Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

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.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

I’m fairly certain there was a sword in Death Test. I suspect most of my players (from my kids who up in their teens to my peers in their 50s) would find the lack of attribute adders odd, but the only argument I can think of off the top of my head is... tradition.

Was there a ring in DT2? Something in the back of my head is saying there was one somewhere in there...

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

Again, my standard position on these matters is that things are fine they way that are *provided* a GM exercise control over how abundant, or not, (read: abused) these things are in his campaign.

Yet, at the same time - and more importantly - I feel people need to be allowed complete freedom to play the style of game they wish - and again, not have the style of game they can experience dictated by rules which govern too much for the designers' typewriter.

JK

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

I think attribute adders are fun.

Your character gets a (big?) instant boost they would otherwise have to wait weeks (months?) for. Fun and energizing for some.

It's a chance to see for yourself how the big boys roll.

You can also lose them, which is always dramatic.

You can build whole adventures around buying / stealing / recovering them.

Sure they can be "abused" if there are more in the game than the GM wants. But that's the GM's fault.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

It's an RPG touchstone for those familiar with classic fantasy roleplaying games, and a lot of fun when your character gets one.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

I like them, and really think this is something more for the GM to decide for his/her game...and control.

And, I agree with Phil -- they are both a touchstone of fantasy RPGs and a heck of a lot of fun. (Besides which, they can be the source of many a scenario and plot-line. They're a perfect macguffin.)

At the end of the day, to me, this, or any, game is about fun.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

My argument for keeping them is simply that magic is strange and mysterious and it can do wonderful things (if you are lucky). That should include a +3 Ring of Dexterity.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

My vote (if I had one)?
I’d keep them in, they’re a standard part of fantasy rpgs, they’re in the first edition, and finally you can always make them very rare, expensive, or both.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

Hi all, Steve.
I obviously have argued against them elsewhere. If you did want to keep them in, I would limit them to only helping a SUB-SET of the attribute's abilities.

Some examples:

-- Gloves of ST. This gives you more ST for wielding weapons, but does not raise your hit points, or give you more fatigue ST for spells.

-- Ring of Speed. You attack FASTER, but not more accurately. (So if your DX is 12, a +4 Ring of Speed means that you attack along with the DX 16 figures, but still need a 12 or less to hit.)

-- Glasses of Perception. You get a bonus to notice things (traps, hidden loot, am bushes, etc.).

-- Amulet of Endurance. You get more fatigue ST to power spells, or magic items, (or go for long runs) with.

I can think of several magic items in fiction (a belt that let the hero lift bars), but they generally were narrower in scope than the wide ranging TFT attributes.

Warm regards, Rick.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

My suggestion would be to add a section on GMs choosing which magic spells & items exist in their campaigns, that gives some tips (especially for the benefit of new GMs (and GMs new to TFT)) about the impact of making available certain magic, or not.

The issue I see is that these items (attribute adders and several other types) can have a large impact on play, and the degree, nature and flavor of that that impact isn't always obvious (as I still vividly remember from GM'ing TFT as my first RPG campaign starting at age 11...).

Describing magics that many GMs may not want to include, at least gives the opportunity to specify how they would work in an interesting and hopefully somewhat balanced way. Such as Rick's suggestions above for having attribute adders be limited to some aspect of an attribute rather than increasing it for all purposes. And/or having a limit of how high they can raise an attribute. And/or, having it require 1 fatigue per turn. And/or adjusting the costs and/or ingredients required. Currently it's $2,000 for a +1 attribute adder, and that seemed like an absolute bargain (especially for people with high attributes and high EP requirements to raise them further). If high attributes are going to be harder to acquire and/or capped, ways to increase stats will be relatively more valuable.

(I don't think there is a magic item that increases attributes in Death Test or Death Test 2, but there are at least a couple that reduce attributes.)

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

Given how significant attributes are in TFT, allowing a +5 bonus is really game distorting, and even a +3 bonus is huge. I'd be tempted by giving items both a magnitude (probably not more than +2) and a max attribute level they can grant, so a +1 (max 20) is far more impressive than a +1 (max 12), even though they're both the same bonus.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

Hi Anthony,
I agree. In new TFT, you can earn from experience 8 attributes and buy 15 more if you are rich. Let us say that the attribute adders were more expensive and maxed at a +2. Then you could earn 8 and buy 6. What I had suggested before was that you could earn 10 and buy 0.

Warm regards, Rick.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

once again I must say that the wise GM does not fear any rule.

In my opinion it's always possible avoid any negative collateral effect of such a magic items with good GMing .
I hope they stay in rules because add variety and open the path to new adventures.

