Naming the +s


Homebrew and House Rules

Sovereign Court

So in another thread a poster talked about naming the +1 +2 etc. Magic properties so that you could ask for them in game, I like the idea so I came up with this...

for weapons
+1 = stinger
+2 = talon
+3 = paramount
+4 = master
+5 = sovereign

For armor
+1 = Bolstered
+2 = reinforced
+3 = bastion
+4 = citadel
+5 = Impenetrable

I didn't go with any particular theme, I just looked for words that in my head sounded to have more weight even if some may not have any particular difference (i.e. bolstered vs. reinforced or master vs. sovereign)

I just tried to get words that also sound cool. So a player could go to the weaponsmith and ask that his blade be made a stinger or a sovereign blade. Plus I think in game calling it a flaming talon or a sovereign vorpal longsword just sounds better. I realize that this is just flavor, so what about your lists, or thoughts on using this for your own games.


I think that's a great idea! Especially if you can tie these terms into something like ranks within an armorer's guild or something, so they are really nestled into the flavor and history of your world, rather than just a tool to avoid breaking immersion.

But then, I've also loved the old Level Titles from 1E, and would adore seeing them make a come-back. in a world with influential and ancient guild structures, titles are just so flavorific...


...I like the names, but something about the idea bothers me. Ok, not really about the idea, the idea is fine as is, it's just the whole "lets not break immersion" bit, that seems so tacked on in a game as Pathfinder that is so arbitrarily real/unreal - where the lines are so blurred as they are.

I mean - if the five names are in a clear and orderly structure and everyone knows that number two is better than number one and number three is better than number two, then why don't just let go of the names (in-game I mean) and say "I would like an armor number 3"?


Derwalt wrote:

...I like the names, but something about the idea bothers me. Ok, not really about the idea, the idea is fine as is, it's just the whole "lets not break immersion" bit, that seems so tacked on in a game as Pathfinder that is so arbitrarily real/unreal - where the lines are so blurred as they are.

I mean - if the five names are in a clear and orderly structure and everyone knows that number two is better than number one and number three is better than number two, then why don't just let go of the names (in-game I mean) and say "I would like an armor number 3"?

We're all out of armor number 3, but we have plenty of spring rolls left.

I'm sorry I couldn't help with that. Though the whole idea reminds me of the Diablo games were certain properties where always named something specific. I say go for it if it makes your game more fun. What's the worst that happens the PC's go to a store and ask for a Paramount Axe, and are told that the shop keep only has Talon Khukris?

I do like the idea in general if only because it tries to add abit of flavor over mechinics that are cemented into the game.


If it works for you and yours, then change it - do what makes the game more fun.

I've been planning to do something similar in my next campaign (Carrion Crown AP) - but with materials (like those from Rolemaster) rather than titles.

No different than a Gold piece is better than a Silver piece, is better than a Copper piece, etc.

It's just one of the many steps I am taking to change the magic item system.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

You could think of other naming systems too.

Degrees of enchantment - "This sword has been enchanted to the 3rd degree."

Number of times it has been enchanted - "This sword has been enchanted five times." "Impossible! No metal can hold that much magic." "No terrestrial metal, but this is star-metal!"

Dimensions - The Bartimaeus books by Jonathan Stroud had wizards who could "see" varying magic auras, a la Detect Magic, and referred to being able to see more as seeing into more "planes." One guy could see as far as four planes deep, but couldn't see a magic trap hidden on the fifth plane. Maybe a sword could be enchanted to five dimensions.

Grades - If names are standardized, maybe they'd be standardized by who could make them. +1 swords might be "Journeymen-grade" weapons, while +5s would me "Archmage-grade."

Colors - Maybe the auras that different +s give off are different: +1 light blue, +2 royal blue, +3 dark blue, +4 violet, +5 ultraviolet. Other add-ons could add texture: red specks for flaming and red splashes for flame-burst, white lines for keen. Like a magic spectrometer.

Sovereign Court

Mosaic wrote:


Grades - If names are standardized, maybe they'd be standardized by who could make them. +1 swords might be "Journeymen-grade" weapons, while +5s would me "Archmage-grade."

That's nice, add a theme to the naming scheme. Your naming scheme would also work for both weapons and armor, so you have...

+1 = Journeyman grade
+2
+3
+4
+5 = Archmage grade

I'd love to see what you do to fill out this list.

Sovereign Court

LizardMage wrote:
Derwalt wrote:

...I like the names, but something about the idea bothers me. Ok, not really about the idea, the idea is fine as is, it's just the whole "lets not break immersion" bit, that seems so tacked on in a game as Pathfinder that is so arbitrarily real/unreal - where the lines are so blurred as they are.

I mean - if the five names are in a clear and orderly structure and everyone knows that number two is better than number one and number three is better than number two, then why don't just let go of the names (in-game I mean) and say "I would like an armor number 3"?

We're all out of armor number 3, but we have plenty of spring rolls left.

