizing weapons. In your example, just cannibalize the entire thing and recreate the +1 effect in your signature item."9) The cannibalized item loses ALL of its enchantments within minutes or starting the ritual. There are no partial enchantments left. "
Let's say the party finds a +1 Flaming Longsword. The party Ifrit says, "I need a +1 back-up weapon in case I'm disarmed, but the flaming doesn't do anything for me cause it doesn't stack with my natural abilities."
Does that mean you can't just drain away the Flaming part for CV and leave the +1 Longsword for the party ifrit?
Yes of course as as back up item it creates extra work in that you can't split apart the enchants, and if you want to harvest the value you have to harvest everything from the item, but look at it this way now you have an option you didn't have before. You still would have had to make the back up item before, or use the sword as it was. Now you can at least feed it to your SigItem for something.
I suspect people will still try to sell most items, this is mostly for the very hard to sell things.
Re: Sold the item and used the gold to enchant it normally:
Option A: Without Crafting feats (by base rules):
I have a 2300 gp +1 longsword.
I find a place to sell it.
I sell said longsword for 1150 gp.
I do not have enough money to enchant my longspear to +1. I must bank the money until I have enough gold to get what I want.Option B: With Crafting feats (by base rules):
I have a 2300 gp +1 longsword.
I find a place to sell it.
I sell said longsword for 1150 gp.
I have enough money (with a little left over!) to enchant my longspear to +1!Option C: Without Crafting feats (with diablorie rules):
I have a 2300 gp +1 longsword.
I feed said longsword to my longspear, having found a space I feel is safe enough to perform the ritual.
I lose 150 gp but gain much of the benefit of a crafting feat.Option D: With Crafting feats (with diablorie rules):
I have the option of B or C. B results in a very small return, if I go through the additional effort of finding an settlement that both has the money for, and desires said item. This results in crafting feats having a much-diminished impact, depending upon the team involved.I'm not saying any of the ways things work out are particularly what are being 'gone for', but did want to point out the results of the change. I don't mind the 'middle-man' so much, though things tend to derail on forums in high-social situations. Ahem.
Either way, it doesn't overly impact me since I intended to grab crafting feats! :)
The fact that you can still make magic items that are not your signature item is still a big deal since enchanting other powers onto the Sig item will come with heavy taxes (for item slot synergy as well additional enchantment tax). Your example above is possible, but you would be as likely to use MCP for creating the base item to +1 rather than cannibalizing an item to take it to +1. I thought I posted some framework somewhere on taxing and some formulas to help explain which power on an item was considered primary for taxing purposes. It wasn't always necessarily the first enchantment added. Maybe I only wrote it in my notes somewhere or maybe I scrapped it after review.
Making other magic items is still a huge win. Sure, create magic arms and armor are reduced in value, but 1) This was going to happen anyhow since many people went with a weapon (if they didn't go unarmed) for their SI. 2) Few people wear armor in this campaign. I can think of 4 or 5 tops and none of them chose armor as their signature item, so this feat's effectiveness remains the same for those people who want to enchant the armor they will wear.
That's because you banned 'armor' as a choice from the get-go. :) Shield, on the other hand...
Since there is no item in the game expensive enough to cover the main pool of your signature item then eventually all your cannibalized magic items will be funneled into enchantments that cost 50% extra due to combining items (or more likely 125% extra for items without a lot of choices, like weapons). Hence cannibalizing will always be 66.67% as effective as simply selling and crafting on your own. That's fine though, because you would only want cannibalize items you couldn't actually ever sell so rather than being less efficient than crafting, it allows you turn these items which would otherwise amount to nothing into something.
Sure, but there's actually a higher tax on keeping the items separate - action economy. Shoving +6 Cha into your Katana is a great deal better than having a +6 Cha headband and a +6 Int headband that you have to swap between. The tax will still be there, if you have a +6 Cha/Int headband. :)
Though, in the case of Mithral Current, multiple different magical weapons have their own benefit (especially in coolness factor).
The wrong-slot thing is still there, though. As long as you don't leave the 7-bajillion weapon-only effects, you'll never reach that position.
The math is contradictory to your previous post Maks.
Adding +6 cha to the katana costs 81000 (36k * 1,5 (offslot) * 1,5 (multiple enchatments)) while adding it to your +6 int headband only costs 54k (36k * 1,5 (combining items)).
It'll always be more expensive in the long run to fuse wrong slot things onto your item rather than use crafting to fuse them onto whatever you have in it's slot.
This looks like an elegant solution for a common logistical issue. I can appreciate that under ideal conditions it would be more effective to sell gear and then enchant it ourselves, but this system appears to address when we are away from a local economy that can purchase our superfluous items.