Of course they cannot become common or be cheap. The original rules were not restrictive enough, in fact I simply doubled the required cost/time/ST for magic objects using an artifice.

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 .

Then also a ring +3 DX can exist at no harm for the system

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

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

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

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.

Warm regards, Rick.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

IIRC, there are magic items listed in DT and DT2 which cannot legally be found by following the numbered paragraphs; but these items where put into the numbered paragraphs to entice players with red-herrings (if you read paragraphs you should not have), and also served to exposed others who claimed to their group GM that they got these magic items while playing solo through the adventure.

Also, IIRC the party were given magic rings which let them communicate if separated while in the labyrinth, but these rings had to be returned to the Testing Officer at the end of the adventure.

JK

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

Back home from a long weekend at the ocean and...

40 year old spoilers ahead...

The ring I was thinking of was in DT1 and it wasn't an adder, it was the blur ring. And what a nice ring it is. I can't recall if that was one of the "you can't get to it" paragraphs or not.

In DT2, the ring at paragraph 38 gives speed Movement at no ST cost, but it reduces the wearer's DX by 3. The one at 152 reduces IQ by 4.

Widening the search to include non-SJ written products that will hopefully make it back into the fold someday, the sword at 292 in Security Station is +3 to DX.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

Flipping through Tollenkar's Lair I found a +1 DX crossbow bolt at location 54.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

"It adds 1 to the shooter's DX when it is fired."

Do I need to rephrase that? That does NOT mean that if you have DX 10 and fire the bolt, you henceforth have DX 11.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

No, I think it is fairly clear it is a one-shot item.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

"Oh no! He's fired the bolt 5 times already! We have to stop him before his DX rises to super-human levels!" Hehehe!

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

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

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

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

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.


Well there is this:
Though that's more about getting too rich from selling them.


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.


Absolutely!

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

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

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

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.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

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

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

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

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

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

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

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...

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

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.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

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

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

If a wish can only raise an attribute up to 16, why not say the same thing about items? The Aid spell could stay as-is, so that Revival, etc. are still possible.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

Yes...
Well there is :
It doesn't mention ST or DX adders, but I'd tend to assume the same.

... even if there is hardly any reason for someone to ever remove or deactivate an attribute adder, as written...

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

I stand corrected.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

I am all in favor for attribute adding magic items. They made gaming so much fun back in the days. Me as a cheapskate Game Master spiced up my adventures with very few of them but the players loved them.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

If they have to be in the game at all, I think this is the perfect way to limit them using the rule of 5.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

Or you could just change it for yourself. Why fix a problem that may not actually exist.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

The reason this thread exists is because of the many people who've put forth clear arguments that there is a problem with adders (the items, not the snakes.)

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

There are a few bits of magic in Advanced Wizard that I and some GM's I know decided were not available, for various reasons, generally that we didn't like their effects on play and power implications.

Yes experienced GMs can and will continue to do so. However:

* I would suggest some things (if left in) be given some GM suggestions to consider whether to have them available (or to alter them so as to avoid problems), for the sake of new GMs who may otherwise include them and regret it (most of these I learned to dislike from experience running TFT as my first RPG).

* I would also suggest assuming most/all such magics not be assumed to generally be available, for example in published adventures and settings sections, guild descriptions, etc., because several of these are disliked because they throw off gameplay, balance, what makes sense to do, economics, etc., and if you assume they are a factor, it can affect the balance of those things for everyone.

(Kind of like how if you play Death Test 1 or Grail Quest with characters who have access to ITL talents and/or fine-quality equipment and/or magic items, it throws the balance off, because none of the characters in them use those things.)

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

someone has responded to your question about the suggestion in the rules to not let players to have too powerful magic items.

About magic items available via an order to the Guild, I also like this rule it a lot.

I see this rule as the golden opportunity for the wise GM to actually LIMIT magic items proliferation in our CGs leaving the players with the feel they can obtain everything.

There are many possible reasons for the Guild to reject a order (that the GM dislike for whatever reason):

a) We are busy with past orders, please come back here in a year;
b) who are you? We do not use create magic items for strangers;
c) where is the king's permission to buy magic items?
d) fine! but you must provide all ingredients by yourself;
e) sorry we do not have the permission to create this item;
f) fine! but you must first buy the yearly subscription to sustain the Guild. It's $5.000 OR you can make a certain mission for the Guild before we can accept the order...

