Actually sgribhadair, I might recommend allowing Supreme (but making Supreme custom-made instead of superior). The reason? Piecemeal armors can effectively do the exact thing... and do so cheaply.
For example, out of the piecemeal rules I made one medium armor that had a +7 AC, +4 max DEX, -2 acp, 35% asf, weighed 30 lbs, and doesn't inhibit movement speed... and cost... 130g. I don't even think that's the best armor you can get for the price and value - I just grabbed a few good-looking things.
(horn lamellar arm +1, studded leather legs +1, chain torso +4 -> +7; some of the details might be house-ruled, as I just looked this up on a Word document really quick and don't fully recall all the rulings made, if any, but I think it's pretty straightforward).
Simply adding an armored kilt means that they get a total of a +8 and absolutely no penalty or limit beyond what they already have (albeit heavy armor instead of medium armor).
Just having a quick look at armor and eastern armor, I don't really see anything comparable. Medium armors don't get better than +6, and the only medium armor with a -2 check is the armored coat, which is a +4. There is no medium armor beyond special materials with higher than a +4, and - if you take the armored kilt to get +8 heavy armor - no heavy armor has +4 max DEX (they cap at +3 for the Tatami-do) or less than -5 check penalties (exclusive to the field plate and Hellknight plate). And, of course, exactly no medium or heavy armors allow you to move at your full speed. All this, and it's less expensive!
(It gets a little more... complex... when you apply special materials, but it still works out okay and is relatively inexpensive for what you get, regardless.)
So, while I understand where you're coming from, I think you're underselling what armor can be in the game already, unless you ban the piecemeal rules (which is also totally justifiable :D).
EDIT: continuing and adding links above
This actually really helps martials out a lot - it means that they've got equipment options (good ones!) that don't rely on mages to actually deal with.
One additional idea that I might recommend for the "better than masterwork" is either increasing the effective hardness (supreme) or hit points (superior) of the armor or reduce the effective hardness of materials being sundered (by 2 or 3): this simulates the superior (and supreme!) nature of the armor or weapons as they were often thought of or treated in real life (testing blades on <X>, or similar, and then judging their craftsmanship as much as their materials). I wouldn't really recommend making them more expensive than you already do.
Also, though you've likely thought of it, the superior and supreme costs, as currently written, should definitely overlap with the magical costs instead of stack with them.
Anyway, hope all that helps!
I'm not too familiar with those - but I'm only using the CRB, APG and Ultimate Magic ... those are in Ultimate Combat, right? I'm not planning on using any UC stuff for the forseeable future ...
Fewer magic items? Oh, well, that's easy. Just hand out cool personalized items for each PC. The old Legendary items. No "Christmas tree". You could also get rid of "ye Olde Magic Shoppe" and magic item crafting (except for consumables, potions, wands, scrolls).
If magic items exist at all, someone can make them. And if NPCs can, PCs should be able to as well. But if PCs can make them but there're not many around, there has to be a reason for that. And that reason may as well be an interesting one.
But there'll definitely be no magick shoppes. And yes, the players will be finding some unique items.
I honestly think that if your goal is simply to limit magic items and their creation, just do it. In my game, the crafting feats (besides wands scrolls and potions) dont exist. Permanent magic items can only be created with unique rituals that are ancient guarded secrets and require rare difficult to attain ingredients.
This essentially removes such crafting from the game unless the players specifically persue it. Consequently, very few people in the game world can make magic items, and they are essentially priceless. I also have a whole set of house rules to deal with the mechanical fallout of a lack of magic items (you mentioned you plan to adjust the challenges and such to accomodate the changed power level which will have a similar effect). Players expect to have one or two magic items over the course of their career, and they are either important to the character (family heirloom, quest item), or important to the story (magic maguffin). Either way I can create or obtain flavorful magic items with deep backstories without concern for them being discarded in a few sessions for a +1 bonus to something.
If you put a 'system' like the con drain thing into place you are doing one of two things: Either you are doing alot of work for nothing, your players are on board with the low magic item idea and will buy in, but they would have done that without such a system. Or you have created a point of conflict in which players will try and circumvent your intended vision for the game.
Not to mention, though a point of con is a significant penalty, its not really a rational balance against the potential gains of a significant magical item. So you have now potentially thrown the game out of wack.
What I mean is, lets say a party of 4 players with no magic items is X. You tailor your gameworld for roughly X. Lets say the party fighter had a con of 14. If he gives up 2 con, for a pair of magic items, lets say a sword, and armor. The party power is now X+Y (where Y is the power added by the weapon and armor minus the loss of the CON) But Y will vary wildly depending on what that item is. Because the CON loss is not at all connected to how powerful the item is. A +1 sword, costs the same amount of CON as a +5 flaming, keen, defending sword. And since purchasing magic items is limited, the loss of the money needed to create the item, is not really a sacrifice.
So as you mentioned people are likely to wait and only craft more potent items. So instead of a even progression of power you will have odd jumps in power. At level 11, the party fighter will be a fighter with a mw weapon and armor. At level 12 he'll be a 12th level fighter with a +5 weapon and +5 armor. Those kinds of jumps (in my mind) will be difficult to manage as a gm.
|
Coming to this pretty late and skimmed over most of the posts.
I like cnetarian's scaling bonded item suggestion - I use something similar for my existing game.
Some other solutions also work: Magic is a lost art (limited crafting), reduce the amount of items in your game (drives the prices up).
I am ok with all of these alone or in combination - but reading this thread I was hit upon (the head) with an idea:
What I would like to offer is a different source from CON (or xp for that matter) to craft magic items. You would still need material costs, but there would be another (abstract) way to pay.
Quest/Heroic sources (bear with me, I'm making this up as I type this stuff):
So to make magic items the wizard/cleric can use
- Personal hero points (assigned by the DM for completing quests and adventures). 1 per level or 2 levels.
- Quest power sources (DM made items, natural magic items, quest items)
Quest power sources are exactly that - custom made power sources ranked at points of value as to how many items they can assist in creating.
So say a mid level wizard (7th) is asking a group of adventurers to find him a Heart of Fire (5pts: Fire) from a nearby volcano. These things are pretty rare (DM sets the rarity) but when found, the item can fuel 5 points of item creation tied to fire or flame (1 point for a ring, 2pts for wand, 3 for sword and 4 for staff or wondrous item) and can be used for multiple items made at different times.
The Heart of Fire can be recharged by taking it back into the volcano, plane of fire, bathed in the heart blood of a moderately powered red dragon bested in combat, etc. The Heart of Fire (being a battery) can also be stolen, misused, etc (fill in adventure idea).
Heroic adventurers may also give the crafter their hero points - this can be done at a 1:1 basis, or depending on your game the hero's may need a quest item to vest those points in (item of legend - a feather plucked from a nest of a Noble Roc) - the value of the quest item determines how much can be put in. The quest item could give raw heroic points (generic) or increased heroic points (specific) when it's found.
So the Noble Roc feather may work as (5pts: Gen) or (10pts: Animal, Air) or both - where crafting Animal or Air related magic items is more economical in power use than say using it for generic magic items.
Hero points would be on a 1 point every level or every two levels - so once those are expended the Players need to get more or they need quest items (batteries) to ge their magic items.
Once this item is used the up the crafter (or whoever takes it) can maybe use the battery again? Possibly harvesting 1 hero point (used to power items) once every year, couple of years, etc (DMs choice).
