Attribute Adding Magic Items

[pyratejohn]

Originally Posted by Skarg

I think it would be clearer to say it adds 1 to their adjusted DX to hit things with it.

You know snarky players will say, "But what if I need to roll to miss something first?!?!" ;)

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by ecz

if memory serves in the rules it was already suggested to GMs to not let players find/buy everything they want. I'm on this camp.

make magic objects rare, expansive, hard to find and to obtain, and you will automatically limit them .

Yes. One of the lessons learned hard in my first few years of GM'ing TFT.

However I think it only goes so far. In my campaigns, I like to consider who the most powerful and wealthy and power-scheming people are, and what their abilities are, and so I consider powerful magic items and their power dynamics, even if the PCs are all still nowhere near having anything to do with them. And I prefer that level of power to have dynamics I still like and find manageable, and that seem balanced, and that result in a logical situation when/if PCs do start getting involved with them, or even just start getting into the market of buying or selling magic items.

That tends to have me think that most magic items for sale would tend to get acquired by the most powerful, rich and interested people, and that those transactions would tend to be about relationships more than cash. As a wizard, I'd probably rather pay to someone powerful and well-connected than to an adventurer. As a powermonger, I'd be in the market for most magic items for sale, and also interested (...) in anyone shopping for magic items. That (along with the skill requirements and time investment needed to make magic items) to me argues against there being many magic items for sale to random people on a simple market, particularly at basic prices. Which I also like because it reduces both magic item glut, and simple consequence-free selling of magic items.

But it still means I will worry about powerful items, and I personally don't like effects that overpower things like natural DX and IQ levels. I don't want rulers to be commissioning IQ +3 rings from the wizards' guild, or to be foolish not to. A lot of that is just not liking the style of a simple item that makes you smarter with no trade-offs or considerations (or limits - if it can only raise someone to at most 12, or of there's always some interesting catch or drawback, it doesn't bother me nearly as much).

I'd also not mind as much if the items I would rather not have in play were seriously rare or difficult to make, though that tends to be overpowerable in most cases if you have the time of enough wizards. Rare component requirements (e.g. the 14-hex dragon hides for Iron Flesh) do well for that, as does saying no one knows that spell or enchanmtent formula and no one's been able to develop it, except the version that has severe side-effects, or the version that often blows up your lab and kills your enchanters when you try to perform it.

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

Hi ecz,
I don't recall that in the rules, can you give a reference?

Well there is this:

Originally Posted by In The Labyrinth, page 18

WARNING: GMs, a single very valuable magic item can
unbalance your whole campaign if the players choose to sell
it and buy a number of lesser (but still powerful) weapons
and wierds. Be careful. And remember: Ordinary folk who
find something valuable may be cheated by merchants, set
upon by thieves, or imprisoned by greedy rulers!

Though that's more about getting too rich from selling them.

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

Elsewhere in the rules, it does talk about ordering magic items from the wizard's guild.

Yes. It also mentions the GM can increase the difficulty of finding items, but says he should say why. I don't think he should say why unless the PCs find out why. I also think they should say that GMs may want to think about what the actual market is like, and may well want to make it quite hard to find anything for sale, and/or it may attract very dangerous attention to be shopping for very expensive and powerful magic items.

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

One thing TFT did better than early D&D, was in D&D magic items were produced by dungeons. It never really explained how magic items were created. I thought that it was seriously cool in TFT, that one of my wizards could get smart, buy a lab, and make his own magic items.

Absolutely!

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by pyratejohn

You know snarky players will say, "But what if I need to roll to miss something first?!?!" ;)

Hehe, right... ok, it adds +1 to your adjDX to fire the crossbow?

[KevinJ]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

The arguments against allowing these were cogent. So, giving it its own thread. Certainly it would be easy enough to delete a few lines and poof, attribute-adding magic items go away. Would be necessary to scour for references to them - whoops, did I have any in the Death Tests?

Does anyone want to present an argument in favor of KEEPING, e.g., the possibility of a+3 Ring of Dexterity?

Note that I am not suggesting we dispose of weapons with to-hit bonuses, nor do I want to remove the one-use potions.

I say keep them in.

Any GM who doesn't want them is free to remove them from his or her game. Removing them to suit a few only penalizes those who do consider them a valid magic item and future GMs who are never giver the option to choose.

[KevinJ]

Another thing is that removing them from the list does not make them go away, it only removes the codified method of producing them.

[luguvalium]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Given how significant attributes are in TFT, allowing a +5 bonus is really game distorting, and even a +3 bonus is huge.

I also agree with Rick that at most they should be +2.

OR

maybe they should be set to a specific level: A Belt of Strength 14 - It gives the wearer an adjusted ST of 14 - not useful for anyone of ST 14 or more.

OR combine them

A Ring of Strength +1, max 14 - Not useful for anyone of ST 14 or more

Also I think such items should not allow a given user to learn spells or talents which they could not know without them. If a character has raised their ST to 14 they can't learn the Warrior talent. A wizard can't learn high IQ spells, etc

[KevinJ]

Originally Posted by luguvalium

Also I think such items should not allow a given user to learn spells or talents which they could not know without them. If a character has raised their ST to 14 they can't learn the Warrior talent. A wizard can't learn high IQ spells, etc

This bit was never really specified in the rules, but it's how I interpreted them.

[JLV]

The only problem with these limitations is that they violate the Rule of Five. What I'd like to see is some clever way to limit them within the Rule of Five.

Like, maybe you have to cast some other basic enchantment (ideas?) on the object before you can give it a +1, and then cast that basic enchantment again before you can give it a +2, and then cast that basic enchantment a final time to "seal the Spell" or something. Which not only makes these things tough (and expensive) to make, but also explains WHY they are limited to +2...

[KevinJ]

Originally Posted by JLV

The only problem with these limitations is that they violate the Rule of Five. What I'd like to see is some clever way to limit them within the Rule of Five.

Like, maybe you have to cast some other basic enchantment (ideas?) on the object before you can give it a +1, and then cast that basic enchantment again before you can give it a +2, and then cast that basic enchantment a final time to "seal the Spell" or something. Which not only makes these things tough (and expensive) to make, but also explains WHY they are limited to +2...

If that is the caase, then Weapon/Armor Enchantment also breaks the Rule of Five, since +5 damage on a weapon can be one of the 5 enchantments.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by JLV

The only problem with these limitations is that they violate the Rule of Five.

Ah, that's an interesting alternative: each +1 counts as its own enchantment, so getting a +5 eats up your entire allowance...