OR the order can be accepted (payment in advance included) and simply the laboratory could explode one month later killing the wizard before the item is delivered (no refund of course).

also the rule allowing players to create magic items by ourselves buying a Laboratory is fine.
But the GM can always limit any unwanted item creation using his imagination:
a) so many taxes that de facto stop the activity;
b) Magic Guild interference
c) underworld interference
d) a law or a order from the local authority that suspend magic item production or force the creation of magic items for the king and/or the Royal Guards

I still remember when my wizard PC finally bought a Magic Laboratory and left it to an apprendice for a few weeks having an adventure out of town .

When I returned in town at the place of my laboratory I found a barber shop.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

Nice :)

Of course, who says you get to use your laboratory to make things for yourself? The local Powers That Be may decide they'd prefer you make things for them. Those laboratories are just chock full of flammable stuff...

A resourceful GM shouldn't have too much trouble shaping his campaign world to his tastes.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

Why did I get a sudden vision of the medieval fire marshals condemning your building as a firetrap, filled with improperly secured hazardous materials, and impounding your materials for not having the appropriate tax stamps affixed or otherwise violating local import laws, after serving you with a summons from both the local Ducal court and the local religious court? ;-)

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

In THEIR game. Not in THE game. That argument is as stupid as any argument that that consists of: "I don't need it so no one should be allowed to have/use it."

If a GM is to weak minded for them to work in his or her game it is not the faulty of the GMs with more than 2 brain cells to rub together.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

Hi ecz.
Let us imagine a new GM with new players. The players get enough money to buy a +1 sword, so they go to the magic guild and buy one. No problem, they get their sword.

They get more money and go to the magic guild and order a Blur ring that costs 1 fatigue ST per 3 turns. No problem, they get their ring.

They get a bit more money and go to the wizard's guild and order a +3 DX ring. How does the new GM know that he is supposed to throw up problems? That he is supposed to say that the wizard's are backlogged and that the PC's should come back in a year? That the Thieves Guild needs to interfere? That when they pay want to buy this item that the King has ordered the guild to produce items only for him?

***

If the TFT rules say that PC's can go to a Magic Guild and order magic items at such and such a price, then the vast majority of players in the game will do just that. If this particular item is too powerful, then it should be either removed or made more expensive. If ALL items are too powerful, and you don't want PC's buying them or making their own, then why have the several pages of rules that allow this?

Warm regards, Rick.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

Hi Kevin.
I believe that it is not weak mindedness on my part. Rather that attribute adders are dull items, and too powerful. I think that they will not enhance TFT for new GM's, and that including them will make it easy for new GM's to end up with their campaign going into areas where TFT does not play as well.

Further as they are written now, they are far too cheap. I have an advanced character with 40 attributes. It would take me dozens of sessions to gain enough experience to raise his DX one point. (Say a half a year in real time.) But I can buy a +3 DX ring for $8,000.

Currently I can adventure for years and earn +8 attributes. But a rich character can BUY +15 attributes (assuming that you interpret the A type magic item to mean that you can get a maximum of +5 ST from attribute adders to ST.)

I think that the new TFT would have better design, if players were able to earn 10 attributes (rather than 8) and could buy 0 attributes (rather than 15).

The purpose of these discussions is to help Steve make the new TFT better. I also note that if he replaces these items with a magic item which he thinks is more interesting, nothing prevents you from adding them into your campaign. Heck, you could make the cost of them 1/4 what they currently are, if you so wished to do so.

Warm regards, Rick.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

The default game is the rules all-inclusive, save those marked optional.

That needs to be well balanced for a wide variety of GMs.

The adders have been a major problem for a lot of people (myself included, but not a severe one). They need to be addressed with at least a cautionary sidebar in a revised edition.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

Hi KevinJ, I think Oneiros was just rephrasing what Steve posted when he made the thread. The point of this thread is to help Steve work this out because apparently he's convinced, well, that the arguments against allowing these were cogent:

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

Myself, I don’t love Attribute-adding items because they are (forgive me) metagaming, not roleplaying. Anything that is generically referred to and functional only as a reference to the system rather than the setting is a suspect that the GM should watch closely. It encourages playing the rules rather than the game.

I agree that the best magic items are ones that are described within the game world in the terms those characters would use, with the actual game-rules effects largely defined by the GM.

An example: The adventurers combat a band of bandits, who almost beats them because the somewhat-corpulent bandit leader moves more deftly than a man his size would be thought to do, and swings a sword as if it was part of his own body. There is no obvious wizard in the bandit group. After some investigation with magical sensory enhancement, the source of the unusual skill appears to be the ring the bandit was wearing — a silver ring with a band of lapis encircling it that looks like an elongated bolt of blue lightning.