Keep in mind I made all this up in the last 5 minutes with no playtesting.
---------------------------------------
I might develop this for my own game as a magic power currency – it's a good way to get adventurers off their behinds to go looking for this stuff and makes the notion of questing for a MacGuffin make some kind of mechanical sense.
Of course this makes for more work for the DM – placing these items, groups that have these items or go after these items, plots and motivations behind getting these items and all the lore associated with these items. All while making sure that these meta-items do not end up on a marketplace or players guide with a price tag.
This method:
- This forces adventuring (and creates motive and profit reasons to do so)
- It shifts the power away from the caster (he does need help getting the items after all)
- Plays up to adventuring and fantasy tropes of item quest.
Anyway
I'm not too familiar with those - but I'm only using the CRB, APG and Ultimate Magic ... those are in Ultimate Combat, right? I'm not planning on using any UC stuff for the forseeable future ...
That's fine. My point was only that, in the world as you currently have it, martials need a bit more of a boost. That's why - even if you aren't using the piecemeal rules - I'm recommending the existence of supreme-class armor in the game. Since I can - without supreme craft rules - make what amounts to a +8 heavy armor that doesn't inhibit speed, grants me a +4 max DEX bonus, and -2 check penalty, I think it might be a compelling case (to me, personally) to allow something similar to exist in the game for the sake of balance and class equivalence. That's the source of my suggestion rather than saying you should permit piecemeal rules (which really are wonderful, by the way).
One final thing you might think of is adding evasion and/or mettle <> abilities (and/or improved variant version), or perhaps the improved <save> abilities (replace "<save>" with appropriate save type: fortitude, reflex, or will; or for a lower-power, replace it with a specific type or element: mind-affecting, necromancy, poison, etc).
The reason for this is that in making permanent magic items rare, even with the superior and supreme craft rules, martials are hit a little harder than mages, as the martials rely on more equipment more often.
Anyway, thanks for listening to me ramble!
I'm recommending the existence of supreme-class armor in the game.
OK ... actually, while (as I said) I don't think you could make, say, plate mail not inhibit Dex however well-fitting you made it, there was also a reason I didn't think supreme class was necessary for armour: Mithral is already there in the CRB, and Supreme would overlap it too much.
So, without Supreme masterwork for armour, we have:
Regular masterwork costs +150 gp for armour, armor check penalty reduced by 1 (as per CRB)
Superior masterwork costs +600 gp for armour, armor check penalty reduced by 2, maximum dexterity bonus increased by 1 and spell failure chance reduced by 5%; however superior masterwork armour has to be fitted to a particular wearer and will not give its additional benefits to users of significantly different height, weight or shape. (house/campaign rule - as above)
Mithral costs +1000 gp (light) / +4000 gp (medium) / +9000 gp (heavy), armor check penalty reduced by 3, maximum dexterity bonus increased by 2 and spell failure reduced by 10%. (as per CRB).
So superior effectively just builds a bridge between masterwork and mithral for those that can't afford mithral yet; however the existence of mithral makes supreme masterwork for armour redundant.
One final thing you might think of is adding evasion and/or mettle <> abilities (and/or improved variant version), or perhaps the improved <save> abilities (replace "<save>" with appropriate save type: fortitude, reflex, or will; or for a lower-power, replace it with a specific type or element: mind-affecting, necromancy, poison, etc).
I've been considering this but am struggling to find some good sources through google. Could you link/paste a source?
I honestly think that if your goal is simply to limit magic items and their creation, just do it. In my game, the crafting feats (besides wands scrolls and potions) dont exist. Permanent magic items can only be created with unique rituals that are ancient guarded secrets and require rare difficult to attain ingredients.
I don't see the rare/difficult ingredients being any better or worse than the Con investment approach, just different - and I like different.
If you put a 'system' like the con drain thing into place you are doing one of two things: Either you are doing alot of work for nothing, your players are on board with the low magic item idea and will buy in, but they would have done that without such a system. Or you have created a point of conflict in which players will try and circumvent your intended vision for the game.
Not to mention, though a point of con is a significant penalty, its not really a rational balance against the potential gains of a significant magical item. So you have now potentially thrown the game out of wack.
My goal isn't simply to limit magic items, but to add flavour while doing it ... The Con route adds some plot entries (e.g. shutting down the evil mage who is enchanting people to use their life force) and some flavour (e.g. magic items may be important family heirlooms because they literally contain part of the life force of a deceased relative, and giving the idea that magic items are important - someone has invested part of their LIFE in its creation)
the CON loss is not at all connected to how powerful the item is. A +1 sword, costs the same amount of CON as a +5 flaming, keen, defending sword.
Yes, conceptually magic requires life force to work - but it's the presence of life force that is important, not the amount. Con is the basic quantum unit of life force.
And since purchasing magic items is limited, the loss of the money needed to create the item, is not really a sacrifice.
Because there'll be less items to buy, the players won't need to find so much treasure, so the cost won't be insignificant.
So as you mentioned people are likely to wait and only craft more potent items. So instead of a even progression of power you will have odd jumps in power. At level 11, the party fighter will be a fighter with a mw weapon and armor. At level 12 he'll be a 12th level fighter with a +5 weapon and +5 armor. Those kinds of jumps (in my mind) will be difficult to manage as a gm.
As the Con loss is only made on initial activation of the magic item, additional enchantments can be added to the item later (as per existing rules, but in this case the original donor needs to be present to activate the new abilities - but doesn't need to donate any more Con. As above, it's the presence of life force that activates the magical abilities, not the amount).
Any jumps wouldn't be too bad, as construction won't be the only source of magic items - while you can't predict what players will do, I estimate about two-thirds of the magic items will come to them in-game. So, while a player can buy masterwork, superior masterwork and supreme masterwork weapons, they'll also find some magic items either in treasure or in the hands of NPCs they overcome, they may also buy some (magic items cannot be freely bought, but they can sometimes be bought through NPC interactions) and, depending on the party, steal some.
Also, the challenges they face will be tailored to having fewer magic items; the nature of the world means that at least through mid levels, the main challenges they face will be humanoids who will have the same issues with having magic items as the PCs, and they're not likely to come up against creatures with magic-based DR until they have magic weapons.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There have been a few changes while this thread has been going on, so I'll post the version of the rule for changes to magic item creation as I have it now, to save newcomers having to hunt the thread for them:
Magic items cannot be freely bought (however, they may still be found in-game or bought through NPC interactions).
The feats Scribe Scroll, Brew Potion can be taken and work as normal to create temporary magic items.
The feat Craft Wand is no longer available. Only bonded objects may be enchanted as magic wands, using the normal rules for this.
Other magic items may be created without needing the necessary feats (Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Craft Rod, Craft Staff, Craft Wondrous Item, Forge Ring) so long as the prerequisites for the feats are met.
Creating a permanent magic item requires the creator to invest part of the life force of a sentient creature. Each permanent magic item created drains the Con score of the creator or another willing donor permanently by 1 point. This loss cannot be reversed by any means, including Restoration, as long as the magic item exists. The Con loss takes place at the end of an hour-long ritual (during which the donor must be present) carried out with the completed item, at which point the powers of the item are activated. On successful completion of the ritual, the donor acquires the Exhausted condition.
