Attribute Adding Magic Items

[Mike P.]

I am in favor of keeping items that increase attributes, but I feel they should be extremely rare. I have been playing TFT on and off for almost 40 years and I don't think as a player or GM I ever encountered an item that gave a +3 to an attribute. I think I do remember one +2 STR item being found.

One suggestion I would make is that a figure who wears an attribute increasing item requires more experience to earn his next attribute point since in effect his total # of attribute points is higher. For example; Argon is a 35 point character. Under the new xp rules, he would need 800 xp to gain his 36th attribute point. Now if by some miracle Argon found a ring of +3 DX, he would now effectively be a 38 point character while wearing his ring. This would mean that Argon needs 2000 xp to get his next attribute point, since he is in effect trying to become a 39 point character. This is the way we have always handled attribute increasing items, and characters would usually decline to wear their items if it meant a significant increase in xp required to gain their next attribute point.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Mike P.

...

One suggestion I would make is that a figure who wears an attribute increasing item requires more experience to earn his next attribute point since in effect his total # of attribute points is higher. ...

Hi Mike,
I like this idea, but then TFT would need to have the attribute cost for attributes from 41 to 45. (Might not be a bad thing to do in any case.)

Warm regards, Rick

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by stefanj

Trying to think of enhancements to magic weapons other than plusses-to-hit:

I think that's absolutely the way to go. The flaming sword, which does an extra 1-1 damage, might reveal your location to distant eyes, which sets fire to things (could be good or bad), which has minimal effect on a fire-breathing dragon but melts an ice monster, etc. is just a more interesting gadget than a +1 sword.

It has different properties to an ice sword, which also does extra damage and freezes enemies up so they lose DX, will extinguish a fire if thrust into it, does extra/less damage against different enemies, etc. This is just far more fun than numbers.

A sword that will cut arrows from the air, with a DX roll, that are either aimed at you or pass within a hex. Actually this could be just a spell.

A shield that inflicts damage on the attacker like a Shock Shield.

A helmet you can see through so it doesn't cause a penalty to perception rolls. Which all other armour should.

A device that makes anything that's already chewable also nutritious ... though not tasty. Works fast enough to keep one person fed, or two half-starved.

I wonder if the rule of five is too easy. What if controlling magic items was a skill, so you gradually learn to control more at the same time? Maybe via a talent. Level One might be free and the highest level is five. It would mean only powerful characters had lots of magic.

[Nils_Lindeberg]

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

Hi Mike,
I like this idea, but then TFT would need to have the attribute cost for attributes from 41 to 45. (Might not be a bad thing to do in any case.)

Warm regards, Rick

A little bit tricky when people take off the item and trade it to a friend. Then get the next attribute and then trade the item back. Or just lose the item for some reason, do they get the extra XP spent back or are they lost?

What one could do is give the Magic Item an XP value that will be added temporarily to one of the attributes. So at low level it might add +3.3 ST and at higher power level it only gives .5 ST. That would mean that you need stronger and stronger enchantments to keep the bonus. A little complicated but at least the item would have a set value for everyone.

And raising the XP cap to 45 or allow magic items or spells to raise it to that level shouldn't be a problem balancing wise I think.

[zot]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

A device that makes anything that's already chewable also nutritious ... though not tasty. Works fast enough to keep one person fed, or two half-starved.

Heh, I have a wood-to-food converter along with a bunch of other weird devices in my Theurgy Toolkit :)

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg

A little bit tricky when people take off the item and trade it to a friend. Then get the next attribute and then trade the item back. Or just lose the item for some reason, do they get the extra XP spent back or are they lost? ...

Hi Nils,
I would say that experience gained while using it is lost if you lose the item, to stop this sort of abuse. If you wanted you could say, "I am 35% of the way to the next attribute so I lose enough so that I'm 35% of the way to next attribute with out it. (With no gain if I pick it up again.)"

Warm regards, Rick.

[CardDiceian]

I certainly like a sprinkling of all manner of magic items - (Not a lot to be found)

By having a few good items, you can also throw in a few bad ones, which makes players a bit more cautious about just finding and using a magic item.

As GM I'd like the option to be there,and then be able to choose if and how many are available. - Players can't come into the game with one they just happen to already have.

[tbeard1999]

I'd keep them - they are almost a fantasy cliche. So players and GMs will add them if they aren't present. And they probably won't do as good a job as you.

But I'd make them ridiculously expensive. Say $10,000 for a +1; $30,000 for a +2, etc. For comparison, a +1 Charm (+1 to all rolls) costs $30,000 and a +2 Charm costs $100,000.

$2,000 for a +1 item is too cheap I think.

However, even at that price, a +2 item costs $6,000, a +3 item costs $14,000, a +4 item costs $30,0000 and a +5 item costs $62,000, per the "rule of five".

Another way to handle this would be to not allow attribute increasing items to stack. So three +1 ST rings only give +1 ST. If you did that, I'd change the cost to (say) $4000. That would make a +2 item $12,000 and so on.

[Shadekeep]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

Another way to handle this would be to not allow attribute increasing items to stack. So three +1 ST rings only give +1 ST. If you did that, I'd lower the cost to (say) $4000. That would make a +2 item $12,000 and so on.

I like this approach - one would garner the benefit of only the most powerful enchantment in that class, rather that accumulate all of them (up to the Rule of Five). Should be an expensive and labourious enchantment to create, too. Maybe it even costs the enchanter the attribute point(s) imbued? That would make such items quite scarce indeed.

[Mike P.]

[QUOTE=Rick_Smith;2203931]Hi Nils,
I would say that experience gained while using it is lost if you lose the item, to stop this sort of abuse. If you wanted you could say, "I am 35% of the way to the next attribute so I lose enough so that I'm 35% of the way to next attribute with out it. (With no gain if I pick it up again.)"

Hi Rick, Hi Nils! Rick you pretty much hit on exactly how we handled this type of situation. While Argon (35 pts) wears his ring of +3 Dex, he gains exp. at a 40% rate (since his 800 xp needed to get his 36th point is 40% of the 2000xp he would need to gain his 39th attribute point.) So if he normally would have earned 100 xp after a session, he would only receive 40 if he had been wearing his ring. So he actually only needs the 800 to advance, but he is earning it at a reduced rate. If Argon does take the ring off he goes back to earning xp at the normal rate. This should avoid the type of abuse Nils pointed out. I was reluctant to detail this in my original post because it is a little more complicated.