here's a question. Is a masterworked weapon capable of holding up to +10 enchantments that being the +5 and up to a +5 in effects as stated in the DMG? Personally i have started working on a list of crafted qualities starting at Masterworked and ending with something like "heavenly-worked" and having each one hold a limited amount of enchantment. For example Masterworked items can hold up to +2 enchantments Superiorly-worked (or whatever the name i come up with) +4 and so forth so that the items holding many enchantments require a better craftsman to have. And it also gives many tiered goals for characters who like crafting. Is this somewhere in the book or has anyone else came up with something along these lines?
Creative Director
|
According to the core rules, a weapon only has to be masterwork quality to become magic, be it a +1 weapon or a +5 vorpal weapon. Requiring PCs to create more unique and potent base weapons for more powerful magic items is a cool idea though, and one that existted after a fashion in earlier editions of the game in a way (+3 weapons had to be mithril, +4 meteorite iron, and +5 adamantine or something like that).
You might also check out Green Ronin's Advanced Gamemaster's Guide, as it has a few other options for non magical "high quality" equiptment, and rules how to make them, as well.
That somewhat resolvs a delimma that came up in a play sessions just yesterday. I playing the wizard with Craft Arms and Armor, was enhancing the cleric of the party by adding +2 to both his armor and shield, which were nonmagical at the time (though Mithril armor), and we were about 9th level. I asked how he wanted it to look, letting him describe his new, more powerful armor, but the DM said that the appearance couldn't change, he would have to go a blacksmith to do that.
I personally like high fantasy with weapon and armor designs that would probably not be practical in reality but look amazing. I say, that as a weapon or item has its magic powers increased, it's appearance should be allowed to change as well, since wizards ARE doing things to it to add magic in my opinion (studding with gems, etching runes, etc.), so why not just let them make whatever cosmetic changes the player wants, within reason? In my experience, most people get their masterwork sword early and just keep adding magic to it, not buying new weapons, and thus if it never looked any different, they would be about 20th level and their sword is no more impressive than a conscript's.
Does making it flashy show that it's magical and thus make you more prone to dispelling? No. Everyone who would be fighting you would guess it was magic anyway and just go ahead and dispell it, so why not look awesome on the side?
ANYWAY (sorry for rambling), if you have to seek out new weapon materials to get more powerful enchantments, that solves all that, sicne the appearance would be based on the material, but there is just one problem you should consider: As I said, in my experience, most people get a weapon and just add magic to it, not buy a whole new one. Thus, if the player has a +5 equivalent, they've only paid for one +5 over the course of their career. If they have a +3 but cannot upgrade to a +4 without a new material, or +4 to +5 or whatever, that's a huge drain on the money of the party, since they have to pay for, essentially, a whole aresenal, not just a single good weapon.
I personally like high fantasy with weapon and armor designs that would probably not be practical in reality but look amazing. I say, that as a weapon or item has its magic powers increased, it's appearance should be allowed to change as well, since wizards ARE doing things to it to add magic in my opinion (studding with gems, etching runes, etc.), so why not just let them make whatever cosmetic changes the player wants, within reason? In my experience, most people get their masterwork sword early and just keep adding magic to it, not buying new weapons, and thus if it never looked any different, they would be about 20th level and their sword is no more impressive than a conscript's.
Does making it flashy show that it's magical and thus make you more prone to dispelling? No. Everyone who would be fighting you would guess it was magic anyway and just go ahead and dispell it, so why not look awesome on the side?
I agree with the whole looks amazing but in real life he probably couldnt move aspect of fantasy armor. I mean, its fantasy!
I think that if you are enchanting his armor you can probably etch runes and similar things but physically altering something, such as making a lions head on the chest appear, should be done by a smith.
I like the idea of needing more and more physically superior weapons for more magically superior ones but I'm not sure it will work in D&D. Like Saern said this means that PC's will have to pay for lots of new weapons in order to keep their battle prowess up to speed.
Also if you use the D&D economics as they are presented in the books (where one gp can get you a goat). A masterwork weapon already is a big deal. A masterwok weapon can be as beutiful as the materials will allow. An expertly crafted sword is an expertly crafted sword so these things are already special.