I'm sorry I couldn't help with that. Though the whole idea reminds me of the Diablo games were certain properties where always named something specific. I say go for it if it makes your game more fun. What's the worst that happens the PC's go to a store and ask for a Paramount Axe, and are told that the shop keep only has Talon Khukris?

I do like the idea in general if only because it tries to add abit of flavor over mechinics that are cemented into the game.

Bingo, that's what I'm going for, I personally can't stand the idea that they would name something so generic as armor number 3, we barely do that in the real world, heck even most movies have switched from calling themselves #2 and #3 to having a word associated with the follow-ups. And very few products list themselves as 1, 2, 3 instead calling 1 beginner, 2 intermediate, and 3 master etc. And I just don't like the sound of people in a quasi-medieval/renaissance setting going in and buying +1 stuff, or item number 3.


Ive done this for a while. mainly just to provide in game referencing. My players have gotten so used to that its second nature now. My formula is for general weapons and armor to describe the degree of magic power contained in the item and the work put into each. As the item becomes more magical the term(s) change from a mostly materialistic name to more magical energy in nature. It's simple, there words are familiar, and should be easy for all players to adapt to. feel free to use!

+1 = Runic- An item engraved with runes of ancient dialect, power, magic, or divine favor. These runes invoke power and magic formulas but also provide the item with a marked name that is needed to make an item magical. Runic items are fairly common place and most practitioners of arcane or divine magic learn runes as an apprentice or acolyte. Even some master crafters without magical knowledge know a few ancient symbols handed down from generation to generation. Although runes are fairly common place the art of actually inscribing them correctly is what takes years of practice. An item inscribed with runes radiates a slight magic aura but it's actually the runes themselves that contain the magic. Inscribing runes is the first step to creating true magic items.

+2 = Mystic- An item that undergoes through a special ritual to infuse a feint magical aura,invoke a deities blessing,or instill a portion of the crafters heart and soul into the item. A mystic item that has gone through such a ritual is imbedded with a magic seed, or spirit, in which magical energy can now grow and evolve. In order for an item to ever have a chance to take to a mystic ritual the item must have been given a name that is spoken during each day of the ritual. An items name is contained deep within the runes it bears. Once the ritual is complete and the item excepts it's "spirit" it begins to take on a life of its own and will radiate a feint magical aura.

+3 = Enchanted- Enchanting a mystic item is a long, tedious, and sometimes dangerous endeavor. Unlike creating a mystic item the involvement in enchanting an item is far more personal and forceful than a ritual. The enchanter directly infuses raw eldrich or divine energy, or a small portion of his very being. This raw energy would destroy a normal item but a mystic item is able to take in this energy into it's "spirit" to give it more power and life. Often this takes months to complete and is exhausting to the enchanter. It's also important to note that this procedure sometimes goes severely wrong and the items "spirit" becomes resentful, malicious, or corrupt as it evolves through the enchantment process and gains power. Although any item bestowed with magical properties can result in a mishap and create a cursed item It's rumored that the first cursed items were the results of failed enchantment procedures. Enchanting an item requires a great deal of skill and knowledge and it is this very reason that some fail in the process as they rush to flaunt there skill and power and to gain notoriety. Once a Mystic item becomes enchanted it's Spirit radiates moderate magical energies that are a marvel to those who can see it.

+4 = Magic- Only a master of crafting magical items can ever hope to ascend an enchanted item to become a true magic item. The process is a closely guarded secret and very rarely shared. It's believed that every crafter's process is his own and must be discovered throughout his life. Once an enchanted item becomes a magic item it's name often finds a spot in history and legend. Magic swords and armors are often as well known as the heroes who wielded or wore them. Although heroes rise and fall they often live on through the magic items they carried into legend. A magic item is as much magic as it is it's physical form, radiating a strong magical aura all it's own. Often times a magic item has taken in so much magic that it gains it's own intelligence and awareness.

+5 = Transcended- Very rarely does a mortal gain the ability to help a magic item transcend to a higher form. A transcended Item contains pure eldritch or divine energy. In fact the physical item itself only serves as a vessel to tie the magical energies to the mortal plane. A Transcended item also has a mind of it's own with its own morals, desires, and ambitions. A transcended Item is so powerful it even resents the thought of being considered an "item". They believe that they have a soul of there own and have only been summoned here by mortals. Once there vessel is destroyed, there purpose has been fulfilled, or they have been released from service there soul will depart the mortal realm to become one with the eldritch or divine powers of the cosmos. A Transcended weapon radiates an overwhelming magical aura that few will ever see in there lifetime.

feel free to use and change around any wording. i use some houserules in my magical items so some of the descriptions may seem off to you. for instance weapons AND armor can be intelligent in my world, im not sure this is normal rules. also +5 items ALWAYS are sentient.

cheers


not sure if it was clear enough but this would create

Runic sword/armor +1

Mystic sword/armor +2

Enchanted sword/armor +3

Magic sword/armor +4

Transcended Sword/armor +5

btw weapon qualities are simply called enhanced items.