When wearing the ring later, the bearer gets into combat and fails a combat roll — and is told by the GM that no, the roll was successful after all. It may take a bit for the bearer to figure out the magnitude and scope of the effect. Does it just help the bearer in combat? How does it affect other actions? Is there any tradeoff for the enhancement, or occasional glitch in how it works?

The effect of the introduction of such a ring to a campaign is far more entertaining than to find a “Ring of +2 DX”. It may also be less unbalancing because there may be things about the ring the character doesn’t know until circumstances reveal them. For example, a character may miss an attack roll with a main-gauche, revealing that the enhancement only applies to the hand and arm on which the ring is worn.

Let a paid NPC analyze the ring magically, and you may get the information only in the setting’s context, not the game’s. “This band reeks of elven magic. The wearer will be more adept in combat, or at any task where hands and eyes must be sharp. There may be more, but my vision of these things grows cloudy...”

And for magic attribute-enhancement items the player characters make themselves? I’d advise GMs to apply similar appropriate limitations on them which may not be discovered immediately. These differences can be subtle and very specialized (like the one-hand-only limit on the ring mentioned here). They could be capricious and even a bit funny. (Imagine the ring only increasing DX when outdoors under sunlight. In the labyrinth by torchlight or at night — no help. Now imagine discovering that when suddenly All the Orcs in the World (TM) pour down the corridor.

Rules that treat magic like a science or manufacturing (certainly a viable option) can still remain interesting and surprising if the GM is clever and flexible. For games with a GM, I like situations where game rules give me both “the rules” and guidance as to how the rules can be implemented creatively.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

A ring of Strength makes perfect non-mechanical sense. So does a ring of Dexterity. And a crown of Intellect. And boots of speed. Logically, all these directly map to an obvious attribute, and thus, given the realities of play, provide full bonuses...

The thing is, given the 4 attributes (ST DX IQ MA), the other natural concepts — Rings of Agility, rings of endurance, rings of stamina, rings of awareness, crowns of knowledge — all are, mechanically, either going to map to the same attributes, or are going to result in essentially being half-as-valuable as one of the ones that maps directly to the attributes...

But the attributes themselves map out to many functions
Strength - Maximum weapon size, hit points, lifting strength, stamina/fatigue-capacity
Dexterity - Manual dexterity (use of hands), agility (use of whole body, excepting movement), ranged accuracy (which involves perception), melee accuracy (which involves perception, as well)
Intelligence - Willpower, Charisma, Knowledge, mental acuity/problem-solving, maximum complexity of learned abilities...
MA - movement speed. (It's the only one narrowly construed, and thus often ignored as an attribute, especially since it's racially fixed.)

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

Frankly, this is by far the most cogent argument I've read on the subject since this thread started.

And yes, the GM should NEVER just announce, "It's a ring of +2 DX." Figuring out what a magic item is and what it does should be a process and an experience (and an adventure) all by itself; otherwise, you're just wasting an opportunity.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

That was exactly what I was doing. Thanks, zot.

We are talking about changes to THE game. I don't know what you mean by "That argument" in your response to me, because I merely stated a preference for Anthony's suggestion of limiting the total bonus of adders based on the Rule of Five.

However, the designer of THE game has said there have been some well presented and convincing arguments to remove them. He's started this thread for people to make similar arguments for the opposing view. I don't think saying someone is "weak minded" for not wanting them qualifies as such an argument.

In fact, I haven't seen too many arguments in this thread in general for WHY adders should be kept in - other than "it's tradition" - only HOW they might be kept in with some system tweaks.

Also, irony alert: "it is not the faulty of the GMs with more than 2 brain cells to rub together"

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

I'm reading these and thinking about them.

Please, everyone, no argument by insult. Not even clever insults. If I don't get to call my players names - and I don't - then nobody else does either.

Guy - is a direct call to a stat really metagaming, or is it just coding in machine language?

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

I wonder how far this paragraph would go toward regulating issues?

Items that act directly on attributes, increasing ST, DX, or IQ, are a special case. Only the most powerful one works; if you had a ring granting +2 DX and another granting +1, only the more powerful one would work. And you may get only a total of +5 to attributes from magic items.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

Being pedantic I would specify "Only the most powerful one works (per attribute); if you had a ring granting +2 DX and another granting +1 DX", only the more powerful one would work.

You may combine +2 DX, +2 IQ, and +1 ST for example.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

Building on what Wayne suggested (good job!), I would write:

"Only the most powerful one works (per attribute); if you had a ring granting +2 DX and another granting +1 DX, only the more powerful DX item would work. Further, you may get only a total of +5 to attributes from magic items.

For example: Items giving: +2 DX, +2 IQ, and +1 ST are legal, but no further attributes can be gained with magic, as the rule of 5 has been reached."


