Power Scale of Magic Items

[Judging__Eagle]

In my Planar Raiders game, I'm going to be using Book of Gears material to regulate how magic items work.

The problem is getting a good feel for what minor, moderate and major magic items are as well as dealing with Intelligent items.

The way that I'm thinking about it is that items that replicate level 0-3 Spells are Minor Items, level 4-7 spells are Moderate Items, 8-Epic are Major Items.

If something is used in an Iconic location, the spell counts as one spell level lower (-2 caster levels).

If you want to combine spell effects in an item, you add the total spell levels to see where it fits in terms of Minor/Moderate/Major as an item.

0 Level spells count as 1/2 of a spell level; 0 level spells don't get reduced.

A lvl 1 spell in an iconic location counts as a 0 lvl spell (1/2 spell level).

So, an item that you want to have say... Expeditious Retreat and Jump would best be made as a pair of boots.

[Prak]

What about Restoration on a Dragonscale Jacket? Iconic location or not?

[CalibronXXX]

I think healing and health effects are iconic on the neck slot.

[Catharz]

Iconic locations are worthless.

There's no game-mechanical reason to make every character have a health item on his neck and an offensive item on his groin. It just forces you to kill good ideas in the name of 'appropriate flavor'. Why a character shouldn't be allowed have a Codpiece of Health and a Necklace of Bling is beyond me.

[Prak]

actually, iconic locations don't kill those ideas, they merely reward people with a slight benefit for making Goggles of True Sight rather than a Codpiece of True Sight.

[Koumei]

The goggles do nothing, however.

I always wondered why a bonus to saves came from a cloak instead of a ring, too. It sounded like another subtle "let's give Sorcerers the finger" thing. Whereas Clerics and Druids benefit from some bullshit "Here's a Wis booster that you put on a headband so you can wear an amulet of Health."

[Voss]

1196394134[/unixtime]]actually, iconic locations don't kill those ideas, they merely reward people with a slight benefit for making Goggles of True Sight rather than a Codpiece of True Sight.

They reward people who follow an arbitrary system that doesn't even really justify why it works that way, beyond some simplistic 'movement spells go on the feet, duh.'

Anymore than it explains why invisibility can be a ring, a potion or a dust. And elixers are somehow different from potions or oils.

Was one of the nice things about Arcana unearthed/evolved. it didn't matter if the item that gave you +2 natural armor all the time was a ring, amulet or nipple piercing. It was an item that gave you +2 natural armor and it cost X gp.

[Prak]

well, it's just like anything else in D&D. It's based on what came before. Invisibility is easier on a ring because a halfling lugged around an evil ring that gave him invisibility, movement bonus are good on boots because it makes sense and that's the way it was always done in the days of Almighty Gygax, unless it's an item that lets you burrow or climb, in which case make it gloves, or fly, in which case make it the Bat Cape. It also makes it easier to figure out what that thing you just looted off an enemy does. If its a codpiece of eyebeams, people aren't really going to figure that out, while if it's a helmet of swiftness, the wizard's gonna put it on thinking "swift thinking".

[Captain_Bleach]

1196443426[/unixtime]]well, it's just like anything else in D&D. It's based on what came before.

We need more ideas based off of things that were not already done. Then we will have "original" material.

[Catharz]

1196443426[/unixtime]]If its a codpiece of eyebeams, people aren't really going to figure that out, while if it's a helmet of swiftness, the wizard's gonna put it on thinking "swift thinking".

It doesn't matter how much NPC items cost. Those costs only matter for PC-created items, and is a character really going to think that the 'boots of intellect' she created will make her run faster?

[Prak]

not saying cost matters for npc-items, I'm saying that players will expect there new loot to work a certain way based on it's form. Would you seriously like to loose out on a helmet of brilliance or cloak of charisma +10 just because it was a codpiece rather than a helmet or cloak and you didn't think it did anything? or I suppose players could be expected to just greyhawk it...