i created this mainly so when players go to a magic shop they dont say "do you have a +1 bastard sword?" they can ask "do you have a a Runic bastard swords? or know someone who can can craft or find one?"

also, a Mystic warhammer of lightning just sounds WAY cooler :D

Sovereign Court

RunebladeX wrote:

not sure if it was clear enough but this would create

Runic sword/armor +1

Mystic sword/armor +2

Enchanted sword/armor +3

Magic sword/armor +4

Transcended Sword/armor +5

Yeah it was pretty clear :)

RunebladeX wrote:

btw weapon qualities are simply called enhanced items.

i created this mainly so when players go to a magic shop they dont say "do you have a +1 bastard sword?" they can ask "do you have a a Runic bastard swords? or know someone who can can craft or find one?"

also, a Mystic warhammer of lightning just sounds WAY cooler :D

Yup pretty much what I'm going for, asking for a flaming stinger shortsword sounds cool to me, asking for a +1 flaming shortsword sounds lame and gamey. And a sovereign warhammer of lightning, same deal :)


Don't really see the big deal. The designations in the core rulebook aren't in-game names. A fighter doesn't go to the store and say "I'd like a +3 Keen Greatsword please".

It is up to the GM to find names for well and proper magical items (anything worth more than a large city GP limit IMHO). The +3 Holy Keen Flaming Burst longsword will likely be named. You don't spend several months of your life as a spellcaster enchanting a weapon of this magnitude without giving it a name.

However, the shield some warrior dropped off so he could stick a basic enchantment on it, which is done in a day, will not be much of note.

In my opinion, sticking a "default" name on items does more to remove than add to the feel of a campaign. Why would an ancient elven wizard, a Tian sorcerer, a dwarven cleric and a mwangi witchdoctor name the swords by the same terms?


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

+1 = "magic"
+2 = "more magic"
+3 = "so much magic you'll need to part with 18,000 gp for it"
+4 = "more magic than that"
+5 = "as magic as it gets"

Thing is, people naturally describe things in terms of what they are or what they do. I'm with the group that aren't trying to name this stuff... assigning arbitrary words doesn't convey any more realism.

That being said, generally at the table we don't in-character refer to enhancement bonuses by numbers. It's usually "good sir, would you be able to enchant my sword so it's got a little more... ooomph?" Show the crafter your existing weapon, he assesses it, gives you a price, and you're done. OOC you know you just asked for your +2 to become +3, but you don't say those in-character.


I have long used two conventions for role-playing enhancement bonus.

First, magic weapons could be known by the kinds of Damage Reduction that they bypass.

Second, all enhancement bonuses can be referred to by the expertise of the craftsman needed to create them:

+1 Apprentice weapon
+2
+3 Journeyman weapon
+4
+5 Master Weapon

etc.

Likewise, I use Belgian ale strengths (Singel, Dubbel, Tripel, Quadrupel) to refer to cure potions, which are colloquially known as a single substance of varying potency; "the cure".

Scarab Sages

How about, from shoddy workmanship, up through normal, masterwork and up;

Feeble
Average
Superior
Enhanced
Renowned
Invulnerable
Perfected

and...
Class 1000!


Kamelguru wrote:

Don't really see the big deal. The designations in the core rulebook aren't in-game names. A fighter doesn't go to the store and say "I'd like a +3 Keen Greatsword please".

It is up to the GM to find names for well and proper magical items (anything worth more than a large city GP limit IMHO). The +3 Holy Keen Flaming Burst longsword will likely be named. You don't spend several months of your life as a spellcaster enchanting a weapon of this magnitude without giving it a name.

However, the shield some warrior dropped off so he could stick a basic enchantment on it, which is done in a day, will not be much of note.

In my opinion, sticking a "default" name on items does more to remove than add to the feel of a campaign. Why would an ancient elven wizard, a Tian sorcerer, a dwarven cleric and a mwangi witchdoctor name the swords by the same terms?

While I cannot disagree with this perspective on "default names" the original intent is also attractive to me, in that it allows for easier spoken RP: "Shopkeep, have you any Runic weaponry for sale?"

Of course, the campaign where every magic weapon has a name and a background is a very different one from the one where the PCs are shopping for magical weapons... It seems to me that in a campaign setting where pre-existing magical weapons and armor can be shopped for, a number of background elements to that world provide better support for some kind of common nomenclature: given the cost of these items, the world must have a thriving economy (to some degree at least), so trade is probably sustainable on a larger scale than "as far as you can walk in a day." If trading exists at that level, there ought to be some sort of nomenclature even on a regional basis that allows merchants to talk about the magical properties of weapons and armor in a descriptively meaningful way (relative to their values), even about named weaponry: "Behold, Glonthiel, Giant's Bane, a mithril blade of Transcendent quality enchanted with the lightnings of Rhuga!" (+5 mithril Shocking Burst Giant Bane weapon).