This is a bit wordy, but I think that you NEED those words to be absolutely clear what is meant. (If this IS in fact what you mean.)

I hope that the price of attribute adders are greatly increased.

Warm regards, Rick.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

That's only slightly different from how they already work. They already don't stack, per Advanced Wizard page 34 detailed rule on such items (despite it possibly appearing otherwise/contradictory in the more general Rule Of Five section on Advanced Wizard page 25). Only the +5 total limit across attributes is new (and is unclear as suggested in that doesn't specify how the limit would apply).

While that would be a welcome step in the right direction, it's a step that only matters if you already have +5 (!) from attribute adders and are looking to pile on more.

Seems to me making them more interesting (limited and/or having some disadvantage to use) and more difficult/expensive to create would be best.
(e.g.
* Rick's earlier ideas splitting the effects of attribute bonuses into separate enchantment types, and/or
* they're limited to raising the attribute to a certain modest level, or the level of the corpse of someone used as an enchantment ingredient, and/or
* they use fatigue to use, and/or
* they only work for a random period and then they have the opposite effect but you can't immediately tell, or
* whatever).

And/or just add a note to GMs about choosing whether they want them to be a known enchantment or not (or suggesting they invent drawbacks to the known versions of enchantments they think are a bit much or not interesting enough).

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

Hi Skarg,
I agree with you. (Altho, characters being able to buy +5 attributes is certainly better than being able to buy +15 attributes.) I had really hoped that without the attribute adders, we could increase the attributes you could earn to +10, (so you could become a 42 attribute figure with experience). The last two attributes could be VERY expensive, and it would seriously distinguish maxed out characters from the run of mill hero.

luguvalium wrote earlier that each such item could come with a MAXIMUM attribute limit. So you might find a +2 DX ring (Max DX 16), which can improve your DX to 16, but not better. This would make getting a modest boost not too hard, but it could be worth a serious quest to steal a legendary +3 (max DX 26) ring from the local king. (The bastard only has a DX 14 so it is WASTED on him!!!)

You (Skarg) suggested that they cost fatigue ST to use. If the majority of them could be only used for a limited amount of time, it would be cool. For example, this belt of ST can costs a fatigue ST, but gives you +4 ST for 15 minutes. This +1 IQ ring costs 0 fST, but only works for 3 hours / day. Again, items that take less effort to use and last for longer times could be much more valuable items well worth making a great effort to gain.

Make the base items (zero cost, lasts 24 hours a day, no maximum attribute limit) VERY expensive, and wizards might make cheaper, limited versions fairly often. Which gives the GM a perfect excuse to drop a more limited item in the dungeon.

Warm regards, Rick.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

Hm. OK, good analogy.

I still want to encourage thinking in terms of “the ring makes you stronger” rather than “the ring raises your ST one point”, but I suppose that’s really a function of the GM.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

OK, it appears that limiting attribute adding items is something most of you see as a good idea, even if not totally agreed on how to accomplish it. I like the idea of giving an adder item a top end (+1 DX, max DX 14), but I’m not sure in the long tun it is worth the complication to the record keeping and creation costs.

Of all the suggestions, the simplest and most elegant seems to be to allow only one item of a type to be used, and for the most powerful one to be the only one that works. Thus, You can wear a +2 DX ring, but putting on a +1 DX ring as well doesn’t give you +3 DX. I also like limiting the total adds to +5 (although that arbitrary limit is sorta metagaming). But, if you are wearing a +2 ST ring and a +2 DX necklace and then put on a +2 IQ tiara, what happens?

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

The rule of 5 states that functioning items continue to function and later ones that violate the rule of 5 don't function.
So I'd rule that the tiara does not function magically at all, even if it has other non-attribute capabilities.

I don't see how a +N attribute limit is metagaming. These are rules for how magic items are limited, phrased so that the players and GM have no misunderstanding. It's not how people in the world perceive or describe it, nor should it be.

Also, this is about magic at the lowest level and magic, like the Aid spell, does affect attributes in a raw, direct way.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

That also works with the rule of 5, so I think it would be enormously helpful.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

I can think of many ways they could be adjusted. A couple more:

* For every turn you use the item, there will be a period after you take it off where the opposite modifier applies. The ratio is 1:12, so for every turn you use it, you'll be at a minus for that many minutes.

* When you wear such an item, you immediately feel its effect (and you have to take it off to stop it). Feeling magically more capable, wearers invariably feel superior... even more superior than they really are. Users of +IQ items will tend to see others as stupid or foolish, and feel their opinions and ideas are obviously right. ("You just think that because you're not wearing the Hat Of Intelligence!") Users of +ST items will tend to feel indomitable and aggressive and capable of any feat of strength (and feel an urge to use that strength). Users of +DX items will tend to feel capable of any feat of agility, and will feel compelled to do unnecessary feats. (Hard core parkour!)