Like I said, -a- tax exists, but it's the same tax you would always pay for adding +6 cha to your lance for offslot/multiple enchants.
The exact math I was talking about was adding say... dragoncatcher, or three fancies to the weapon. There is theoretically more on-slot enchants you could add to an item than we will ever have in money.... or at least I'd like to believe that.
At level 20 we'll have 880k from the pool to use on our signature item. You will be hard pressed to find "weapon" enchatments for that price, hence you have to use some of the gold on offslot enchatments (at 225% the price). Any cannibalized items will also have to pay the 225% tax since you can't buy more weapon stuff.
I may not get any Monster Mash posts in today. I will try, but its been hectic.
I will probably move ahead with my plans on the Cannibalizing of items soon. I didn't seen any major issues raised, although I will tweak when exactly the item loses is enchantments if there is a case where you are attacked while performing a cannibalize ritual (Would I do that? ;) )
I will try to get those rules posted soon.
Next on the review:
I took a little time to review intelligent magic item creation. So far I have had it prohibited for your Signature Items ( and probably in general although I didn't explicitly say that ).
Here are some problems I have with it, and I think I have worked through some, or will revamp the system somewhat.
This is all just thoughts for now, not codified yet, just open for discussion and analysis.
Issues:
1) action economy
2) intelligent item stats/crunch
3) cost of powers vs caster level
4) damage/healing
5) ego and other items
Action Economy
Having an intelligent item is like having another person to do stuff, in some ways like a familiar, companion or eidolon. The nice thing is that intelligent item can cast spells, so their use in that department goes way up vs the aforementioned creatures who are either more useful for direct combat, damage sponges, or spying (without heavily modification or levels). Since it gets somewhat expensive to add spells to an item, this might not be the end of the world, as the item is only likely to have a few of these.
Analysis: Not too bad as long as some sort of crazy action economy breaking craziness doesn't come from this due to some weird feat looping etc. Having a creature able to cast a few spells on its own to offload actions from the user, probably not game breaking at the level we are at.
Issues to resolve: None, just watch for crazy combinations that allow massive action loops.
Intelligent Item stats/crunch
This is where it gets confusing and somewhat vague. It says in the intelligent item rules that since your item has Int, Wis, Cha it is now a creature. It says it is a construct. Ok, so far so good, but now we need to figure out its stats. Ok, what is its strength and dexterity scores? Well since intelligent items are immobile, having 0 in these scores is ok for now. Although a strength of 0 also means unconscious which is not possible for a construct (who are also immune to ability drain and damage) so ok. But, you can add mobility to an intelligent item by spending gold, so now we need to be able to figure out scores for that in that case. One big drawback to the player, is that your intelligent item, which was previously an object is now a creature.
Previously as an object, held by the player it follows the attended object rules, being mostly immune to things, and only having to deal with issues like a failed saving of a 1 and rolling on the chart to see if it gets damaged, or disarm/sunder attacks. As an object it had hardness and hit points and took half from elemental damage, and could fall under the protection of the wielder's spells in many cases. It had pretty good saves or could use its wielder's saving through.
As a creature it is now quite more vulnerable. In the same way your fluffly little familiar sitting on your shoulder is vulnerable to a fireball, so will your magic item now be considered another being on the field. It also counts as a creature when considering things like targets for teleport, or other travel spells.
Whether it is mobile or not, is is essentially an animated object following the construct rules. Most signature items will fall into the tiny category ( candelabra sized ). Two handed weapons or one handed weapons wielded by large characters would be 'small'. Two handed large weapons could be medium. Weapons wielded by small or smaller characters will be even smaller although tiny and smaller size only affects its AC basically. Using a tiny construct (animated object) for example your magic sword has somewhat different stats as a magic item vs a construct.
normal magical Sword:
Hardness 10 (variable based on metal) (+2 per +1 enchantment)
Hit points 5 (variable based on metal) (+10 per +1 of enchantment)
Saving throws - unattended = always fail. attended uses wielder
Intelligent Sword - Tiny object
Hardness - from what I can tell the object still has a hardness, at least according to the monster stat block, but this isn't mentioned anywhere in the rules for making constructs, which are bypassed anyhow when making an intelligent item. It also seems to have a natural armor class bonus, but that is not clear how that is derived.
Hit points 1d10 (based on item size could be 2d10+10 or 3d10+20)
its not clear if it gains the increases for magical enchantments, one would assume its possible and translate these over.
Saving throws - constructs have all bad saving throws
Analysis: Somewhat of a pain to deal with number-wise, could become an issue for players who forget that their item now counts as a creature and is more vulnerable to some things and not likely to get significantly stronger.