The nice thing about having in-world terminology that correlates to the rules mechanics for magical weapons is that an entire encounter with the merchant can be RPd while still providing the player with a great deal of information about the item. In this sense, while I doubt that individual crafters would follow these nomenclative conventions, having them exist makes RP that much easier.

Also, I have to say that I like the progression presented by RunebladeX, with two exceptions: "Enchanted" and "Magic" - both of these terms are used by the rules as catch-alls when talking about much broader groups of items than +3 and +4 weapons and armor. I admit, however, that nothing leaps to mind as alternate options.


The game I am playing in the names are the same for both weapons and armor:

+1 - Danger Class
+2 - Lethal Class
+3 or Better - Hazard Class

It seems to work pretty well, and adds a way the characters can talk about the weapon or armor, especially when the party asks for an item found to be identified or enchanted.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 8

In my low-magic homebrew, magic item creation was mostly the domain of the long-lived races (elves and dwarves) so the names of the enhancements reflected that:

+1 = Lesser Dwarven
+2 = Lesser Elven
+3 = Greater Dwarven
+4 = Greater Elven
+5 = Master

It suited the setting, but may not be everyone's cup of tea.


Armor +3 = Base Price + Masterwork + 9000.

"VEGETA! What does the Core Rulebook say about his armor cost?"

"IT'S OVER NINE THOOOOOUSAAAAAAAAAND!!!!!!1!1!!"


There's an old 3e product called Diablo II: Diablerie, and an adventure for that called Diablo II: the awakening.

In those, there's a series of magic item creation tables. The tables Name every rank, every bonus, every type, so that a Blue Meteoric Viscious Dagger means (Blue)+1 to FORT saves vs Cold, (Meteoric) +5 enhancement, (Viscious) threat range 18-20.

There's literally ten full 8.5 x 11 pages of the charts, covering ranged weapons, melee weapons, scrolls, items, potions, etc.

It's a little overkill, I think, but it's what the thread's about.

These books are out of print, but a google search for the title will point you towards some pdf copies of them. PM me and I can send you some links.

My only complaint is that the names for the basic +1,+2 etc are METAL types. Silver, Gold, Platinum, Etc. You could easily sub out these names for Mighty, Heroic, etc..


Anguish wrote:

+1 = "magic"

+2 = "more magic"
+3 = "so much magic you'll need to part with 18,000 gp for it"
+4 = "more magic than that"
+5 = "as magic as it gets"

Thing is, people naturally describe things in terms of what they are or what they do. I'm with the group that aren't trying to name this stuff... assigning arbitrary words doesn't convey any more realism.

That being said, generally at the table we don't in-character refer to enhancement bonuses by numbers. It's usually "good sir, would you be able to enchant my sword so it's got a little more... ooomph?" Show the crafter your existing weapon, he assesses it, gives you a price, and you're done. OOC you know you just asked for your +2 to become +3, but you don't say those in-character.

i feel completely different that arbitrary words dont convey any more realism. I'm sorry you feel that way. try this, ask one of your players to change his characters name to "level 3 cleric" play a gaming session and see if the realism fades a bit...

and the problem with asking to add "a little more ooommp" could be anything. you could get your sword back and wanted a +2 buts you get it back and it is shocking or bane.


"Also, I have to say that I like the progression presented by RunebladeX, with two exceptions: "Enchanted" and "Magic" - both of these terms are used by the rules as catch-alls when talking about much broader groups of items than +3 and +4 weapons and armor. I admit, however, that nothing leaps to mind as alternate options."

i originally had mage touched, talismanic, and theurgical items. But my players didn't like the way some of the words sounded and mage touched felt more mage oriented. i tried to use words that could be used for items crafted by arcane and divine crafters equally.

enchanted and magic is used pretty common in the pathfinder system but it's become easy to use as a pure RP angle IN GAME and easily distinguishable. Non weapons and armor are simply called magical items.

I also agree that not all casters call the items the same names and i have an explanation for this. Crafters call the items by there given name be it masamune, excaliber, Durandal etc. It's the venders that use this rating mainly, or crafters when dealing with non crafters. Thats why i established that a magical item must first start off as a runic item to give it a name, all items start off this way and grow from there.

look at it this way. My naming system when compared to cars would be the same as an economy car, a sports car, a high performance car,a race car, or a specialty car. while there are many economy cars there never called just that- they have names. The ford focus, a dodge neon, a chevy malibu etc. but if you ASK for an economy car the dealer will know what your asking for and can show plenty of specific economy cars im sure. I've never been sold a +1 car, although i have been sold a cursed one lol. My system is no different, its a generalization that almost everyone would know in my golarion.

If the system isn't for you its ok. i just had an already established system and this seemed a good thread to share for others to use. if you like it use it. if it's not for your campaign then don't. my players seem to like it and so i figured i would share it to save other GM's some work or a template to start off of.

Cheers,


Reaperbryan wrote:
There's an old 3e product called Diablo II: Diablerie, and an adventure for that called Diablo II: the awakening.