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

Agreed as to the possibilities, Skarg, but again I feel those are more "GM rulings" than they are "rules."

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

This, I think, gets at the heart of the issue. Magic items that make you stronger, swifter, or smarter fit well in heroic fantasy. In a story, such items can function qualitatively: they can just make characters stronger, swifter, or smarter. In a game, though, they also have to function quantitatively: the players have to know how much stronger, swifter, or smarter the characters have become. Hence. at least the GM has to know that the Girdle of Mighty Thews adds +2 to its wearer's ST. I would say that the player whose character owns said Girdle should also know this, for reasons of equity. Everyone controlling characters in the game, whether player or GM, should know the precise capabilities of their character. Players already know exactly how likely their characters are to hit in battle and exactly how much damage they can take, yet no one regards that as metagaming; it's just gaming.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

It occurs to me that, in my haste to make my own point, I may have overlooked part of Guy's. Placing a limit of +5 on the number of points that magic items can add to all three attributes taken together may be desirable from a mechanical standpoint, but what does it represent in the game world? Why should a large increase in strength preclude large raises in speed or wits? The Rule of 5 isn't much help here, since it begs the question "Five what?" The only answer is "Five attribute points," but attribute points have no existence in the game world; they're an abstraction that lets players play the game. What follows is my best attempt at an in-game justification for the +5 total limit. My comments on how this lines up with game mechanics are included within square brackets.

As any Master Physicker can tell you,the bodies of living beings are governed by three humors: the Strong Humor [ST], the Swift Humor [DX], and the Wise Humor [IQ]. These can be augmented by magical means, but only within limits. Too much augmentation causes serious instability, eventually ending in death. Generally speaking, any humor may be mildly augmented [+1], greatly augmented [+2], or supremely augmented [+3]. If one humor is supremely augmented, both of the other two may safely be mildly augmented, or one alone of the two may be greatly augmented. [This would represent +3 to one attribute and either +1 to both of the others or +2 to one of the others]. Two humors may safely be greatly augmented only if the third is no more than mildly augmented [i.e. +2 to two attributes and +1 to the third]. There is no danger in mildly augmenting all three humors.

So there you have a non-mechanical means of describing the limits of magical attribute adders as Steve recently proposed them (and also an in-game explanation of attributes to boot).

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

Let us hypothetically assume that I was good with increasing the cost of attribute enhancers. The next question would be "how much?" Double? Tenfold? Something in between?

Remember, as GMs you ARE going to put some of these in your dungeon, and if they are overpriced relative to their utility, they'll just turn into extra bags of gold that will be spent on OTHER magic items and so on.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

I was always very stingy with these sorts of magic items. On the few occasions where players managed to attain them, they were either cursed in some way, the original owners wanted them back, or they attracted jealous interest from others. They were usually more trouble than they were worth in the long run as they just made the character a target.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

Hi Steve,
By my books, they have GREAT utility, much more so in the new TFT, because people will be staring at that "I can only earn 8 attributes" limit all the time.

I would suggest that they become expensive, but have a number of standard limitations that people often put on them to bring the cost down:

Max Attribute Limits.
-- No max limit......... x 1 (Very useful for a guy with 24 DX who wants a higher DX.)
-- Max 23................. x 0.9
-- Max 22................. x 0.8
-- Max 21................. x 0.7
-- Max 20................. x 0.6
-- Max 19................. x 0.5
-- Max 18................. x 0.4
-- Max 17................. x 0.3
-- Max 16................. x 0.2
-- Max 15................. x 0.1 (Lowest maximum, except for weakened / damaged items.)

Power Limitations: (You spend 1 fatigue ST to power it for...)
-- 1 turn................... x 1
-- 2 turns.................. x 2
-- 3 turns.................. x 2.75
-- 5 turns.................. x 4
-- 8 turns.................. x 5
-- 1 minute............... x 5.5
-- 1.5 minutes........... x 6
-- 5 minutes.............. x 7
-- 1 hour................... x 8
-- 1 week.................. x 9
-- Self Powering......... x 10

Duration Limiations: (What percentage of the time can it be on?)
-- 100%.................... x 1
-- 75%...................... x 0.75 (Useable 18 hours each day.)
-- 50%...................... x 0.5
-- 25%...................... x 0.25 (Useable 6 hours each day.)
-- 4.12%................... x 0.04 (Useable 1 hour per day.)