A donor can be forced to take part in the ritual and donate a point of their Con by using the spell Dominate Person, although as usual carrying out an action against their nature allows them a +2 Will save to break out of the domination. If the donor recognises that the ritual will drain their life force (via a check against Spellcraft or Knowledge (arcane), or automatically if they have seen the ritual before), they cannot be forced to comply by Dominate Person.
If a magic item is totally destroyed, the donor’s life force is freed and their Con score may subsequently be restored using Restoration.
If additional enchantments are later added to the item, no further Con donation is required, but the original donor must be present for another hour-long ritual to activate the new abilities.
Exceptions:
* Magical properties may be added to a wizard’s bonded object without requiring an investment of Con. Restrictions for the bonded object remain as usual (its magical properties only function for the creating wizard, and are lost if the item is replaced or its creator dies).
* Magic items that lose their properties completely after use (or after several uses) do not require an investment of Con, as they require only a trivial amount of life force to activate.
* Magic items that enhance Con, such as a Belt of Might Constitution, effectively store larger amounts of Life force and therefore can only be created by investing a number of Con points equal to the enhancement given by the device. This makes these items extremely rare.
I like it. I like it alot.
Becuase you are requiring the use of dominate person (5th level spell), it should be imposible for anybody to find out about the "evil wizard" doing it.
( at least any moderatly smart design/build of wizard )
that would also be quite the jump in power facing a 9th level wizard with magical gear vs. a party without much magical support.
It might work, but i beleive it needs play testing. And you should have "buy in" from the rest of the players.
I think what we're running into is that you're not seeing mithril (and other special materials) as capable of stacking - I do, and, in fact, I consider it important for any non-fighter (and many fighter archetypes*). That's why I presumed that supreme would be useful.
* The main fighter class is still incredibly potent - they gain the benefits of adamantine or extremely cheap (comparatively) armor, allowing them to put their resources elsewhere. Though... since you're not otherwise using "just buy it" magic items this, too, will mean that it's less important, so I can kind of see what you're going with. Still, it feels important to grant martials any kind of boost you can, here.
Anyway! Hexblade has the mettle. I read one suggestion that "Improved Mettle" never exist (under the presumption that it would make a creature effectively immune to fortitude and will saves), except, to me, I would have presumed that it simply applies to saves that Mettle does (instead of all fortitude and will saves, like Improved Evasion). List of spells affected by Mettle in 3.5 (bottom/10th post)
The Mage-killer class also gives one iteration of the "improved <save>" ability (in this case, literally being called "improved save", while Swashbuckler gives another, and even the core Fighter has Bravery (though Unbreakable's Unflinching ability is flat-out better), while the prestige class Assassin has bonuses against poison and the Jungle Rager barbarian archetype gets a bonus against diseases and hot weather (though that's kind of worthless in a normal high-magic-items setting with a best-fortitude class...).
That's pretty much the kind of stuff I meant; there are various categories of defenses, so I'm curious which you'd like:
* mettle and/or evasion (or improved)
* improved <save> abilities
* * this can be as simple as +X to <two save types>
* * this can be as simple as +X to <one save>
* * this can be as simple as +X to <one or more specific situations or categories>
* some overlap between these
Rogues already get evasion.
Fighters already get bravery. ((However, this is normally a really lousy ability, for the most part, but in your game it's worth noting two things: 1) this is more potent without magic items, 2) it's not quite self-justifying but it's a good start.))
I recommend upping it to replace magic items (cloak of resistance, as an example, is an especially harsh loss for martial classes).
Ultimately, I hope you enjoy your game!
(And also, thanks for updating the rules.) :D
Also from an alignment POV.
What is life force, does the donation prevent the soul from reaching its reward? How would Paladins view this?
And would a paladin ever have an "holy avenger" sword?
Also from an alignment POV.
What is life force, does the donation prevent the soul from reaching its reward? How would Paladins view this?
And would a paladin ever have an "holy avenger" sword?
I'm happy to have the definition of life force left intentionally vague, so that different religions/NPCs will have different opinions on it. Obviously this will lead to conflict of beliefs.
One take on it: your life force is what keeps your soul/spirit tied to your body. It's like a soul glue that keeps your soul and body together. So, when you are killed your remaining life force dissipates and allows your soul/spirit to leave your body and take its journey onward.
If you've voluntarily given up some of your life force, then it makes it easier for your soul to leave your body (mechanically, you'll reach negative hp = Con score sooner).
Another view: giving up part of your life force is giving up part of your spirit, and on your death, your spirit can't move on until all of it is released. This might be a fun view to have a minority group hold. They might believe that the soul of the departed might haunt the magic item until it was released.
I'd love to hear others' ideas on how else this might be viewed in-world too.
Re: The Paladin - I assume you're talking about the moral viewpoint of the Paladin? In which case, it will depend on their own or their religion's view of life force.
You don't need to mess with Con, and you certainly don't need to have unwilling targets forced to do it.
A combination of Feeblemind and Dominate Monster under your rules means Evil casters will 100% be able to make magic items, while Good casters have to suffer through Con loss or find a volunteer.
This means that the majority of magic items will come from unscrupulous spellcasters raiding mind-shackled slaves for Con, probably right to death.
----------
To limit magic items, all you have to do is raise the pre-reqs.
1) Each magic item must be masterwork, DC = 20+ Caster level of effect. Only Skill Ranks, Ability Scores and feats count towards this roll. If you are not the crafter of the item you are trying to enchant, you take a -5 on the spellcraft check.
The extra cost of this DC is +100 per point above 20, cumulative. So a DC 21 masterwork item for a 1st level spell is +200 gp in price. A DC 29 item able to accept 9th level items is +4500 gp!
I would let this additional cost also qualify as 'raw components' for the cost of making a magic item.
Thus, you need very, very skilled crafters to make magic items. Crafters with tons of bonuses just make things faster, not better. Someone trying to make a +5 sword needs to get a DC 35 masterwork sword made to accept the magic.
It also means that if you want to upgrade a weapon, you need to make it high quality from the start. This means demand for excellent craftsmanship, something the game lacks, AND it means a cap on any item equal to its crafting...something the game also currently lacks.
2) You must have spell ranks equal to the caster level of what you are trying to make. This is not something you can handwave. Thus only higher level crafters can make higher level items.
3) Masterwork item makes a dc 20 item suitable only for a single level 1 spell effect, or cantrips.
Fabricate's magic totally destroys the suitability of any item for enchantment if used to make it masterwork. The crafter putting his soul into his work is essential to the process.
4) Raise the Spellcraft DC from 5+ caster level to the required Crafter level (i.e. always 21+). Apply penalties strenuously.
5) Making the item drains the caster of xp = required gold cost, the 'other half' of the cost. Creatures, beings and NPC's who cannot sacrifice xp can't make permanent magic items (which cuts out simulacrum nonsense, if nothing else). You cannot go down an experience level from this, so you can't make the item permanent if you don't have enough xp to sacrifice.
6) Realize that doing this makes permanent magic items much more valuable then is in the book, because the combination of high level crafting and high level casting to make them forces rarity.
Generally, it will take a 4th to 5th level crafter to make a DC 21 item, and making a dc 35+ could take a 15th level or higher crafter.
7) Add in power components. If the caster, and the caster alone, must quench the blade in the heart of a fully-grown dragon less then a minute dead, pure storyline needs will force rarity of magical items. As long as you don't let third parties supply the components, making permanent magic items involves risk most NPC's are not willing to undertake. Ergo, rarity. The mightier the weapon, the more powerful the dragon that needs to be slain.