I just found my old copy of the pdf and I highly recommend people take a look at it. Pretty cool IMO ad adds a ton of flavor to the magic items.

Would you want to ask someone for a +2 Flaming Adamantine Dagger OR a Vicious Adamantine Dagger of Flame?

Yea... thought so.

Sovereign Court

RunebladeX wrote:

I also agree that not all casters call the items the same names and i have an explanation for this. Crafters call the items by there given name be it masamune, excaliber, Durandal etc. It's the venders that use this rating mainly, or crafters when dealing with non crafters. Thats why i established that a magical item must first start off as a runic item to give it a name, all items start off this way and grow from there.

look at it this way. My naming system when compared to cars would be the same as an economy car, a sports car, a high performance car,a race car, or a specialty car. while there are many economy cars there never called just that- they have names. The ford focus, a dodge neon, a chevy malibu etc. but if you ASK for an economy car the dealer will know what your asking for and can show plenty of specific economy cars im sure. I've never been sold a +1 car, although i have been sold a cursed one lol. My system is no different, its a generalization that almost everyone would know in my golarion.

If the system isn't for you its ok. i just had an already established system and this seemed a good thread to share for others to use. if you like it use it. if it's not for your campaign then don't. my players...

Like this and +1, basically what i'll go with as explanation for magic items in my game. In fact, I think I'm changing it up, I'm gonna combine weapons and armor into the same naming convention, and mash some of yours with some of mine.

so +1 = Runic
+2 = Mystic
+3 = Paramount
+4 = Master
+5 = Sovereign

and for RP purposes they'll be known as classes, so a fighter could go into a shop and ask the storekeep what Runic class weapons he has on display and the owner can pull a crossbow off the wall and say "well Vansaya here is a runic class crossbow, but what's odd about her and you don't see this very often is that she has ancient elvish runes, most runic weapons with ancient elven runes are holed up in Kyonin so what you have here is a rare specialty."


RunebladeX wrote:

"Also, I have to say that I like the progression presented by RunebladeX, with two exceptions: "Enchanted" and "Magic" - both of these terms are used by the rules as catch-alls when talking about much broader groups of items than +3 and +4 weapons and armor. I admit, however, that nothing leaps to mind as alternate options."

i originally had mage touched, talismanic, and theurgical items. But my players didn't like the way some of the words sounded and mage touched felt more mage oriented. i tried to use words that could be used for items crafted by arcane and divine crafters equally.

enchanted and magic is used pretty common in the pathfinder system but it's become easy to use as a pure RP angle IN GAME and easily distinguishable. Non weapons and armor are simply called magical items.

I wasn't voicing a general objection, just trying to say that for my players and preferences, I'd prefer to avoid those two terms, with an oblique appeal for alternate ideas. (It's great that it works for your group, and in general this sort of thing *should* be based on what each gaming group prefers.)

Based partly on your reply, I've decided to adopt the following progression (for my players):

Runic (+1)
Mystic (+2)
Eldritch (+3)
Thaumaturgic (+4)
Transcendent (+5)

Also, your point that the progression is primarily for vendors, as opposed to the creators of the items, is entirely in accord with my thinking on the matter.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
RunebladeX wrote:

i feel completely different that arbitrary words dont convey any more realism. I'm sorry you feel that way. try this, ask one of your players to change his characters name to "level 3 cleric" play a gaming session and see if the realism fades a bit...

and the problem with asking to add "a little more ooommp" could be anything. you could get your sword back and wanted a +2 buts you get it back and it is shocking or bane.

Fair enough, and I didn't really meant to poop on anyone's parade. To continue with the discussion though, what you're asking with a "level 3 cleric" isn't the same thing at all. Out-of-game that's entirely appropriate. In-game, no, we wouldn't do that. But in-game that's the equivalent of a named weapon, not named properties. You're talking about calling a sword Bloodsplatterflinger. That's not the same as saying it's runic for instance at all.

What I have a problem with is the assignment of nonsense names. Runic? Means it has runes. Doesn't say anything about what +1 enhancement actually delivers.

You wouldn't get shocking or bane because those you'd be asking for "a weapon that zaps people when I hit 'em" or "an enchantment to make my bow really hate orcs".

Again, whatever you enjoy, but that's my view.


You could use noble ranking... on the premise that higher ranking nobles can afford more magic.
.
.
.
mw Knight
+1 Baron
+2 Count
+3 Marquis
+4 Duke
+5 King

Of course, someone with a better Knowledge(Nobility) should probably pick the actual titles.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I have always liked the idea of using the already established adverbs in the system to handle this. So something like this:

+1 = Lesser Mystic Weapon
+2 = Mystic Weapon
+3 = Improved Mystic Weapon
+4 = Greater Mystic Weapon
+5 = Superior Mystic Weapon

The word mystic can be supplanted for somethign more descriptive but I like the idea of giving something that has a clear correlation with an order like Lesser,Standard,Improved, Greater and Superior.

