Making magical bling

zeruslord · Post by **zeruslord** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 11:19 pm

The problem with it is that HERO is designed for a different game than the one we are talking about in most threads on these boards. That system is brilliant for a superhero game, but in a game where you are awesome with an ordinary sword and even more asskicking with a magic sword, that mechanic doesn't work. Spending character resources on items is lame in the medieval fantasy genre. Excalibur is a really awesome sword, but it doesn't weaken King Arthur's fighting skills.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 11:32 pm

Though D&D does have a mechanic where loot makes you weaker. It's called Weapons of Legacy, and the concept crashed, burned, was put out by a Baatezu who had one too many drinks, then reignited and used at the mat for some Fire Giant frat playing DDR, then inviting the sorority girls over for drunk giant sex atop it.

Gelare · Post by **Gelare** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 11:40 pm

zeruslord wrote:The problem with it is that HERO is designed for a different game than the one we are talking about in most threads on these boards. That system is brilliant for a superhero game, but in a game where you are awesome with an ordinary sword and even more asskicking with a magic sword, that mechanic doesn't work. Spending character resources on items is lame in the medieval fantasy genre. Excalibur is a really awesome sword, but it doesn't weaken King Arthur's fighting skills.

Oh absolutely, don't get me wrong, HERO is a totally different kind of game. I actually don't think that system would work for D&D, because I think that stabbing your opponents and then not being able to use their stuff is, in most cases, bullshit (it makes marginally more sense from a metagame perspective in the superhero genre, and the HERO book says explicitly, yeah, it's kind of lame, but everyone at the gaming table should just go ahead and make a gentleman's agreement for the good of the game), but when we're trying to figure out how to make a good system for D&D, it doesn't hurt to look at examples that other games have used.

And yeah, Weapons of Legacy? That was pretty awful.

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:03 am

Gelare wrote:I also think that Frank's idea with gearing up in the Batcave, presumably at the start of an adventure or at some other important point, is a good one - possibly better, possibly worse, I'm not sure, if the Wizard can just Teleport there on command.

It might work if, once you use an item, it "locks in" a slot for the day. So if you put on the Ring of Supergeniusness, that's one of your slots for 24 hours, even if you take it off.

I could theoretically see a party with no gear making contact with the enemy, mass teleporting back to gear up with anti-[whatever] gear, then mass teleporting back to kick ass...but I personally doubt that would happen all that much.

Of course, this does encourge the Golf Bag Full of Swords, as there is a value in owning a vast array of magical gear.

zeruslord · Post by **zeruslord** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:13 am

With a good rules setup, the slots system should work more like a Batcave than the Golf Bag. Also, by the time you actually can mass teleport to the Batcave, you should be doing scry-and-die or similar tactics, so gearing up will be done before the attack is launched.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 4:58 am

As for the specialness: Not exactly.

The whole concept is that the specialness points and your regular I-can-kick-ass points are seperate pools.

Its just that, to use an example from a 40k roleplaying thing, that my character (a Commissar) has a power sword, to use a not hypothetical example.

"Having a bolt pistol and a power sword might be a bit much."

So, I could have a power sword or be really lucky (assuming those two are equal), but not both. However, whether I had a power sword or not would have no impact on my hit-fools-in-melee skill.

That was the theory, I'm still not sure if its on to something or a sign I was on something when I thought of it.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Tue Dec 02, 2008 10:04 pm

The drawback of a magic sword should be that you can be disarmed. So if you decided to put your points into magic sword instead of just being a good swordsman, it means that people can disarm your sword and you suffer a much larger drawback than a normal warrior would.

Of course to compensate you'd probably want the magic sword abilities to be slightly better, since there's a weakness to having a magic sword.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Dec 02, 2008 11:07 pm

That would be true whether you had a magic sword or a regular sword, though. So you're not gaining much of a limitation on your +X OCL (to use Hero terms) because you can be disarmed.

Still, it does mean that this bonus only applies "when using that particular sword", instead of "in general", so its something.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Tue Dec 02, 2008 11:24 pm

If you're dependent on the magic sword you draw another, likely normal sword and lose something. If it's just sword skill, one sword is as good as any other. Draw your back up.

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Wed Dec 03, 2008 12:26 pm

The problem with specialness for transferable kit is that the kit can be transferred. Thing is, we probably want people to be able to pick up a weapon from an enemy's corpse/treasure pile mid fight and use it.

If you don't want the PCs running around with all the most awesome gear possible then you need either a supply control or a usage control. Batcave is usage control, Bruce can own whatever the hell he wants but he can't carry it all. Horror stories tend to be supply controlled, you start with limited resources and get what you're given. Actually getting back to somewhere civilised where you could buy supplies might actually be where the adventure ends anyway.

Crafting lets PCs control the supply, if the players really want to they will break whatever limits you try to impose on their supply. As soon as crafting lets PCs make meaningful items you need to have a usage based control or you have no control at all.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:03 pm

Yeah, but if you want to use it over the long haul, you need to invest in it as an advantage to the amount its worth for the "long haul" in question.

So sure, you could pick up a magic sword (or whatever) and use it from your enemy's hoard, but if you want to keep it, you need to buy the "I have a magic sword." with your specialness points. Otherwise, you lose it
in some way or another.

This is assuming that there's an advantage to keeping it as a replacement to your existing sword, and that magic swords are not just loot as in "hey, you have more money/valuable stuff" (in which case you just are richer).

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Wed Dec 03, 2008 11:01 pm

Draco_Argentum wrote:The problem with specialness for transferable kit is that the kit can be transferred. Thing is, we probably want people to be able to pick up a weapon from an enemy's corpse/treasure pile mid fight and use it.