Issues to resolve:
- Determine strength and dexterity scores for mobile items. Probably quite low.
- Patch together the hardness and hit points rules and how enchantments affect them
Cost of Powers vs Caster level
At the surface it is slightly more expensive (about 10%) to enchant an intelligent item with spell usage vs a regular magic item. However there are two flaws. One, the slight cost increase is far outweighed by having the item able to cast the spell itself, a large action economy benefit. This more than covers the slight cost increase. Two, the cost for adding spells to magic items uses a formula of 1800 x spell level x caster level. For intelligent items, it is a flat fee based on the spell's level and ignores the caster level. The caster level it turns out, is the caster level of the item, which can be highly variable and is likely to grow higher as additional enchantments are placed on it. This makes the static cost a HUGE win in a case where the item level has increased over the lowest required to cast the spell (which is generally what the static cost is close to).
Issues to resolve:
-Change the cost of adding spells to be the same as for a regular magic item, based on the level of the spell and caster level of the spell for consistency sake. Adding a spell to an item with its own very high CL must accept the newer adjusted cost or accept a lower casting level. Signature Items costs work from the base cost anyhow when using MCP and not half (unless using gold or CVP)
Damage and Healing
There are slight rule changes when the intelligent item becomes a creature. Mending no longer works (and has a fairly low weight cap anyhow), but Make Whole would still work. The custom ability to restore a completely destroyed Signature Item (and thus the creature) could still work the same.
Issues to resolve: Few if any, just need to make note that some effects/abilities/powers/spells affect constructs and objects differently.
Ego and other intelligent items
Due to the superior stats of characters, dominating an intelligent item will be much easier as making the will save will be trivial in many cases. Not sure if this is an issue that needs addressing, other than to make note of it.
A larger issue is if everyone wants to go about making their SigItem intelligent.
All magic items with personalities desire to play an important role in whatever activity is under way, particularly combat. Such items are natural rivals, even with others of the same alignment. No intelligent item wants to share its wielder with others. An intelligent item is aware of the presence of any other intelligent item within 60 feet, and most intelligent items try their best to mislead or distract their host so that she ignores or destroys the rival. Of course, alignment might change this sort of behavior.
This aspect makes having more than one intelligent item in a group problematic. Many of you are good, lawful or both, so some items might play nice together.
Issues to resolve: None specifically, other than for players to be aware of the competing intelligent items clause.
Potential other proposal:
Allowing Flexible Power Pool points to be spent on abilities from the allowed RP (racial powers) list that you could chose from at creation. All of the same rules would be in effect in terms of qualifications or max number of selections for stat bonuses or feats. I might even restrict it further. Cost ratio undetermined.
Why bother with the whole "it's now a creature for all intents and purposes?" Why not keep it as an item for most purposes and only when something doesn't make sense for an item, use the rules for constructs? It makes very little sense that they should all of a sudden be vulnerable to fireball for example.
Well, because they are a sentient creature now, it has a mind and counts as a being.
Ah! Here we go. I'll present the RAW case, which is slightly different than GM rules (which I'm fine going with).
1) An intelligent item is NOT a creature. Its STR/DEX/CON 0 means it can't move under its own volition, and it can take purely mental actions, such as spellcasting. An intelligent item with flight or a move speed moves through magic (similar to Telekinesis), and is still treated as having a dex of 0, making its AC rubbish. Some items *can* talk, but this is more a "voice out of the air" thing.
2) As 1), but worth emphasizing: An intelligent item can never attack on its own. It may be able to cast spells, but the rules specifically recommend limiting item spellcasting to a level the GM feels is not game-breaking.
3) Following this, the best way to limit intelligent items is to ban Special Purpose Powers (and possibly special purposes, except as thematic). Or possibly all spells above cantrips. This is very easy, and removes the action economy problems while still allowing intelligent items as cool flavor.
4) Ego contests: Not a huge problem for player-created objects, as these usually have the same goals and alignments as players.
5) Item-vs-item: As long as the items are held by different party members, intelligent items generally don't get into conflicts, as long as they think their owner respects their ideals first and foremost. I've usually seen this operate as an "item's paladin code" type situation.
So, if you want to keep intelligent items under easy control, my suggestion is ban the mechanical benefits of special purposes (and maybe all spells), treat them as items intead of creatures, and you're pretty much set.
Intelligent items can actually be considered creatures because they have Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. Treat them as constructs.
Whether the 'can' means 'oh you CAN do this if you want' or is a form of saying the item 'can now be considered as such' meaning this is how it should be treated.
Regarding its str and dex of 0 ( ignoring con because this will always be 0 regardless), saying that the score of 0 make sense because its an immobile object makes sense, but when you grant it a move speed (with the power to add some limbs and move at 10, or fly, but I will ignore fly because that works as the spell) saying that since it works via magic and doesn't need scores is like saying a golem should have 0 str and dex because it moves through magic also.