Sovereign Court

I've pretty much assumed that there's this Gamespeak going on where the players at the table say one thing and their characters say the equivalent but using more appropriate language.

Player says: This is a +2 Keen blade.
Character says: This sword's magically enhanced balance and sharpness are remarkable!

Works for other situations, too.

Bard's Player: Uhh... hi, maiden. Can we rest here? Nice cans, by the way.
Bard Character: Fair maiden, my companions and I meant no intrusion. We only sought a short rest. Casting my eyes upon your loveliness, however, I might bid we stay a bit longer... with your blessings, of which I am sure there are ample.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
roccojr wrote:

I've pretty much assumed that there's this Gamespeak going on where the players at the table say one thing and their characters say the equivalent but using more appropriate language.

Player says: This is a +2 Keen blade.
Character says: This sword's magically enhanced balance and sharpness are remarkable!

Works for other situations, too.

Bard's Player: Uhh... hi, maiden. Can we rest here? Nice cans, by the way.
Bard Character: Fair maiden, my companions and I meant no intrusion. We only sought a short rest. Casting my eyes upon your loveliness, however, I might bid we stay a bit longer... with your blessings, of which I am sure there are ample.

Well that has to do with what level of roleplay a group thinks is appropriate (and fun). I have been in games where the second lines where what the players said, always in character. I also have played in games that were a little tongue in cheek where the characters had an awareness of the game itself, similar to the comic series order of the stick.


Very cool idea. Reminds me of all those charts in first edition.

Sovereign Court

Kolokotroni wrote:
Well that has to do with what level of roleplay a group thinks is appropriate (and fun). I have been in games where the second lines where what the players said, always in character. I also have played in games that were a little tongue in cheek where the characters had an awareness of the game itself, similar to the comic series order of the stick.

Oh, its still in character. My players are geeks... We're all IT developers or managers. Not actors. Everyone has their own capabilities but I don't want to stop a player who isn't particularly good at acting or even coming up with decent words from playing a bard if that's what he wants to do, for example.

I'm not against giving names to the various + levels in the game... but if, for example, the game did that by RAW, calling a +3 Longsword an "Awesome Longsword" for example, I think my players would have translated it to +3 and used that terminology at the table.

Personally, I love the idea as I hate saying, "Its a +1 Longsword." But if I started calling it a "Giggety Blade", they'd start asking, "Giggety... that's +4, right???"


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Doskious Steele wrote:


Based partly on your reply, I've decided to adopt the following progression (for my players):

Runic (+1)
Mystic (+2)
Eldritch (+3)
Thaumaturgic (+4)
Transcendent (+5)

Also, your point that the progression is primarily for vendors, as opposed to the creators of the items, is entirely in accord with my thinking on the matter.

I like this one. I think I'll blatantly steel it for my own games.

EDIT:
I think I might add...

Apprentice (-1 to hit)
Journeyman (standard blade)
Master (+1 to hit, AKA Masterwork)


It seemed pretty clear to me that the intent here was to find a title for the each level of enhancement bonus - +1, +2, etc. and yet some people have glommed onto the idea of Name, as in "my trusty shortsword, Sting", or "Orcfang" or whatnot.

Why are there so many issues with the OP wanting his PCs to go into a magic item shop, and instead of asking for +1 longswords, or saying, "longswords with a +1 enhancement bonus" or some such game mechanical term that in the virtual erality of the game world has no meaning? If the OP wants to have his players say that a +1 dagger is a Runic Dagger, and a +2 Dagger is a Mystic Dagger, so his players can stay in character while browsing for their next "Transcendant Holy Avenger", why is that a problem?

Beyond that, if they want they Transcendant Holy Avenger to be NAMED, then you have the sword Narsil, Fang of Gondor, and a wizard that casts identify can in character say, "By the markings and enchantments, you have found a Transecendant Holy Avenger, but more so than that, you have found the ancient artifact Narsil!"

And players can write down +5 Holy Avenger: Narsil (ask DM?) like always.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Reaperbryan wrote:

It seemed pretty clear to me that the intent here was to find a title for the each level of enhancement bonus - +1, +2, etc. and yet some people have glommed onto the idea of Name, as in "my trusty shortsword, Sting", or "Orcfang" or whatnot.

Why are there so many issues with the OP wanting his PCs to go into a magic item shop, and instead of asking for +1 longswords, or saying, "longswords with a +1 enhancement bonus" or some such game mechanical term that in the virtual erality of the game world has no meaning? If the OP wants to have his players say that a +1 dagger is a Runic Dagger, and a +2 Dagger is a Mystic Dagger, so his players can stay in character while browsing for their next "Transcendant Holy Avenger", why is that a problem?

Beyond that, if they want they Transcendant Holy Avenger to be NAMED, then you have the sword Narsil, Fang of Gondor, and a wizard that casts identify can in character say, "By the markings and enchantments, you have found a Transecendant Holy Avenger, but more so than that, you have found the ancient artifact Narsil!"