-----------
IN summary, use xp instead of Con. Watching his friends level before him is punishment enough to any caster, and cuts down on a lot of shenanigans. It also means evil can't foist the cost off on the weak.
Use high level crafting as a pre req they can't get around.
Use higher Spellcraft checks.
Use Power components as necessary items to explain why NPC's don't DO this. They don't want to quest to make permanent magic items. They are just fine making +1 swords for the riffraff.
This has the side effect of encouraging the players to take crafting ranks...if they want a powerful set of magic boots, finding a level 10 corviser is very unlikely!
The PF rules are there to make making magic items easy. Make constructing them harder, and you don't have to justify their rarity. the players will take a look at the reqs, and realize that simply buying them is going to be nigh impossible.
The big negative here is creating 'recipes' for questing for magic items, which will be ad hoc judgemental by you. On the other hand, the recipes are now the equivalent of spells, and someone who knows how to create item x can be as rare as someone who teaches a unique spell. Each recipe/ritual would have a cost attached that has to be puzzled out by the wizard, purchased just like a spell of equal level. As intrinsically magical things, the art of making a +3 sword does not have to be the same from one wizard to the next, or between divine and arcane casters!
==Aelryinth
You don't need to mess with Con, and you certainly don't need to have unwilling targets forced to do it.
A combination of Feeblemind and Dominate Monster under your rules means Evil casters will 100% be able to make magic items, while Good casters have to suffer through Con loss or find a volunteer.
This means that the majority of magic items will come from unscrupulous spellcasters raiding mind-shackled slaves for Con, probably right to death.
Not disregarding your further suggestions, which are very good, but Feeblemind won't work here as the subjects will no longer be the 'sentient' participants required in the wording of the rule.
BTW, as stated above, I'm not just wanting to limit items, but do so by a mechanism that adds a unique flavour and some plot openings.
These rules really don't stop magic item creation not when commoners are a cheap resource and adventurers are as rich a creosote what peasant wouldn't give up a small fragment of their life for more wealth than they will ever see in their lifetime (about a thousand gold) which is still chump change for an adventuring party.
Or if you are th typical heroic protagonists you do a collection from every village you save.
I hadn't actually considered people selling their life force. While this might occasionally happen, life force would be considered absolutely sacred, and even raising the idea with most NPCs would be so repugnant it would get the party driven out of town. The gift of life force would be seen as deeply personal and beyond monetary value
Just because they are temporarily reduced to 1 doesn't mean they aren't sentient. You could curse them with a -6 to wisdom and they'll believe anything, has the same effect.
It's an illustration point. Another one might be magic jarring someone for the final ritual and using their body to take the con loss. Another cheap way out.
There's probably numerous things people could design. It's just not a good idea.
==Aelryinth
Just because they are temporarily reduced to 1 doesn't mean they aren't sentient. You could curse them with a -6 to wisdom and they'll believe anything, has the same effect.
It's an illustration point. Another one might be magic jarring someone for the final ritual and using their body to take the con loss. Another cheap way out.
There's probably numerous things people could design. It's just not a good idea.
==Aelryinth
Intelligence reduced to one DOES mean they're no longer sentient.
Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons. This ability is important for wizards because it affects their spellcasting ability in many ways. Creatures of animal-level instinct have Intelligence scores of 1 or 2. Any creature capable of understanding speech has a score of at least 3.
Even cats have an Int of 2. Int 1 is the same as a frog. That's not sentient.
I wouldn't allow magic jar for this; the reason being that if i define life force (as discussed above) as the 'glue' that holds a soul and body together, then even though the body has the Con score, manipulating life force logically (in my eyes) requires both body and soul to be present.
Bestow curse is more of a problem ... though still allows a will save. I'm more concerned with the issue Wind Chime brought up ...
Not to mention that a typical adventuring party I have played with save lives left right and center, when the paladin has just saved you and your family from being eaten by orc's you might see the idea of giving up a little of your life to see him being protected as a good deal. Not to mention a neutral party could just barter saving the village for donations of life force.
While I don't see a paladin consenting to this (given society norms/rules against dealing in life force), I have to agree with you it would be a genuine risk with neutral or CN characters.
I can't see a way round this right now. A societal/religious taboo against dealing in life force is difficult to implement successfully here ... make it too strong, and it prevents players from making magic items at all (other than casters using their own Con); but if you don't make it strong then people will be queueing up to barter their life force for x, y or z - even if monetary trading in it is not allowed.
Hmm, Wind Chime, you may have broken my idea ... or at least the current implementation of it (which I'm grateful for, by the way ... better to break it in the forums in the design stage, than mid-game).
Much as I like the life force idea, I'm currently considering abandoning it - I think 'power components' is my preferred alternative (given that, like the life force concept, it also creates flavour and adventure ideas). Thanks to Aelyrinth, tkul and Lincoln Hills for raising my awareness there :-) Ultimate Campaign seems to be the best source on this: (Ultimate Campaign Magic Item creation - Talismanic components)
The GM might decide that some or all magic item creation requires talismanic components. These components could be available for purchase in civilized areas, or could be acquired only by hunting specific creatures or searching in remote locations. Some components might be illegal in some cities or countries and found only on the black market there. In this way, the GM can set different controls on item creation and create adventure opportunities for crafting-oriented PCs. For example, if crafting an anarchic weapon requires the blood of a powerful demon, you can try to acquire some demon blood in town, arousing suspicion as to why you need such a foul substance, or you can travel to a location where demons are known to dwell and try to kill one—or maybe even bargain—for its blood.
Anyone have simple adaptations that can rescue my world from people trading their life force too easily, without my having to abandon the concept?
|
|
No
Once you turn any aspect of what people are, have or can produce you turn that into a commodity/marketplace - hence my (ignored) suggestions that you dump Con or Xp as a source of power/item fuel and instead require an external meta-power source that you - as the DM - set the rarity for.
If people can find a way to harvest it without going on a quest/search/adventure, then people will do it - via summoning, duping people into willingly giving it or just finding another way to take it.
The only other fix would be if only the caster gave up his own Con - but then you encounter the limitations that was mentioned earlier up thread (Casters making items just for themselves, Con belts, etc).
Go back and re-read my initial post in this thread about quest sources and hero points (or Talismanic components - I didn't even know that Paizo even made this option till now - it mirrors my original suggestion).
Neither one can be exploited - if the players use up their hero points they can get them back slowly - but having a small internal power supply would help in a limited magic campaign (craft a few items per person using their own (finite) hero points) but it takes it out of the hands of commoners or creatures.
Having quest or meta power sources means you can find the items to fuel magic item creation but you:
- Control the rarity of the source
- limit the points the power supply gives (need more, limits item creation, etc)
Go back to my post and re-read it, you could use an external (meta) source for power and still limit magic items because you, the DM set the frequency of the these power sources. No Con manipulation, to black market. People may want to sell the power sources - but considering their rarity I would doubt you could really put a price on them.
I don't agree with the harvesting aspect of the Talismanic component rules, but I agree with the theory behind it.
I think the power sources should be rare - not harvested from a list of creatures (who would be hunted to extinction) but more legendary, relic or artifact sources. Because if these resources come exclusively from creature parts - those creatures are going to be captured, summoned and hunted into extinction. If you're ok with that (instead of using humans) then run with it, otherwise go with rare legacy items as power sources.
