|
I've often found that the dry, statistical abilities of a magical item are hard to translate into in-character phrasing. For example, how would two characters discuss the difference between a +2 longsword and a +3 longsword? Order of the Stick jokes around with this issue ("Um, I estimate that the enchantment on this sword will grant it a twenty-five percent increase in attack and damage efficacy, sir."), but how would you play this off in a real campaign?
It doesn't have to be weapons either. I'm curious how other people have approached this in roleplay.
For the magically-inclined, simply comparing the complexity and strength of the magical aura should be enough.
For the non-magically-inclined, they'd notice that the sword feels lighter in their grip when they swing it, veers to find weak points in the enemy's armor, and cuts more keenly than its mere material shape would allow, as if flesh and steel itself parted and fled from the blade.
Armor is easier--it cushions or stops blows that ought to have missed or pierced right through the material. Stronger armor does this more effectively.
If you like, you might imbue a sense to the bearer that they feel more proficient when they wield the weapon, as if their opponent's movement slowed as the blade strikes. Similarly, they might get an overall sense of safety that increases with more highly-enhanced armor.
|
When people are identifying items, I usually compare it to other items they've seen.
So +1 is usually "it has a simple charm to make it more effective." Then the first +2 item they find is "the most powerful weapon enchantment you've seen." And the first +3... and the first +4...
Once they've seen one, you can just compare new items to it.
Cheers!
Landon
|
|
For the magically-inclined, simply comparing the complexity and strength of the magical aura should be enough.
For the non-magically-inclined, they'd notice that the sword feels lighter in their grip when they swing it, veers to find weak points in the enemy's armor, and cuts more keenly than its mere material shape would allow, as if flesh and steel itself parted and fled from the blade.
Armor is easier--it cushions or stops blows that ought to have missed or pierced right through the material. Stronger armor does this more effectively.
If you like, you might imbue a sense to the bearer that they feel more proficient when they wield the weapon, as if their opponent's movement slowed as the blade strikes. Similarly, they might get an overall sense of safety that increases with more highly-enhanced armor.
How would they actually describe it, though? What words would they use, in-character?
How would they actually describe it, though? What words would they use, in-character?For the magically-inclined, simply comparing the complexity and strength of the magical aura should be enough.
For the non-magically-inclined, they'd notice that the sword feels lighter in their grip when they swing it, veers to find weak points in the enemy's armor, and cuts more keenly than its mere material shape would allow, as if flesh and steel itself parted and fled from the blade.
Armor is easier--it cushions or stops blows that ought to have missed or pierced right through the material. Stronger armor does this more effectively.
If you like, you might imbue a sense to the bearer that they feel more proficient when they wield the weapon, as if their opponent's movement slowed as the blade strikes. Similarly, they might get an overall sense of safety that increases with more highly-enhanced armor.
Depends on the character, I guess. The above is what they perceive; how they express it is up to them.
Scram, goblin pistolero: "Whoa, this gun.... When I aim it at a badguy, it's like everything just goes still, and me and him are the only things in the universe. Then I fire, and... It's not like the bullet veers toward the badguy so much that the bullet bends the world so that that the badguy is right in front of it."
"Now this gun... It's like that other gun, but more."
This is exactly why I don't like simple +x magic items.
They're boring and immersion breaking.
I usually just tell my players it's a +1 sword. If I'd have to I'd say it's a weak enchantment, then moderate, strong, very strong and overwhelming. Or something like that.
I hope Pathfinder Unchained offers some rules to get rid of the big six.
Leeloo school of magic item descriptions: (Low level item) "ba da boom" vs. (high level item) "big ba da boom" vs. (Epic level item) "BIG BA DA BOOM BA DA BOOM"
There are a number of ways to do it.
As GM I usually say something like:
+1 through +5 (and beyond)
Minor—Moderate—Greater—Major—Epic—Legendary
Apprentice—Journeyman—Expert—Archmage—(Beyond Archmage, e.g. “A powerful Archmage of nearly unequaled ability” "a magic user of godlike power")
"This sword has a minor enchantment that allows it to strike more true and to cut more deeply" or "This sword bears an apprentice level enchantment". (Sword +1)
“This dagger has a moderate enchantment, making it more effective than more common daggers.” Or “This dagger likely was enchanted by a journeyman wizard” (Dagger +2)
“This shield has been enhanced with a greater dweomer.” Or “This shield was enhanced with protective spells by an expert wizard.” (+3 Shield).
“This Sword bears a greater rune of power” (Sword +3)
“This cloak was imbued with major protective charms” Or “This cloak was crafted by an Archmage and enhanced with wards against hostile magic.” (Cloak of Resistance +4)
“This blade was forged and infused with Legendary incantations” OR “This hand-and-a-half sword was enchanted by either an archmage of unspeakable power, or perhaps even by a demigod.” (Bastard Sword +5)
And so on. . .