[CalibronXXX]

It's this way because a Codpiece of True Seeing is a stupid item, and this system discourages stupid items without disallowing them or making them really terrible compared to less stupid items.

Freedom+encouragement to have a character without really stupid items=satisfaction

At least according to my calculator. If you don't like it then just strip the whole Iconic Item rule from your games, it seriously won't make a noticeable difference.

[JonSetanta]

My friends and I like stupid items.
Like Vorpal Toothpicks.

[CalibronXXX]

And that's fine, under the BoG rules, you can totally do that; it'll just be slightly less effective than a vorpal sword.

[Judging__Eagle]

I oughtta make Eyeglasses of Giant Strength.

They give the wearer a giant headache if they are looked through. Since they have a giant prescription. Unless they're a Giant.

[Prak]

Note to self, do not pick up random eyeglasses with magical auras in Eagle's game.

[Catharz]

1196460552[/unixtime]]And that's fine, under the BoG rules, you can totally do that; it'll just be slightly less effective than a vorpal sword.

Yeah, because it really improves the game when a character using a cloak of speed, an amulet of fire breathing, and bracers of flight is considered equivalent to a character with boots of speed, a cloak of flight, a ring of fire breathing, and an amulet of fortitude.


Nothing is forcing a DM to give the players "stupid items" when there are no rules punishing him for doing so. An seriously, if your DM is playing a different game from you there are bigger problems to deal with.

[CalibronXXX]

Handed out treasure completely bypasses the iconic item rule, seeing as that rule only effects item creation; and like I said before, if you don't like the rule then you don't need to implement it, it won't make a noticeable difference.

[Catharz]

1196468098[/unixtime]]Handed out treasure completely bypasses the iconic item rule, seeing as that rule only effects item creation;

Then I guess we'll just have to agree to agree.

1196468098[/unixtime]]...and like I said before, if you don't like the rule then you don't need to implement it, it won't make a noticeable difference.

I'm not trying to convince you that I shouldn't use iconic item locations. I'm trying to convince you that you shouldn't use them either.

[CalibronXXX]

Well, hey, good luck with that.

[Voss]

Stupid shit aside, is a amulet of natural armor really different from a vest or belt of natural armor? Does it matter if the teleportation item is on your hands, feet, head or on a shiny earring?

[Prak]

what about a rule that simply rewards items that make sense, rather than thos that don't? ie, belt, vest, or bracers of natural armour, sense. codpiece of brilliance, not.

[Crissa]

I think if you have a problem with 'non-iconic items' it's more a problem with players.

In other words, it's a solution looking for a problem to solve, rather than something important.

Maybe if they were randomly generated, you might want to edit the tables so codpieces were only of 'gender changing' instead of 'brilliance' and 'true seeing', but that doesn't seem to be the case.

If you want to make 'iconic' slots, why not create base stat/skill bonuses from pieces so that synergy takes over and rewards iconic items instead of delineating specific rules of what gets a full vs half bonus for working where?

-Crissa

[CalibronXXX]

...what?

Anyway I'm in favor of this rule because it, A, mildly dissuades players from making really stupid items, but, B, still allows a DM to keep iconic items and non-standard items balanced via treasure or trading. So if the DM could allow you to find that ring on True Seeing, because said character is obsessed with having incredibly magical hands or something, that's just as powerful as the monocle of true seeing you could make, but could similarly choose not to let your character find the Giant Rainbow Wig of True Seeing because it's a silly item; if you really wanted to you could still make said wig, but it would be just slightly less effective than a more sensical item.

That's why I'm in favor of the rule. It's a elegant compromise of DM authority and player freedom. There's seriously not much you can do to convince me that that's a bad thing.

[Voss]

It does penalize the stupid shit, but it also penalizes perfectly reasonable shit that just 'isn't the way things are done'. Its another sterling example of Johnathan Tweet style design of 'its my way, or its wrongbadfun'.