The only other fix would be if only the caster gave up his own Con - but then you encounter the limitations that was mentioned earlier up thread (Casters making items just for themselves, Con belts, etc).
Go back and re-read my initial post in this thread about quest sources and hero points (or Talismanic components - I didn't even know that Paizo even made this option till now - it mirrors my original suggestion).
Neither one can be exploited - if the players use up their hero points they can get them back slowly - but having a small internal power supply would help in a limited magic campaign (craft a few items per person using their own (finite) hero points) but it takes it out of the hands of commoners or creatures.
Having quest or meta power sources means you can find the items to fuel magic item creation but you:
- Control the rarity of the source
- limit the points the power supply gives (need more, limits item creation, etc)Go back to my post and re-read it, you could use an external (meta) source for power and still limit magic items because you, the DM set the frequency of the these power sources. No Con manipulation, to black market. People may want to sell the power sources - but considering their rarity I would doubt you could really put a price on them.
I don't agree with the harvesting aspect of the Talismanic component rules, but I agree with the theory behind it.
I think the power sources should be rare - not harvested from a list of creatures (who would be hunted to extinction) but more legendary, relic or artifact sources. Because if these resources come exclusively from creature parts - those creatures are going to be captured, summoned and hunted into extinction. If you're ok with that (instead of using humans) then run with it, otherwise go with rare legacy items as power sources.
Thanks for that.
I don't see (with the overall population, magical population, and remoteness of many significant populations of interesting creatures) creatures being hunted to extinction; although it could be a risk within the future of the world (just as it has been in ours as animals were hunted to extinction as the human population grew to modern levels).
I've no intention of using a metagame power source such as hero points (not planning to use hero points at all for the time being) or XP - I like these things to have in-game meaning where possible, but I think your quest power items have potential with some more development. It may be easier to go with an implementation of talismanic though (which at least is 'paizo'/'official'). I don't see there being a ready market in the rarer components though (any that make their way to cities probably being swiftly acquired by the more powerful NPC wizards, with whom the PCs won't be able to compete - or at least, not until well into the campaign. The PCs could probably sell what they didn't need if there were high level NPC crafters in the vicinity.)
|
|
I think if you want stick with the "official"/paizo Talismanic sources (I know this has some appeal to people, not to me - I use what works) I would just be leery of the body part/blood aspect they have on their sample list.
Just as you had the Con point issue and the concerns of it being harvested, I could also see young dragons bred into captivity for their blood as being another issue (if you go by their sample list).
I would consider putting some qualifiers on the creature components - such as: Instead of Red Dragon blood, it should be the blood of a Red Dragon who has destroyed a town, and has lived to the X year of its life.
Really, it's not too different from them listing "Hand of a Murderer" then say "Hand of Human (Commoner)".
That elmininates the breeding program aspect to a great degree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hadn't actually considered people selling their life force. While this might occasionally happen, life force would be considered absolutely sacred, and even raising the idea with most NPCs would be so repugnant it would get the party driven out of town. The gift of life force would be seen as deeply personal and beyond monetary valueThese rules really don't stop magic item creation not when commoners are a cheap resource and adventurers are as rich a creosote what peasant wouldn't give up a small fragment of their life for more wealth than they will ever see in their lifetime (about a thousand gold) which is still chump change for an adventuring party.
Or if you are th typical heroic protagonists you do a collection from every village you save.
Agreed, and not just because I love your ideas. I wouldn't necessarily allow the fabled peasant railgun in my game, and I wouldn't allow people selling their life force either...at least not without serious consequences. It might make some sense if the actual SALE of life force resulted in something different than willing donation. Maybe filthy lucre taints it, resulting in undead? Other cultures have sin-eaters and blood money, it might be good to reflect this here as well so you can still have evil wizards buying children off the black market to sacrifice that almost always result in undead being created, and the fabled evil, fallen, necromantic society that's backbone was built on such an unwholesome practice.
Or hell, maybe the life force requirement should be increased a bit to make it really unlikely that people down on their luck would sell it? Perhaps a level in addition to Con? I dunno.
If the price of life force were very high (50,000GP just for argument) then a party bargaining assistance for life force should get it, as long as they are providing assistance worth that much. While there are sure to be people willing to sell their life force to mages at that price, there are few enchanters who can afford to buy.
The problems with charm spells and such can be handled by making the life force of people under compulsion spells unsuitable for enchanting magic items since compulsion spells work by affecting the life force.
Possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed, and not just because I love your ideas. I wouldn't necessarily allow the fabled peasant railgun in my game, and I wouldn't allow people selling their life force either...at least not without serious consequences. It might make some sense if the actual SALE of life force resulted in something different than willing donation. Maybe filthy lucre taints it, resulting in undead? Other cultures have sin-eaters and blood money, it might be good to reflect this here as well so you can still have evil wizards buying children off the black market to sacrifice that almost always result in undead being created, and the fabled evil, fallen, necromantic society that's backbone was built on such an unwholesome practice.I hadn't actually considered people selling their life force. While this might occasionally happen, life force would be considered absolutely sacred, and even raising the idea with most NPCs would be so repugnant it would get the party driven out of town. The gift of life force would be seen as deeply personal and beyond monetary valueThese rules really don't stop magic item creation not when commoners are a cheap resource and adventurers are as rich a creosote what peasant wouldn't give up a small fragment of their life for more wealth than they will ever see in their lifetime (about a thousand gold) which is still chump change for an adventuring party.
Or if you are th typical heroic protagonists you do a collection from every village you save.
Hmm, I like this and there's definitely potential there ... I'll think through this and see if I can come up with a consistent rule that works this way. Thank you.
So, we could have a mechanism that either taints the life force or taints the donor if the life force is given with the wrong motives. I like the idea, but can't yet see how to turn it into a rule.
I'd also been toying with an alternative where only the life force from a magical person (or sentient creature) could be used to power magic items - which does make a certain amount of sense (if you want to tie magic to an item, you need life force from a person with magic tied to them). This would be fairly self-limiting in that there are not so many magical people around, and many would want to keep hold of their Con for their own crafting and because they would have a better understanding of its value. The downside is that it still doesn't help the fighters in a party much with their needs, so without further development it's a no-go.
Or hell, maybe the life force requirement should be increased a bit to make it really unlikely that people down on their luck would sell it? Perhaps a level in addition to Con? I dunno.
I wouldn't go this route - certainly not with a level - I'm not looking to put players off crafting *that* much. Plus, levels are a bit too abstract from any in-world quantity, that makes explaining it more difficult.
A couple of final alternatives that could keep the life force idea 'alive', either used together or separately:
One - Newly created magic items are unstable, and need to be used (worn/wielded) by the donor for a certain amount of item before the magic stabilises. If it is separated from the donor by too much distance or for too long before this time is up, then the magic dissipates and the item becomes a mundane one (and can't be re-enchanted). The time needed for the item to stabilise would depend on the value/power of the item - more powerful items need longer to stabilise. (How long? Six months per 10,000 gp (or part thereof) of value sound about right?) (TGMaxMaxer's earlier suggestion about 'binding' items made me think of this; this is similar, but the bound item eventually keeps its enchantments permanently)
Two - The donor would need to be someone capable of using the item to its potential ... use a peasant as a donor and create a magic sword ... and don't expect the sword perform better than it would have done for the peasant. The item needs the life force from a worthy individual. So a weapon needs to have as a donor someone with a BAB equal to it's 'pluses' cost. (A simple +5 sword needs the donor to be at least 5th level martial, 10th level arcane caster or 7th level divine caster). The same table that gives weapon costs against pluses (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magicItems/weapons.html) could be used to convert the cost of any item into a plus; use this as the level or hit dice the donor needs to be. Maybe some further stipulation - items that replicate/require spells need a donor from a class capable of casting those spells.