And players can write down +5 Holy Avenger: Narsil (ask DM?) like always.

The real question is: why is it a problem that when the OP shows up to expresses his opinion other people have and express their own, sometimes differing opinion?

Let me step back for a moment and expand on that. I've read a lot of threads where a DM has shown up and said something like "I'm thinking about banning X" or "I'm thinking about changing Y so it works completely differently" or "I'm thinking about doing Z to my players." I often reply to those by asking "have you asked your players what they find is fun?" It's sadly frequent that the answer is "no". A lot of people have ideas. Good, great, wonderful. Not all of those ideas are themselves good, great or wonderful. The Internet is a place where you can bounce your arbitrary changes and whim-based fancies off other people to see if they perhaps are good, great, or wonderful. Don't expect unanimity. 30+ years of D&D without major publishers feeling the need to make up unrelated and meaningless names to associate with other unrelated and meaningless names says something.

<poking fun>

Incidentally, in my campaigns henceforth +1 items shall be known as spastic, +2 items as cherubic, +3 items as scandalous, +4 items as uppity and +5 items as zen. That's right. My players will now dream of owning a zen vorpal greatsword.

</poking fun>

Really, my point in a nutshell is this: the English language doesn't have words that fit what is trying to be done. The concept being conveyed is a quantitative one. "The enhancement is at a level of 1 above nominal non-magical." The words being used are qualitative. "This longbow is of the laxative level of magic." Yeah, yeah, I just adjectived that verb and consequently verbed that noun. I'm sure SKR could prove me wrong, but the two concepts don't work well together.


I guess I'm just surprised by the fact that the OP said, "hey, I want 5 words to use in my campaign world that mean X" and he got "That's dumb".

Admittedly, a fair number of people gave him helpful advice.

Sure, the English language doesn't have a word for the made-up thing that is a +1 enhancement bonus. But that doesn't mean the game world doesn't, and helping a DM find words that might have meaning int he game world isn't dumb.

To borrow from the illustration provided, If I ask for help fixing my car, and you give me a diatribe about my carbon footprint and the evils of the gas companies and suggest I get a bicycle instead, that's great, that's fine, your opinion, but you didn't help.

And in the case of an internet forum, if you don't have something helpful to add, why post?


I think this explains it.

On topic, I think it's a pretty cool idea, and one I might liberate myself for my campaign.

Sovereign Court

Reaperbryan wrote:

I guess I'm just surprised by the fact that the OP said, "hey, I want 5 words to use in my campaign world that mean X" and he got "That's dumb".

Heh, honestly I'm more bothered by the fact that people seem to like someone else's word choices better than mine. I've gotten used to the fact that any idea posted on a forum will be followed by at least three people saying "why would you do that, it's a waste of time/it's a horrible idea/it's pointless." Like my adjectives better damnit! :)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
lastknightleft wrote:
Reaperbryan wrote:

I guess I'm just surprised by the fact that the OP said, "hey, I want 5 words to use in my campaign world that mean X" and he got "That's dumb".

Heh, honestly I'm more bothered by the fact that people seem to like someone else's word choices better than mine. I've gotten used to the fact that any idea posted on a forum will be followed by at least three people saying "why would you do that, it's a waste of time/it's a horrible idea/it's pointless." Like my adjectives better damnit! :)

The sad part is, those 3 messages are usually from one of 5 different posters.


The way I see it, the best service the forum can provide is aggregation of ideas from players and GMs for other players and GMs.

Posting your own suggestion of terms in this thread is a Good Thing, because anyone who comes to the thread can choose whichever they like best, or use the suggestions to make their own. I posted two very different ideas that I am happy with, and I'll post more if they come to me.

Criticizing the thread's premise is a waste of the critic's time.

Sovereign Court Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

Evil Lincoln wrote:

The way I see it, the best service the forum can provide is aggregation of ideas from players and GMs for other players and GMs.

Posting your own suggestion of terms in this thread is a Good Thing, because anyone who comes to the thread can choose whichever they like best, or use the suggestions to make their own. I posted two very different ideas that I am happy with, and I'll post more if they come to me.

Criticizing the thread's premise is a waste of the critic's time.

I love finding threads that are speaking to things that I was discussing just the other day with people in my store. There are a ton of people out there who are looking for just this kind of thing.

Dotting, so I can show them the thread...


Evil Lincoln wrote:


Likewise, I use Belgian ale strengths (Singel, Dubbel, Tripel, Quadrupel) to refer to cure potions (...)

Hey, I like that!

That reminds me of a player I had that would say "I'm critically wounded" as opposed to "I'm short 3d8+15 hit points" (or some other variations using the words "hit points"). That was the compromised we made as I refused that HPs would be referred to as such in-character.

'findel


Snorter wrote:

How about, from shoddy workmanship, up through normal, masterwork and up;

Feeble
Average
Superior
Enhanced
Renowned
Invulnerable
Perfected

and...
Class 1000!

