Magic Items & Creation Thereof

[Japic]

Ok, recently there has been some discussion (or want of discussion) regarding magical items and how they should/should not be allowed to be created.

I felt that that it was cluttering up a character sheet so have moved the discussion here to better track and address the issue.

Let's start with how the topic was breached:

thezebrashakes said:

Wicksy, you cannot have a quarterstaff of fire and a sling of frost, as they are both +2 weapons, 8000 gp apiece.


FROM SRD: Pay close attention to the first and last sentences.

Also, Enhancement bonus refers to the +1, or +2 commonly found on weapons straight up.

In addition to an enhancement bonus, weapons may have special abilities. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses (except where specifically noted). A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +10. A weapon with a special ability must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus

japic said:

Sorry to burst any bubbles or step on toes, but I'm not too picky about how magic weapons are created. So far as I'm concerned imbuing a thing with magic is imbuing a thing with magic. Whether it's a straight up +1 enhancement or a frost enhancement which equals a +1 enhancement. It's all magic, and it's all going to the same place; in my games magic is magic, so long as the cost is paid.

(Thats why you guys got a flaming shortsword from the Wynns in your last game Shakes. Also why the value was only 2k; it only had one enhancement to it, not two.)

the weapon choices brings me to another matter; Double Weapons. In the case of all double weapons each end of the weapon counts as a seperate weapon for enhancement purposes (says the SRD); this is something I believe in following closely. If you plan on using both ends, then they will both need to be enchanted. It is possible to have a double weapon of fire/ice just as it's possible to have one end be +1 and the other remain MW and ready for enhancement.

You can decide what you will about the weapons Wicksy, the rest is looking good.

thezebrashakes said:

But how can you put a special quality on a non magical weapon. it really doesn't make any sense and I don't agree with the ruling. You need the +1 enhancement first, otherwise you'll just have a bunch of weapons which give +d6 damage and all sorts of other special stuff without even having to pay for the initial cost of making the weapon magical and able to posess such qualities.

I really don't like that call Japic. Special qualities are pretty good, which is why the ruling stands in the books.

fangor77 said:

TZS, it's been a ruling on these boards for a while now. Both KMAN and Japic have gone over this in other campaigns, and it has pretty much stuck. I don't have a problem with it, but it's the DM's call.

That's what's come in the past, hereafter is the future.

[Japic]

To Shakes, I must first ask one question; since this is what my entire understanding and base of decison are based from.

What is the difference between the magic that embues the item with a +1, and the magic that makes a weapon frost, or flame or whatever?

IMO magic is magic, and how it is used creates different effects; in this I'm sure there is agreement. So the problem comes with identifying WHY there are two different magic's required to make something magical happen. IMO, the maker of a weapon needs feed the magical energy into it (in either case). So why must it be wonderous and awesome to behold in order for another set of magic (same cost incidentally) to be placed upon it? Why cannot the frost magic be applied to a blade of no less quality than the one getting a magical plus?

[TheZebraShakes™]

The magic which imbues a weapon with an enhancement, (straight up +1 or +2 etc) is universal, in that any spellcaster with the right feats can create a +1 weapon or set of armour.

However, the magic which gives the weapons their special qualities is not. You must have access to the proper spells in order to do such a thing.

Also, the enhancement bonuses are listed as a weapon's BASE quality, which means they must posess these in order to have the capability to be enhanced with special qualities on top of this.

(If you want a ghost touch weapon you must first have a +1 base enhancement bonus, and then add the additional +1 special ability = +2 weapon. )


I didn't mean for this to turn into a whole big thing.


There are so many other problems with the game which could use addressing, why do we have to rule something out which makes perfect sense.

I think it is just a matter of someone not reading the rules thoroughly enough and then houseruling something rather then admitting that they were incorrect in making such an assumption.

[Cel]

IMO, magic is magic. If someone wants to creat a +0 Flaming Burst Returning Slay Neutral dagger, and has the cash, why should he need a +5 enchantment on it? Just my opinion.

[TheZebraShakes™]

It doesn't need a +5 ENHANCEMENT bonus, only a +1 at it's base. That's all the rules say. I'm not seeing why THAT is such a big deal. Why do we have to get everything exactly the way we want it all the time.

You can still have 9 other plusses worth of special abilities. Why does a second level character need to be walking around with a +0 ghost touch sword. and how is he going to convince a 9th level CLERIC (wizards cannot make this item) to make them the weapon for only 2000 gp?

[chunker]

Shakes is correct here.
1) She read the rule right.
2) Otherwise any +0 weapon with damage enhancement is superior to a +1 weapon of the same cost. It keeps its +1 MW bonus to hit and has +atleast1 damage and it's magic for DR purposes. Why even make a lousy +1 Weapon?
3) I think the exponential cost of going from +1 to +2 enhancement (2000 to 8000) is intended to reflect the cost of the cool special abilities.