Other than the first modifier, which is specific to attribute adders, these limitations can be used for ANY magic item.

***
So let us say the price of an attribute adder (non-self powering) was $2,500.

Then a +1 DX ring which is self powering, with no duration or attribute limits would be: $25,000.

But people might say, I would rather make this item cheaper. I will say that it only helps people up to DX 18 (I'm only a 14, so there is room for me to grow). This item would cost: $10,000. Virtually equal utility to me, and much cheaper.

Let us say that I'm pretty broke. I'm a DX 14, and decide that I want a +1 DX ring that has a max attribute value of 16 (I'm only planning to put my DX up to 15 anyway), and it costs me 1 fatigue ST per 1.5 minutes. (Only 1 fatigue per fight basically.) Also it is limited so it can't work from 9 pm to 3 am (it only works 18 hours a day). This item would cost: $2,265.

Most PC's would be happy to find the $2,265 version in a dungeon crawl. They would have to be a pretty kick ass party before it would not help ANY of them. And if they are that good? Well they could sell it to the wizard's guild at 1/3 of this cost, or try to find a buyer who would pay more.

(My merchants buy stuff at ~1/3 of the value they hope to sell it for.)

***

Let's look at that $2,265 version. It costs more than a +1 DX sword. But that sword is only good for hitting things. This helps you avoid traps, hit with any (or no weapon), avoid being knocked over by a Hell Hog, allows you to jump pits, and climb rock cliffs, etc. (Admittedly you can't do these things in the middle of the night and you have to pay 1 fatigue ST per fight.) But an attribute adder BETTER cost significantly more than the +1 DX sword, which is only for one narrow use.

In my campaign I use such modifiers on items as a standard thing. It lets me give out items in dungeons that are a bit weaker and more interesting.

The down side, is a lot of magic items on my player's sheets say things like, "Blur Ring: cost 1 fST / 3 turns".

Warm regards, Rick.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

Not so fast... Who says it must be unreasonable for characters to know what attributes are? Actually, I think the world implies that wizards know what ST points are.

The wizard's guild charges for apprentices in units of 25 ST per day. I'm sure wizards know that if you create any image using the weakest image spell, you need to rest 15 minutes to recover. Likewise, they know that creating any illusion with the weakest illusion spell takes you 30 minutes to recover. I don't think these things are mysteries to wizards. They know what ST points are because the works are quantized.

Likewise, they know what the Aid spell does and what happens when you out 1 ST towards one of the three attributes.

Basically, because of the way the wizard's guild charges and the way spell costs and ST recovery works, I think it's very reasonable to say that wizards, at least, know about the three attributes. Maybe they have theories about them, like the theory of humors.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

Even if they manage to keep the item, the new challenges they face should match their new abilities. Sure, they could just fight bigger/more monsters, but they can also get pulled into politics, hired (coerced?) by wealthy patrons (individuals or groups) to advance their interests, take on larger and larger responsibilities, etc.

"Be careful what you wish for" is a proverb for a reason.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

Yes, characters obviously must have some concept of attribute points. The whole point of my post about the humors was to come up with a plausible way that characters might talk about attribute points. Imagining them talking about ST, DX, and IQ is somehow not satisfying.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

Yep. It's possible, for instance, that in Ardonirane the Thorsz enforces a monopoly on ST and DX enhancers, and grants the Wiz Guild a monopoly on IQ enhancers, just to give his guards an edge over random rabble.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

The "Strength +1" function is a hassle to keep secret from the player, and sooner or later (usually sooner in a 4 att system) catch enough rolls that should have failed succeeding to figure it out, and start referring to it mechanically anyway.

For simplicity, it's much easier to encourage them to get it identified ASAP so that the GM can offload the math to the player side of the table.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

I like your terms for them.

Sheesh, I gotta apologize -- I read that lying in bed after midnight and somehow skipped everything from "As any Master Physicker", down. I.e. the whole point of your post. My mention of humors was in reference to the four humors, not your three humors (which are a great idea).

I do think that wizards probably actually know about the points, just based on the quantization of spell costs, effects, and rest times. They might even have ways to find out what peoples' values actually are, using Aid, Clumsiness, Confusion, and fatigue tests. I think that'd be a real hoot. I've never heard of in-game stat knowledge in any serious system!

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

I'd compare to other magic items. I also ban Charm, but is seems only somewhat better than a ST +1 DX +1 IQ + 1 item. Charm +1 is $30,000, so on that basis I'd say +1 Attribute might be about $10,000 (5 x current). But I DO ban Charms. Other enchantments are sort of apples & oranges, though there are the equivalent potions (which I didn't ban).