Wow, Class 1000, that brings me back. What a messed up system that was. :P


Evil Lincoln wrote:
Criticizing the thread's premise is a waste of the critic's time.

Stated more succinctly, and better, than I did.


Reaperbryan wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:
Criticizing the thread's premise is a waste of the critic's time.
Stated more succinctly, and better, than I did.

*Constructive fist bump*

Sovereign Court

Reaperbryan wrote:

To borrow from the illustration provided, If I ask for help fixing my car, and you give me a diatribe about my carbon footprint and the evils of the gas companies and suggest I get a bicycle instead, that's great, that's fine, your opinion, but you didn't help.

And in the case of an internet forum, if you don't have something helpful to add, why post?

I don't think that's what's going on. As one of the people who said I didn't think this would work in my group, I think I specified that my opinion was confined to my group. I don't think that qualification is really necessary, though. Everyone's opinion is ALWAYS based on their experiences with their own group. What works with one group might not work with another.

And I think your analogy is a little off. Its more like you need help putting those cool neon lights on the undercarriage of your car (not a requirement but it might be cool) and I tell you that, since it wouldn't really work for my car, you should consider that you might run into the same issue.

Helpful does not have to be blind cheerleaders screaming, "RAH RAH WAHOO!!!!"


roccojr wrote:
Reaperbryan wrote:

To borrow from the illustration provided, If I ask for help fixing my car, and you give me a diatribe about my carbon footprint and the evils of the gas companies and suggest I get a bicycle instead, that's great, that's fine, your opinion, but you didn't help.

And in the case of an internet forum, if you don't have something helpful to add, why post?

I don't think that's what's going on. As one of the people who said I didn't think this would work in my group, I think I specified that my opinion was confined to my group. I don't think that qualification is really necessary, though. Everyone's opinion is ALWAYS based on their experiences with their own group. What works with one group might not work with another.

And I think your analogy is a little off. Its more like you need help putting those cool neon lights on the undercarriage of your car (not a requirement but it might be cool) and I tell you that, since it wouldn't really work for my car, you should consider that you might run into the same issue.

Helpful does not have to be blind cheerleaders screaming, "RAH RAH WAHOO!!!!"

I rather liked what you had to say
Roccojr wrote:

I've pretty much assumed that there's this Gamespeak going on where the players at the table say one thing and their characters say the equivalent but using more appropriate language.

Player says: This is a +2 Keen blade.
Character says: This sword's magically enhanced balance and sharpness are remarkable!

and as much as I got my kickers in a twist about the thread and it's direction, I run my table more or less as you describe. I assume that when the players at my table say game mechanical things, their characters used the appropriate jargon from their world, even if we at the table don't know those words.

Sovereign Court

Reaperbryan wrote:

I rather liked what you had to say

and as much as I got my kickers in a twist about the thread and it's direction, I run my table more or less as you describe. I assume that when the players at my table say game mechanical things, their characters used the appropriate jargon from their world, even if we at the table don't know those words.

Then I got my Twisted Knickers of Defense on, too. My apologies.

I can see some posts were far more critical and less idea-sharing than others. I didn't spot where the line might have been drawn when you posted your message on the matter.

Sovereign Court

So the more I thought about +1 being runic the more I liked it, the only troubling thing is that it implies that each +1 weapon has runes on it...

Flavor to the rescue

as says any educated crafter, "runic weapons don't necessarily bear runes, it just so happens that in their heyday when magic enchanting of blades was in it's infancy the first weapons to be crafted were done so by inscribing certain runes on the weapons. As learning progressed we got past the days where you even needed a rune on a weapon for it to be magical, but by that point there were many weapons that had already been crafted with runes and to the layman a magic weapon was identified by the presence of runes (although that was also an easy way for scam artist to pass off mundane blades as magical). Add to that the fact that inscribing runes is still the easiest form of enchanting, so much so that even hedge-wizards and cultists can do it, and the fact that runes inscribing commonly can't create the stronger enchantments the other classes of enchanting allow, and you have the reason that the lowest tier is still referred to as runic to this day."


lastknightleft wrote:

So the more I thought about +1 being runic the more I liked it, the only troubling thing is that it implies that each +1 weapon has runes on it...

Flavor to the rescue

as says any educated crafter, "runic weapons don't necessarily bear runes, it just so happens that in their heyday when magic enchanting of blades was in it's infancy the first weapons to be crafted were done so by inscribing certain runes on the weapons. As learning progressed we got past the days where you even needed a rune on a weapon for it to be magical, but by that point there were many weapons that had already been crafted with runes and to the layman a magic weapon was identified by the presence of runes (although that was also an easy way for scam artist to pass off mundane blades as magical). Add to that the fact that inscribing runes is still the easiest form of enchanting, so much so that even hedge-wizards and cultists can do it, and the fact that runes inscribing commonly can't create the stronger enchantments the other classes of enchanting allow, and you have the reason that the lowest tier is still referred to as runic to this day."

Nice explanation

+1

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Naming the +s All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.