However, DM's can overrule, and players can just disagree with rulings; so Japic can do as he pleases...

Just my 2 pennies.

[Japic]

It's not that I haven't read the rules, I have in fact read most of them. But that doesn't mean that I have to agree with them. It's not that I don't understand how they wrote it, I'm just trying to understand the difference between putting magic in the weapon and putting magic in the weapon.

Yes I understand that in order to create a fire sword, you need a fire capable person. You need holy spells for holy works and arcane for arcane, this I'm not disputing. Merely asking someone to nail down this apparently invisible ruling that Wizards feels is common sense. (the same way they feel selling ANYTHING that's not a trade good makes it automatically half it's value.)

I'm not trying to piss people off just because I can, nor am I arguing for the sake of arguement. If someone can provide me with an answer that makes sense, other than 'the rules say so' I'll be glad to listen. Unfortunately the rules don't do nearly enough explaining for my taste.

[Wicksy]

From P.221 of the DMG 3.5 ed., Weapons

"In addition to an enhancement bonus, weapons may have special abilities, such as the ability to flame or the ability to attack on their own. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses (except where specifically noted). A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special weapon bonus equivilents) higher than +10. A weapon with a special ability must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus."

Well TZS is right on the rules, however, if the DM wishes to say otherwise, then thats up to him. Its much like Lin saying that in his games, metamagic rods are banned along with the sudden ... feat. They are legit according to the rules, but the DM wishes them banned. I'll go with the DM here. Either way is cool.

[chunker]

I don't think anyone's PO'd here. Your ruling's actually pretty cool and doesn't ruin anything (except lousy +1 weapons that can only be sold for 50%... ).

If clarity's bugging you, this might help: You won't find any examples of a +0 Flame (or whatever) weapons on WOTC character examples. Miniatures cards, DMG NPC stats, Web Page NPC, Supplements. I've never seen one anyway, and if you find one you're clear then too.

[TheZebraShakes™]

I agree with chunker in that the cost reflects the power of the special quality and the means which is needed to imbue such an item with the quality, IE, a mid level or high level cleric or wizard.

It should not cost 2000gp to make a weapon with only a special ability. That does not account for the proper cost of the means.

Also, +1 weapons are so cheap because they are the most common. Every weapon must be a +1 weapon. Not every weapon can be ghost touch, so some effort and cost must be put into making it. It shouldn't be so simple as they are not always crafted except for special purposes or requests, so they should not be some commonly found and easily acquired. Some extra cash should be put into it,

Wizards is trying to keep in line with it's CR system it seems. They are assuming that a level 2 character is not going to have access to a short sword which is going to have the capability to do d6 + an extra d6 on top of that. Nothing has much in the way of energy resistence or DR at that point, so why should the characters be capable of cutting through it.

I'm just trying my best to make this make sense out of rules terms since it seems that you are having a major issue with the rules where others are not. I see a lot of sense in the rule, which is why I am so in favor of it.

[chunker]

Better yet:
"A magic weapon must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus to have any of the abilities listed on Table: Melee Weapon Special Abilities or Table: Ranged Weapon Special Abilities. "

www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm#creatingMagicWeapons

[TheZebraShakes™]

Also, as a stupid aside. Defending is a +1 special ability. If we go by your way and I want a weapon of defending, I would still have to pay for the +1 base enhancement bonus in order to make the ability functional.

[K Man]

Having house-ruled this very same thing, I can see both sides of this argument.

Chunker makes a valid point - why even make a +1 for that extra point of damage when you can get a certain 1 extra point AND up to an extra 6 with cold or fire for the same price? It makes the magic of a +1 item useless.

Japic makes a valid point - magic is magic. If you (in-game) find a fire elementalist and he enchants a masterwork blade for you with Flaming, why should he all of a sudden say he can't do it because your blade isn't "magical"? It just doesn't make sense to me.

I think we all agree that "because the rules said so" is not our argument, but rather that it makes the rules just that much more useless or gives an unfair advantage to the more shopping-savy adventurer. Not everyone will take advantage of the +1 ruling that Japic (and myself) have ruled...just those that know how to.

I still stand with Japic's ruling. Though I understand the potential for extra damage, a smart DM could offset that with adventures designed around it. Got a problem with a fighter wielding a Flaming Sword? Guess what? Now all guild members have a potion of Fire Resistance and imbibe said potion before fight. Or maybe they now have magical backup and receive it in the form of a spell, or a scroll, or they have a hell hound for support...there are a dozen other ways to negate a Flaming enchantment;

But there are no ways to negate a standard +1 enchantment--damage is damage.