(Note that the potions are nice not only because they're consumed when used (which is a huge difference), but also because they have interesting/limited/dangerous ingredient requirements, and they have interesting side-effects (yay).)

Given that those potions are fun/interesting/limited, and still cost $450-$600 per dose, I'd say that an item that just does the effect and has no fun/interesting limits or side-effects (boo) and subverts/shortcuts the multi-year quest to survive enough adventure to add +8 to your actual attributes, hmm, well the proud owner would tend to use it all the time and get the benefit of huge amounts of such potions. I mean, if you take more than 6 doses of Increase IQ potion in one month, you can lose IQ permanently! And it still costs $600 and needs a fresh human brain. Hard to compare, but probably at least $10,000.

I'd want it to be harder to make than seems like something most enchanters would just do as a logical thing for themselves, or that wizards' guilds would just logically enchant as many of as they could. I think I'd want to add challenging ingredients rather than rely on increased cost to reduce "industrial" production. After all, I'd think the most wealthy and powerful people would tend to want to get whatever was produced, driving up the cost to almost whatever it took to out-bid casual consumers.

I still like my idea that the item not be able to raise an attribute higher than that of a corpse ingredient. That means if you want to be able to raise to a high attribute level, you need the corpse of someone who had that level of that attribute. The doubling rule per level would make that especially prohibitive. e.g. to get a +3 IQ ring that can raise IQ of someone to IQ 20, you'd need 4 fresh corpses of people who had IQ 20...


I never did, and don't think I would, as I'd ruled that enchantment was not known.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

I like this idea. Forgive me if I’m forgetting something that has already been mentioned or is already in the rule books, but perhaps attribute enhancers could be further differentiated.

The item adds to ST, but only for the purpose of qualifying to use a more damaging weapon. It does not increase Hit Points. Or vice versa.

The item adds to to DX, but only for Missile/Thrown Weapon/Spell attacks, NOT melee attacks. Or vice versa.

The item adds to IQ, but only for disbelieving Illusions (The Ring of the Skeptic, for example, which could have humorous side effects such as needing to make a save to avoid making scoffing sounds when an NPC speaks). It does not work for any other IQ-based rolls.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

What four attributes would those be? I'm only aware of ST, DX, and IQ. Unless you're adding in MA, which really isn't anything like the others...

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

That's not a bad idea at all, but it might better be a GM call than a formal rule. If Steve wanted to include something along those lines, I suspect it would something along the lines of; "The GM may choose to further restrict the utility of these items by making their effects limited to one single type of action for that attribute; e.g, ST enhancing items only allow the player to use a weapon or armor requiring higher ST, but not to improve Hit Points, etc., etc."

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

I second this limitation and the system will still be balanced with 45p characters combat wise. We might actually be able to see a Great sword master use Shrewd sucessfully. :-)

As Rich has pointed out, the example could be a little more defining. Something like:

"...if you had a ring granting +1 DX and +1 ST, and another ring granting +3 IQ, only the more powerful one would work, so you would get +3 IQ. And you may only enchant an item with a total of five +1 to attributes enchantments."

And then you change the wording in the enchantment list so that each point cost twice as much as the one before like almost every enchantment on the same item. So a ring can not have +3 attributes and four other enchantments. It can have a +1 ST and a +2 IQ and two other enchantments.

That would limit it to one item with a maximum of +5 bonuses in total and at a huge cost compared to buying several +1 items.

With the repeated doubling a +5 item with the right attribute mix for your character would be both rare and costly enough to limit it to high level play. And 45p characters can still work pretty well.

If you want to limit it even further, add up to maximum for the race but no more. Points above the maximum are not active or "lost".

You might want to consider doing the same with armor and damage enchantments. If a sword does +5 damage, that might be enough to full fill the rule of five enchantments on one item. And possibly Conceals and limitations on top of that as usual.

And while we are at it, maybe we should take a look at the Aid spell. A maximum of +5 points to the real attributes and possibly a max of 20. The exception would be temporary fatigue that can be hold for the usual two turns. One could even say that they don't stack and call the Aid spell the same bonus as the "permanent" aid spell of an attribute item. That would get rid of most of the shenanigans.

Just at thought.

Re: Attribute Adding Magic Items
 

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


Mighty: Adds to damage.


Severing: Increases the chance of a critical hit.


Life-Saver: Reduces the chance of a critical hit against the wielder.


Never-Fail: Reduces the chance of a fumble.


Blazing: When drawn, sheds light as bright as a torch; in the heat of battle, it sheds light almost as bright as the *sun*. Creatures who fear or are damaged by sunlight strike at the wielder get AdjDX -1.