Actually, I'm really liking this final alternative - anyone see obvious flaws with it?
Agreed, and not just because I love your ideas. I wouldn't necessarily allow the fabled peasant railgun in my game, and I wouldn't allow people selling their life force either...at least not without serious consequences. It might make some sense if the actual SALE of life force resulted in something different than willing donation. Maybe filthy lucre taints it, resulting in undead? Other cultures have sin-eaters and blood money, it might be good to reflect this here as well so you can still have evil wizards buying children off the black market to sacrifice that almost always result in undead being created, and the fabled evil, fallen, necromantic society that's backbone was built on such an unwholesome practice.I hadn't actually considered people selling their life force. While this might occasionally happen, life force would be considered absolutely sacred, and even raising the idea with most NPCs would be so repugnant it would get the party driven out of town. The gift of life force would be seen as deeply personal and beyond monetary valueThese rules really don't stop magic item creation not when commoners are a cheap resource and adventurers are as rich a creosote what peasant wouldn't give up a small fragment of their life for more wealth than they will ever see in their lifetime (about a thousand gold) which is still chump change for an adventuring party.
Or if you are th typical heroic protagonists you do a collection from every village you save.
Hmm, I like this and there's definitely potential there ... I'll think through this and see if I can come up with a consistent rule that works this way. Thank you.
So, we could have a mechanism that either taints the life force or taints the donor if the life force is given with the wrong motives. I like the idea, but can't yet see how to turn it into a rule.
I'd also been toying with an alternative where only the life force from a magical person (or sentient creature) could be used to power magic items - which does make a certain amount of sense (if you want to tie magic to an item, you need life force from a person with magic tied to them). This would be fairly self-limiting in that there are not so many magical people around, and many would want to keep hold of their Con for their own crafting and because they would have a better understanding of its value. The downside is that it still doesn't help the fighters in a party much with their needs, so without further development it's a no-go.
Quote:Or hell, maybe the life force requirement should be increased a bit to make it really unlikely that people down on their luck would sell it? Perhaps a level in addition to Con? I dunno.
I wouldn't go this route - certainly not with a level - I'm not looking to put players off crafting *that* much. Plus, levels are a bit too abstract from any in-world quantity, that makes explaining it more difficult.
A couple of final alternatives that could keep the life force idea 'alive', either used together or separately:
One - Newly created magic items are unstable, and need to be used (worn/wielded) by the donor for a certain amount of item before the magic stabilises. If it is separated from the donor by too much distance or for too long before this time is up, then the magic dissipates and the item becomes a mundane one (and can't be re-enchanted). The time needed for the item to stabilise would depend on the value/power of the item - more powerful items need longer to stabilise. (How long? Six months per 10,000 gp (or part thereof) of value sound about right?) (TGMaxMaxer's earlier suggestion about 'binding' items made me think of this; this is similar, but the bound item eventually keeps its enchantments permanently)
Two - The donor would need to be someone capable of using the item to its potential ... use a peasant as a donor and create a magic sword ... and don't expect the sword perform better than it would have done for the peasant. The item needs the life force from a worthy individual. So a weapon needs to have as a donor someone with a BAB equal to it's 'pluses' cost. (A simple +5 sword needs the donor to be at least 5th level martial, 10th level arcane caster or 7th level divine caster). The same table that gives weapon costs against pluses (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magicItems/weapons.html) could be used to convert the cost of any item into a plus; use this as the level or hit dice the donor needs to be. Maybe some further stipulation - items that replicate/require spells need a donor from a class capable of casting those spells.
Actually, I'm really liking this final alternative - anyone see obvious flaws with it
It might make being a high level adventurer(or in some cases, a low level adventurer) more dangerous than it already is. I still like the idea of kidnapping commoners and sacrificing them- it leads up very well to the evil wizard trope. Maybe something else?
RE: magical creature's life force: Perhaps it's limited by an innate "spark" of some sort - a "spark" that PCs just so happen to have?
RE: magical creature's life force: Perhaps it's limited by an innate "spark" of some sort - a "spark" that PCs just so happen to have?
I've already considered this ... I'm not a big fan of rules that treat PCs and NPCs differently per se, although it would solve a lot of the issues ... you need the life force from an 'awakened' individual (suitably vague ... but 'awakened' means someone who would get off their backside and do something with their life ... adventurers naturally qualify). A point in my post above would also cover this, although is somewhat more specific.
Two - The donor would need to be someone capable of using the item to its potential ... use a peasant as a donor and create a magic sword ... and don't expect the sword perform better than it would have done for the peasant. The item needs the life force from a worthy individual. So a weapon needs to have as a donor someone with a BAB equal to it's 'pluses' cost. (A simple +5 sword needs the donor to be at least 5th level martial, 10th level arcane caster or 7th level divine caster). The same table that gives weapon costs against pluses (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magicItems/weapons.html) could be used to convert the cost of any item into a plus; use this as the level or hit dice the donor needs to be. Maybe some further stipulation - items that replicate/require spells need a donor from a class capable of casting those spells.
'Spark' is somewhat hard to define for NPCs ... 'has levels in a PC class' might work, but feels a little arbitrary.
I find this would be an extreme deterrent, especially considering the necessity of Constitution. That being said, it makes the whole "kidnapping as sacrifices" shtick much more apparent, given that antagonists can kidnap existing creatures to appease a deity whom would use that life force to power their regime, or again, for the antagonist to power a big bad weapon of doom and sadness. (Giant Death Ray, anyone?)
This would make "natural creatures" a much more dangerous threat though, since most don't require magical items, but have the beefed-up stats of those who do.
When you upgrade a magic item, does it cost 1 Con point to, say, upgrade it each time (for example, 1 Con for every +1 Enhancement on a Shield, Armor, or Weapon), or only upon initial creation? I think initial creation should be more than enough, since upgrading it each time, although a strong deterrent, questions how valuable magic items really are and resorts to not being able to do much.
Wouldn't using the life force of a creature whom may commit its last breath to the weapon cause the "soul" of that creature to fuse into the item (assuming it's a permanent magic item) and turn that magic item into an Intelligent Item, using the personality, statistics, and alignment of that creature?
That being said, here is my suggestion:
If you are going to have the +1 Con per upgrade, or even per make, I think you should introduce a "Repurposing" ritual for existing magic items; have a ritual that requires an existing permanent magic item to fulfill the Con point needed to make the magic item. Assuming it's a made magic item, it did require a Con point to make it, and therefore should still be transferable if you are going to allow its destruction to be able to restore the life force of the creature who committed its essence to creating it. Obviously, if you're going the "per upgrade" route, you can use multiple magic items, and they fulfill the life force expectancy on a 1:1 basis. (For example, a +2 sword used as a material component can fulfill the Con point requirements of a +1 Ghost Touch sword.) For the per make route, you can require that the magic item being used as the component be of equal or higher gold value.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sacrificing Con to make magic items actually makes becoming a lich meaningful - first you turn all your Con int magi items, then you become undead and rely on Cha instead.