This can be dealt with in two ways:

1) You can swap your Magick Weapon bond to another weapon, but it requires time...a day, a week, whatever. So if you find a +3 doomsword, you can toss your +2 unpleasantness sword and bond with tbe better weapon, but being disarmed/sundered still sucks because it's strictly an out-of-combat option.

2) Your weapon grows with you (what Weapons of Legacy tried to do so poorly). Whatever weapon you spend your Specialness Points on improves as you gain power, so it's always level-appropriate. There may be times you'd rather use the ghost touch undead bane vampire-killing holy sword you just found instead of your general-purpose sword, but your normal sword is always useful - there are just rare times when another weapon is briefly better.

Crafting lets PCs control the supply, if the players really want to they will break whatever limits you try to impose on their supply. As soon as crafting lets PCs make meaningful items you need to have a usage based control or you have no control at all.

Good point.
I think I like slots (probably 6-8 ) that you can set 1/day. That way it doesn't matter how many magic rings you have; once you "gear up" for the day, you're set.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Wed Dec 03, 2008 11:59 pm

I would go for 2, ideally limiting (eliminating?) the amount of flaming ultraviolent pwnage necessary as part of "you need this to keep up".

That's just a preference, mind. I like the idea of "my father's sword" being something you rely on through thick and thin a great deal, and "flaming ultraviolent pwnage" kind of magic swords feel like things you should only use in special circumstances. 90% of the time, the sword of your father will have the power needed, if not necessarily optimal power for the situation.

Flaming ultraviolent pwnage being needed is a seperate issue, I'm just noting it while thinking of things that a sword could (re)gain when speaking of what applies to the majority of weapons (your father's may well have it, though).

Caedrus · Post by **Caedrus** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 11:58 pm

Elennsar wrote:The problem is that the entire reason in any of the source material to make, look for, or otherwise obtain magic weapons is that a magic weapon is an advantage.

A very popular route is that magic items (or even magic as a whole) is at best a mixed blessing, rather than a straight advantage. So a guy with magic items might be better at doing certain things while falling behind in other aspects, and people would pursue them.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 12:04 am

Indeed. But you don't look for it just because its "magic". You look for it because it gets you an advantage at something you want an advantage at.

Its not "ooo, magic. Identical to my nonmagic item. But it sparkles!"

Well, not usually.

Caedrus · Post by **Caedrus** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 12:07 am

Elennsar wrote:Indeed. But you don't look for it just because its "magic". You look for it because it gets you an advantage at something you want an advantage at.

Its not "ooo, magic. Identical to my nonmagic item. But it sparkles!"

Well, not usually.

But the point is that with such a system, you could have a nonmagical character who doesn't feel like such a complete piece of shit next to a magical guy, as opposed to a system where "Magic version = you are totally better in every way with no tradeoffs whatsoever." And thus "sword guy" becomes a more viable choice next to "magic sword guy."

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 12:13 am

Can't argue with you there and wouldn't want to if I could.

Still, that's balance by +2 and -2 equal zero, which may or may not work as well in RPGs as in literature (hopefully not, because I think it'd be a good system if you did make it work.)

"Is it worth using the magic sword, or is too dangerous?"

koz · Post by **koz** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 12:26 am

The advantage/disadvantage inherent in magic items under this system need not be numerical - in fact, it would be best if it were based on benefits and restrictions which were not only numbers, as these are fairly easy to dodge.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 12:31 am

Right. My point is that its based on the idea that the fact its eating your soul is equal (more or less) to it doing the same to your enemies, or whatever.

"A penalty balanced wtih a bonus" instead of neither penalties or bonuses.

Caedrus · Post by **Caedrus** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 1:28 am

I have only one place I'll really ever accept "+X" items, and that's in the realm of mundane enhancement. That is to say, I'm okay with awesome blacksmiths crafting Fine, Excellent, or Masterwork qualities weapons. But if I'm going to make a sword magic, it's much more interesting to do something like "it's on fire." Incidentally, expanding on mundane enhancement is another good factor to narrow the "magic items are worth more than all the nonmagical items combined" gap.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 1:29 am

Seconded.

But that's an issue of "what kind of advantage", not "is it an advantage".

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 2:13 am

Thirded with enthusiasm.

And with the caveat that mundane enhancements need a cost aside from gold...otherwise we're right back to tearimng down the Tower of Blue Crystal because it's worth 10 gold a pound.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 2:18 am

Exceptionally high quality ore (which is hard to find) and an exceptionally high quality smith (ditto).

It is very fitting that a master swordsmith would demand something other than just the monetary value of his labor in these genres.

I say these genres because it applies to several things. Sword and Sorcery and Space Opera.

Either way, you get the master to agree because the master thinks he should help you, not just because you have lots of money.

"Money gets you everywhere." is rather dull.

zeruslord · Post by **zeruslord** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 2:24 am

We already have a system in place to prevent things like that. It's called the Wish Economy. No matter what the official type of the item, at a certain level of power it becomes a Major Item and can't be bought with anything that exists in large enough quantities to build a tower out of.

I disagree that the master smith is a good way to limit the availability of these items, since it creates a huge opening for DM bullshit to wreck a character. Anything that needs to scale and does so only with DM permission is a huge problem waiting to happen.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 2:32 am

A DM determined to bullshit will wreck anything unless we come over to the game and beat the shit out of him whenever he does so.

And it doesn't need to change to scale if your base bonuses (BAB, Strength in D&D) scale.

So you have +1 from your sword. If your relationship between AC and attack rolls is always the same, you always have the same advantage for +1.

As for the Wish Economy: Officially (if stupidly), you can get large enough quanities of GP, because prices in GP are measured up to the millions.

Stupid? Yes. That's not the point.