I will give it more thought.
And let us not forget the case of Shimsil.
Shimsil was a player who was playing as an intelligent item. With an entire character's money to spend on his item, his Ego score was somewhere in the upper thirties. At level seven WBL.
One of our team's most effective strategies was to arrange for our opponent or some important party to pick up Shimsil, resulting in instant mind control because no character who couldn't one action annihilate the party could make the save against Shimsil.
Even if you don't do this, imagine you get mind controlled. Your intelligent item would notice, fight you in an ego battle, easily win, and you're back on your parties side.
High Ego, when your intelligent item is specifically made to have similar morals to you, is an ADVANTAGE, not a disadvantage.
I don't think I'm interested in making Lotham's amulet a magical item, FWIW, but maybe I would change my mind.
-Posted with Wayfinder
Eh, I granted Shimsil some... special rules to make that all work, though.
Oh, didn't know, I thought that was all natural on the ego side, and that the special rules were about him being able to attack with the soulbolt stuff.
I mean the special rules gave him HP and an AC based on his charisma (and the ability to use Mage Hand to do a lot of useful character things). Yeah, the ego stuff was all natural.
that said, the item's stats as far as treating it like a separate creature should only come into play when the item is unattended or its wielder fails a save.
Attended (Held/Wielded etc.) Items: Unless the descriptive text for a spell (or attack) specifies otherwise, all items carried or worn by a creature are assumed to survive a magical attack. If a creature rolls a natural 1 on its saving throw against the effect, however, an exposed item is harmed (if the attack can harm objects). Refer to Table: Items Affected by Magical Attacks to determine order in which items are affected. Determine which four objects carried or worn by the creature are most likely to be affected and roll randomly among them. The randomly determined item must make a saving throw against the attack form and take whatever damage the attack dealt. If the selected item is not carried or worn and is not magical, it does not get a saving throw. It simply is dealt the appropriate damage.
Magical Items: Magic items always get saving throws. A magic item's Fortitude, Reflex, and Will save bonuses are equal to 2 + half its caster level. An attended magic item either makes saving throws as its owner or uses its own saving throw bonus, whichever is better.
Quassine will never accept an intelligent item. I personally have never liked intelligent weapons and never will.
I personally have no desire to start having conversations with my kukris...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally have no desire to start having conversations with my kukris...
I read that as "I personally have no desire to start conversations with my kukris...", which created an entertaining mental picture.
I personally have no desire to start having conversations with my kukris...I read that as "I personally have no desire to start conversations with my kukris...", which created an entertaining mental picture.
Same.
Quassine can live with conversations. Loosing control to a sentient magic item he can not.
Tiny update on stuff:
1) I will probably go live soon with the item cannibalization rules, with just a tweak to when the item loses its enchants. If it sucks, maybe I will change it, but its just supposed to be an alternative option to selling, not necessarily a go to.
2) Still pondering adding the Racial abilities as purchases for Flexible Power Pool Points. I need to add it and calculate point costs. 99% likely to add this.
3) Sentient Items, I will rework. After our discussion here I may make them more objects and less creatures, and treat them only as creatures when unattended, etc as was suggested. There will be tweaks to the costs as well as some limitations to what they can do.
On with the updates to tables. Been a busy week at work.
2) Whoaaaaaaaaaaaa
2) sweeeeeeet. Now I know what to do with those things
-Posted with Wayfinder
Cannibalization stuff is live, and so are racial RP purchases. Info is in the pile of rules on the campaign tab of the main thread.
Cannibalization rules are in their own section before the Sig Item rules (in a spoiler)
Racial FPP purchase rules are in the FPP area of the Signature Item rules.
Intelligent items are still being worked on.
There is an update to Ultimate Equipment LINK
Please review and make necessary changes to your characters. Message me if anything becomes terribly broken. We are using retraining rules so it can alleviate some issues.
Most of it is gear related though, so it probably won't affect too many things.
Things that people might care about:
-Brawling Armor is now +3
-Courageous Weapons nerfed (previous errata, not printing errata)
-Benevolent Armor cost change
-Ring of Revelation fixed to not be broken
-Quickrunner's Shirt now sucks
-Bracers of Falcon's Aim now suck
-Sleeves of Many Garments are nerfed
-Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier is now useless
-Featherstep Slippers now limited in use
-Mass of Stony Demeanor now expensive
-Gloves of Reconnaissance now more limited in use
-Amulet of Mighty Fists is now cheaper!
-General changes to items too expensive to afford
Also, why is there a mithral waffle iron?