On another line, something I'd think very interesting is a breakdown of the CR modifications for different levels of items - say no items, low NPC budget, hing NPC budget.
Huh. Cool.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm worldcrafting, and want to create a place where permanent magic items are special and rare.
Why not elaborate? Exactly what about them do you want to be special? Are they special only because you don't want many of them to exist? The reason I ask is because from experience I don't really care two bits about a +1 sword beyond the fact it pierces a little damage reduction. Unless it has something A) interesting that it does, B) some sort of significance to my character relative to the narrative, I honestly don't care because it's just a +1 to damage.
What do you think of the following ruling ... would this do it? How would living with this ruling affect you as a player?
Magic items cannot be freely bought.
The feats Scribe Scroll, Brew Potion and Craft Wand can be taken and work as normal to create temporary magic items.
This is pretty much my go-to for magic effects anyway. In the standard game even weak magic items are usually too expensive to be worthwhile until you've outleveled them. Why spend 2,300+ gp on a +1 weapon when a masterwork weapon and an oil of magic weapon or a greater magic weapon spell is usually just as good, much cheaper, and often more powerful.
It would also devalue the gold piece in an incredible way. Honestly, other than magic items I have nothing to spend money on past 5th level or so. Gold is only as good as what you can buy with it. You're shooting one of the best motivators for obtaining treasure in the head.
The feats for creating permanent magic items (Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Craft Rod, Craft Staff, Craft Wondrous Item, Forge Ring) are automatically received when the the prerequisites for them are met.
Nice.
Creating a permanent magic item requires the creator to invest part of their life force. Each permanent magic item created drains the creator’s Con score permanently by 1 point. This loss cannot be reversed by any means, including Restoration.
This is a pretty good way to ensure that spellcasters NEVER create items for anyone other than themselves. Ever. Screw fighters and their mother and their brother. There will be no magic swords. There will be no magic bows. The best you might find in the entire world is magic items made for mages or made to combat other mages. I could see burning 1 point of Constitution to craft me a nice +5 cloak of resistance and another point to craft a nice +6 Constitution magic item. I would never, ever, craft a +X sword for any reason. Also, screw golems. Golems don't exist anymore.
We can also say goodbye to any magic item that doesn't give an obvious and appreciable benefit right now. No more "cool" magic items like flying carpets or horseshoes of the zypher. No more chimes of opening. No more animal figurines. No more spoon of tasty wheat. If it doesn't give you some sort of major advantage that outweighs the loss of Con, then it just isn't going to get made. Ever. Except by evil people I guess, since I mean I guess evil people would have no qualms with murdering lots of people to make magical traps or a spoon of tasty wheat.
You're also killing a number of concepts and tropes. For example, in a friend's game I'm currently playing a witch (it's actually a psion with flavor) that makes magic items. She's kind of a hedge witch and she makes quirky things that are stylish and fun. Magic item creation is a huge part of who she is. She usually makes magic items out of stuff the party finds (including treasures and other magic items). Examples of things that she has or might create include things like:
- A cauldron that brews up a broth that turns you into somebody or something else for 1 hour, with 5 doses created at once (this is one of my favorite ones and I have this item now).
- A magic broom that flies.
- A magical set of gloves that throw magical needles at people (this is also a magic item that I created).
- A magical blanket that protects you from the elements.
- A magical figurine that summons a horse to ride on.
- A magical doll that serves as a friend and companion (one of my characters has something like this).
- A magical soup pot that I use when camping (I've purify food & drink and prestidigitation and create food & water to make items like this in the past).
Pretty much none of these, save for the nail-gloves would have gotten created in this case. Why would the nail gloves have gotten created? Because I use them frequently in combat. Hence, death to quirky magic items.
Exception: Magical properties may be added to a wizard’s bonded object without requiring an investment of Con. Restrictions for the bonded object remain as usual (its magical properties only function for the creating wizard, and are lost if the item is replaced or its creator dies).[/B]
All hail the god race that is spellcasters!
- allow a point of Con to be used from ANY sentient creature instead of from the item's creator (creating conflicts for Good item creators; even if the Fighter would give up a point of Con to have his magic sword, would this count as the creator causing harm to the Fighter. It would also create opportunities for Evil casters, who would seek out creatures whose life force they could use in creating magic items. My concern with this ruling is it might encourage there to be more magic items than I'm intending from this rule in the first place. Maybe with this option the feats should still be required as well).
At this point you're just putting a life-tax on magic items and encouraging more evil in the world. Pretty much every enemy that you come across just became treasure. Okay, you just defeated a warband of 12 orcs, and three of them survived but were unconscious. Time to start crafting.
At this point you're also just spitting in the face of people who want to play good characters. Doubly so if they happen to be good characters who can't cast spells themselves. The funny thing is that most spellcasters are actually patently superior to non-spellcasters in every single way, up to and including fighting in melee, if nobody has magic items.
For example, why would I ever play *insert martial class here* when I could be a druid and not need magic items? Or know that I have the option for magic items if I want them, and can craft just the ones that would make me better at things. For example, I could just be a druid, turn into a bear, get a nice buff to Str + Con + greater magic fang giving me magical weaponry, etc.
Also, if the cost to upgrade items doesn't include the 1 point of Con, then I'm just going to make a couple items, and then put all my item effects on them instead.
Like my magic ring that gives me
+5 resistance saves
+5 deflection to AC
+5 natural to AC
+6 Int
+6 Con
+ Continuous Freedom of Movement
+5 enhancement to armor
+5 enhancement to shield
+ Continuous Protection from Evil
+ Continuous Delay Poison
It's going to cost 1 point of Con, but at least it means I still get to enjoy finding treasure.
You would also end up with a lot of overlap in magic items, moreso than there already is now. Imagine a world where all the magic items you find are just copies of the other magic items you find, because everyone just puts the same enhancements on single magic items.
Loot a magician and get the ring I have above.
Loot another foe and get the ring I have above.
Loot another foe and get the ring I have above.
Just because they are temporarily reduced to 1 doesn't mean they aren't sentient. You could curse them with a -6 to wisdom and they'll believe anything, has the same effect.
It's an illustration point. Another one might be magic jarring someone for the final ritual and using their body to take the con loss. Another cheap way out.
There's probably numerous things people could design. It's just not a good idea.
==Aelryinth
Intelligence reduced to one DOES mean they're no longer sentient.
Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons. This ability is important for wizards because it affects their spellcasting ability in many ways. Creatures of animal-level instinct have Intelligence scores of 1 or 2. Any creature capable of understanding speech has a score of at least 3.Even cats have an Int of 2. Int 1 is the same as a frog. That's not sentient.
I wouldn't allow magic jar for this; the reason being that if i define life force (as discussed above) as the 'glue' that holds a soul and body together, then even though the body has the Con score, manipulating life force logically (in my eyes) requires both body and soul to be present.
Bestow curse is more of a problem ... though still allows a will save. I'm more concerned with the issue Wind Chime brought up ...
Not to mention that a typical adventuring party I have played with save lives left right and center, when the paladin has just saved you and your family from being eaten by orc's you might see the idea of giving up a little of your life to see him being protected as a good deal. Not to mention a neutral party could just barter saving the village for donations of life force.While I don't see a paladin consenting to this (given society norms/rules against dealing in life force), I have to agree with you it would be a genuine risk with neutral or CN characters.
