enchanting a Gorget with a Defense Bonus?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Kromm

I'll say only that "I have to punch 30 holes in this one piece of plate armor, which might be enchanted to be harder to punch holes in, to make just that one bit less magical"

I don't think I've ever seen destroying enchantments with repeated penetrations come up in game, other than providing a good reason for taking the Repair spell (which resets the penetration count), for the simple reason that even five holes in someone is usually sufficient to drop them, particularly if they're wearing armor with a base DR of 1 or lower.

[Varyon]

The custom enchanting system that I've come up with for my Oubliette setting differentiates between Focused and General Enchantments. Focused are those that basically apply only to the item, and are more useful the larger the item is - self-repairing functionality, enhanced DR, enhanced damage* (on a weapon), etc. General Enchantments are those the benefit the character as a whole, and are more useful the smaller the item is - ST boosts, regeneration, invisibility, etc. Such a system would allow for either interpretation of Deflect on a small item. A ring of Deflect that only applied when the ring itself would be struck would be worth less than a cloak of Deflect that only applied when the cloak itself would be struck (as the cloak covers more of the character's body). A ring of Deflect that applied to any attack on the wearer would be worth more than a cloak of Deflect that did the same, as the ring is lighter, takes up less space, and is harder to target.

*I'm considering a third category here, where item size/weight is irrelevant for the cost. Lighter weapons get more benefit, but also tend to have more drawbacks, which balances out. Not sure what the category would be called, although "Weapon" might work well enough, as that's the only type of item it would typically apply to.


Granted, that system is quite divorced from GURPS default magic rules; I'll put the basics in a spoiler so as not to clutter up the thread:

Spoiler:  

It involves building the enchantment as an Advantage, then converting that into a monetary cost (following a roughly exponential progression - a [20] enchantment costs 5x as much as a [10] one). From there, a factor based on the item's size and weight (for Focused, based on coverage for worn items or weight for carried ones; for General, based on Ghostdancer's excellent "Metatronic Generators" article, although I separated SM and weight into their own categories) adjusts it, and you have your actual cost. Let's assume Deflect is an Advantage worth [30] (Enhanced Block 1 + Enhanced Parry 1 (All) + Enhanced Dodge 1) and the gorget is DR 3 Plate (~0.15 lb, SM -5). If the gorget gives +1 to defend against attacks to the Neck only (so, a Focused Enchantment), the enchantment would cost $1500. If the gorget gives +1 to defend against all attacks (so, a General Enchantment), the enchantment would cost around $47,400. If size and weight didn't matter, it would be a $30,000 enchantment. A full suit of armor with Deflect actually costs a good deal more if it is a Focused Enchantment rather than a General one, but that's because there's another factor in play - characters have a limited number of "slots" that get used up by General Enchantments, but Focused ones don't care about that.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Anthony

I don't think I've ever seen destroying enchantments with repeated penetrations come up in game, other than providing a good reason for taking the Repair spell (which resets the penetration count), for the simple reason that even five holes in someone is usually sufficient to drop them, particularly if they're wearing armor with a base DR of 1 or lower.

I think it's pretty much what you say, to emphasize that a mage not only be healing themselves and relying on their forever-enchanted armor, but also to be casting repair on the armor.

The Low-Tech rules on tracking armor HP probably make that even more important. I wonder if there's a way to weak the enchantment-death rules somehow when using that option...

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Defense bonus on armor only applies to the location struck. The very existence of this spell is a carryover from 3rd edition PD, and honestly, they should have deleted it, not converted it.

I don't mind the continued existence of Passive Defense via magic. There is a limited place for a trait which makes it harder to hit a target due to the fact that the weapon slides off the armor rather than digging in.

I'd allow DB/PD to extend to hit locations adjacent to the enchanted item if the enchanter is willing to pay increased energy costs to cover the expanded area using the rules for Partial Armor Enchantments.

Frex, you could have an enchanted gorget which allows whole body increase to DB as long as the enchanter was willing to pay full price for the Armor Enchantment.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

I don't mind the continued existence of Passive Defense via magic.

It was prone to creating degenerate fights in 3e where only crits could hit. The 4e situation is a bit better because of deceptive attack but even so, it can easily push defense scores high enough for deceptive attack to be irrelevant at similar skill levels.

It's mostly a problem of magnitude; the max attack bonus from enchantment is +3, the max defense bonus is +5, and since it takes two attack to cancel one defense, that's effectively 3 vs 10.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Anthony

It was prone to creating degenerate fights in 3e where only crits could hit.

Fair criticism, but we are talking about magic so realism is off the table. An enchantment which makes your Active Defenses sky high is no more unbalancing than RAW Missile Shield.

When you've got that sort of situation you have to get creative. Counterspell or Suspend Spell are the logical "de-buff" spells. Spells which inflict area effect damage and/or which don't allow an Active Defense are an equally valid approach.

[Gnomasz]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Fair criticism, but we are talking about magic so realism is off the table. An enchantment which makes your Active Defenses sky high is no more unbalancing than RAW Missile Shield.

I don't think that's about realism, it's about fun to play, exciting situations and "I win" buttons. Missile Shield can be annoying, but at least it's specific vs ranged. Anyone could possibly come up and hit the protected person with a fist. Antimagic, on the other hand, is a very specific solution not many will have handy.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Fair criticism, but we are talking about magic so realism is off the table.

I didn't say anything about realism. It just produced bad game play. Note that the 3e version of penetrating weapon reduced PD as well as DR and thus worked as a countermeasure (though it wasn't introduce until Grimoire which limited its availability, and was not really cost competitive with deflect), but that doesn't apply in 4e where penetrating weapon got a different purpose.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Anthony

It was prone to creating degenerate fights in 3e where only crits could hit. The 4e situation is a bit better because of deceptive attack but even so, it can easily push defense scores high enough for deceptive attack to be irrelevant at similar skill levels.

It's mostly a problem of magnitude; the max attack bonus from enchantment is +3, the max defense bonus is +5, and since it takes two attack to cancel one defense, that's effectively 3 vs 10.

I guess even with "Magery and Effect" extending the caps and equaling out the bonuses you still have that 1:2 ratio problem going on.

On the other hand... a bonus to hit can improve the chance of a critical hit, which vetoes a defense altogether.

[benz72]

Originally Posted by Dalin

Exactly. I would even allow it on a non-armor item, as long as the costs were in line. So a ring of protection +5 would cost 20,000 energy (same as a full suit of armor). One could adjust energy or $$ on a case-by-case basis if there are other advantages or disadvantages to a particular type of item.

FWIW, I'd actually charge more for defensive items that are essentially weightless and invisible (at least as defenses). Being able to bounce sword strikes while in a swimsuit has flexibility advantages.