The reason I ruled it because it has always been about me vs. them, players vs. DM. I like the challenge of out-smarting them whenever I can. If the player wants to gamble on a Flaming enchantment vs. a standard +1 enchantment, then they run the gambit of me introducing ways to get around it. Would you be more happy about spending 2k gold to get Flaming or more afraid that I'll negate it with story-telling.

Shakes brings up a good point as well with the CR rating of Wizards in keeping it fair with an adventuring parties expected damage output. In tune with that, if a DM grants an enchantment that unfairly gives the PCs an advantage in combat then frankly, they aren't running the game well. If you find that monster after monster is being run-down by beefed PCs, it's time to step the monsters up. Give them class levels, give them support, double their numbers...up the CR to provide a good challenge.

I guess that's what all this boils down to.

I support this because I have faith in the DM (whomever it may be) to run me a good game. I know I can't use my +0 Ghost Touch Axe to form a treaty with a Goblin tribe and I know my +0 Dagger of Icy Burst won't open a lock or find the trap for me. I can have a good game without rolling a single attack roll. There is more beyond the challenge of a fight and even those can be scaled to meet my strength.

*counts* - Just my 2 cents to the nearing ~.30 cents mark.

[K Man]

Also, as a stupid aside. Defending is a +1 special ability. If we go by your way and I want a weapon of defending, I would still have to pay for the +1 base enhancement bonus in order to make the ability functional.

Agreed. Excellent point.

I've always thought Defending was useless anyway, but this house rule would make it more appetizing to gain a few standard magical bonuses (prolly +2 or higher) before even adding it to a weapon.

[Lin]

First, a very important point about enchancementless weapons (if they exist):

Orc + Improved Sunder = GG

Second, Defending is a truly great +1 bonus, although it isn't universally useful like, say, d6 elemental damage, it is much less situational than bane or ghost touch and probably significantly more powerful.

Third, anyone is free to change any rule. Metamagic rods don't exist in my game. Sudden metamagic doesn't exist currently, mostly because the PCs don't want it as it is balanced strongly in favor of NPCs, where the 1/day issue is decidely in [the NPCs] favor. I always believe that these decisions should be in the province of the group, not the DM.

All that said, I don't see the point of changing this rule. I agree with Chunker with both of the cost balance issue (making a weapon with a special quality cost a significant investment) and balancing the relative gain (+1 enchancement bonus is practically worthless compared to any other weapon ability). Besides point one and the defedning ability, there is no point to ever taking any enchancement bonus if you don't have to.

Honestly, does it make sense that you need the point blank shot feat to shoot further (Far Shot)? Its a balancing mechanism, no different from prerequisites, spell levels, per day uses and ability linked bonuses. I am constantly revising material for use in my own games, but two things strike me:

1) When leaving the personal circle, the houserules need to be tempered or left at home. I don't refuse to play with Fangor because, in my game, we don't allow clerics OR druids as PCs, because playing with different people, those houserules need to be cut (besides the occassional snide remark about how I hate them so much). Likewise, when the Sudden feat thing came up, I merely mentioned my concerns and left it up to the group to decide where they wanted to do with it.
2) There are plenty of things worth revising. This isn't one of them.

And, thematically, it just seems lame to have your magic sword snap in half just as easily as a common one.

In conclusion, Orc + Improved Sunder = 2,000 gp GG

[Japic]

All very good points. And as Lin says, it is my world and my rules. Ultimately I could scratch all but two WotC rules, but then no one would recognize it at all; then we'd just be lost and that would be the end of that.

As much as I don't love how WotC believes it should be, nor do I understand what in the hell GG means; I will roll with it. The Shorts will comply with standard WotC rules, no changeups here.

For any of you that are affected by such, forgive me truning you around on this one. Go with the SRD and you'll be fine. All weapons a +1 first, then add enhancements. Since most/all that are effected are new characters, it shouldn't be tough to make believe they never had a weapon the rules say can't exist. If I can weasel a little more time away from my work today I'll get the first post of the Shorts up.

[TheZebraShakes™]

nor do I understand what in the hell GG means;

I'm pretty good at clarifying Lin Speak.

He was pointing out that it is the enhancement bonuses indicated in the weapon's "+" which grants the weapon it's initial and additional hardness/toughness/HP and whatnot. so when your adventurer spends all of his money on a sword with ten special abilities, or ten swords with one special ability a piece and no enhancement bonuses, comes across that orc with improved sunder who sets his eyes on breaking your puny +0 superweapon of death, he's going to have no problem in terms of resistence, and there you stand defenseless as he sunders your head off afterwards.

Good Game.

[Wizard]

I want a +0 flaming dagger.