I can't see a way round this right now. A societal/religious taboo...
You're mistaking a temporary inflicted condition for a permanent change in the nature of a creature.
A human is a sentient creature. A feebleminded human is a sentient creature currently feebleminded. Nothing in feeblemind's description takes away the fact he is actually sentient, but right now has an int of 1.
Note that making a non-sentient, like an animal or plant, sentient actually changes the creature type. Nothing of the sort happens with feeblemind.
But, as others have noted and Ashield emphasized, this totally is all over with the evil casters. People will find a pragmatic and immoral way to make it work.
==Aelryinth
Two - The donor would need to be someone capable of using the item to its potential ... use a peasant as a donor and create a magic sword ... and don't expect the sword perform better than it would have done for the peasant. The item needs the life force from a worthy individual. So a weapon needs to have as a donor someone with a BAB equal to it's 'pluses' cost. (A simple +5 sword needs the donor to be at least 5th level martial, 10th level arcane caster or 7th level divine caster). The same table that gives weapon costs against pluses (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magicItems/weapons.html) could be used to convert the cost of any item into a plus; use this as the level or hit dice the donor needs to be. Maybe some further stipulation - items that replicate/require spells need a donor from a class capable of casting those spells.
So, a sword that requires CL 15 to make (3x bonus) requires only +5 BAB?
WTH?
+15 BAB, to match the caster level, should be more like it.
==Aelryinth
Note that making a non-sentient, like an animal or plant, sentient actually changes the creature type. Nothing of the sort happens with feeblemind.
Aaaaaaaaaaactually... there's nothing like that in the intelligence description.
It seems like Fox's Cunning or Headband of Vast Intelligence should work to get you sentient creatures out of animals, unless you rule, based on a really weird reading, that because animals always have "animal-level instinct" the two above effects can't affect them ("have Intelligence scores of 1 or 2"). But that would be a very strange reading in the face of, "Any creature capable of understanding speech has a score of at least 3." because an animal can be capable of "understanding speech" - if he's trained - but only specific speech ("attack", "heel", etc.).
Point being, unless you rule in a very odd way (which, to me*, clearly seems against the intention), any creature with an intelligence of higher than 2 (that's 3 or higher) is sentient - they don't automatically come with the gift of speech, but they're sentient nonetheless.
I mean, you're definitely free to read it the way you did, but it doesn't come across that way at all. EDIT: To me*! :D
* This is an important disclaimer whenever discussing RAI. :)
Two - The donor would need to be someone capable of using the item to its potential ... use a peasant as a donor and create a magic sword ... and don't expect the sword perform better than it would have done for the peasant. The item needs the life force from a worthy individual. So a weapon needs to have as a donor someone with a BAB equal to it's 'pluses' cost. (A simple +5 sword needs the donor to be at least 5th level martial, 10th level arcane caster or 7th level divine caster). The same table that gives weapon costs against pluses (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magicItems/weapons.html) could be used to convert the cost of any item into a plus; use this as the level or hit dice the donor needs to be. Maybe some further stipulation - items that replicate/require spells need a donor from a class capable of casting those spells.
So, a sword that requires CL 15 to make (3x bonus) requires only +5 BAB?
WTH?
+15 BAB, to match the caster level, should be more like it.
==Aelryinth
it was a raw, unedited idea - but the basic idea was to limit those who could donate life force to activate an item to a much smaller pool of people. The actual level may not be that important - just that it excludes the masses.
stuff about nature of sentient beings
i don't think there's a paizo definition of sentience, though I'd judge it as Int 3+
To avoid the issue, we could phrase a requirement differently - for example, that crafter and donor had to participate in an hour long ritual in a language that both knew.
Also, if the cost to upgrade items doesn't include the 1 point of Con, then I'm just going to make a couple items, and then put all my item effects on them instead.
Like my magic ring that gives me
+5 resistance saves
+5 deflection to AC
+5 natural to AC
+6 Int
+6 Con
+ Continuous Freedom of Movement
+5 enhancement to armor
+5 enhancement to shield
+ Continuous Protection from Evil
+ Continuous Delay PoisonIt's going to cost 1 point of Con, but at least it means I still get to enjoy finding treasure.
a lot of the criticism you had in your earlier post relates to my first idea for this mechanic; please see the revised draft on page 3 of this thread.
Your +6 Con ring would cost 6 points of Con because it's storing life force. It would also cost a crazy amount of gp because paizo's crafting rules generally have additional bonuses costing exponentially more (a +5 sword costs way more than five +1 swords)
Remember this is a suggested rule for *one setting* (not Golarion) that will have appropriate challenges to the PC's capabilities. I'd have spent a lot of time ensuring the challenges were still at a level everyone could enjoy.
Yes, these rules would mean far fewer weird/quirky magic items. I like items like that too. That's why i wouldn't use a rule like this all the time, but as part of one particular setting I think they're worth contemplating. I wouldn't want every campaign to look and feel the same.
Your +6 Con ring would cost 6 points of Con because it's storing life force.
Wait...what? So you gotta spend 6 Con points to get 6 Con points put on an item? What the heck is the purpose of a Con item if it accomplishes absolutely nothing?
Your +6 Con ring would cost 6 points of Con because it's storing life force.Wait...what? So you gotta spend 6 Con points to get 6 Con points put on an item? What the heck is the purpose of a Con item if it accomplishes absolutely nothing?
otherwise it would completely negate almost any limitation from the Con cost, and in-game if Con=life force, a permanent Con item stores/conrains a lot of life force. If going with the Con / life-force crafting route it would be a necessary restriction.
Another variant i considered early on but didn't post is that you have use of the life force in an item while it's on your person - but only while it's on your person. So *every* magic item, while taking a point of Con to create, effectively had a +1 Con feature. So with a few found magic items too you'd have a net gain - but obviously donate to too many and you're very weakened if stripped of equipment.
It would have the added benefit that you could lend a severely wounded an extra magic item to give them extra Con and therefore probably hp.
otherwise it would completely negate almost any limitation from the Con cost, and in-game if Con=life force, a permanent Con item stores/conrains a lot of life force. If going with the Con / life-force crafting route it would be a necessary restriction.Your +6 Con ring would cost 6 points of Con because it's storing life force.Wait...what? So you gotta spend 6 Con points to get 6 Con points put on an item? What the heck is the purpose of a Con item if it accomplishes absolutely nothing?
The bolded part makes no sense, because anything you put into it gives you nothing in return.
If I'm crafting a +6 Con item, you're saying I need to spend 6 Con Points to make it. At best, I'm simply transferring Constitution from my character to the next, which seems silly if your frontliners are having HP problems, the Con item only switches the problem from character to character.
At worst, the crafting creation, if designed for use by yourself, forces a lot of your Con to an item, which any high-intelligence being wouldn't do. (And by that point, you might as well go Full-Blown Intelligent Item.) It also raises major ethical qualms, since it would reek of necromantic motivations; for the benefit to be of any good, the life force must come from a living being, something which any character who claims to be good will have nothing to do with such subjects, and would go out and actively seek to destroy such items in attempts to free the souls of those contributed.
You might as well make such an item uncraftable by PCs, and only as a part of treasure loot. (In addition, I'd rule you couldn't use the extra Con for item creation.)