Enchanting a Weapon vs. Target X
 

Suppose you want a magical weapon with a bonus against one particular kind of target — for example, maybe a spear called "Dragonslayer" or a sword called "Trollsbane", or whatever.

Is there a way to do that within the Official Rules? I haven't seen one mentioned, but I'm still reading and familiarizing and all that (because Noob), so it's entirely possible there is one and I just haven't found it.

Re: Enchanting a Weapon vs. Target X
 

ITL 158 Limiting Spells.

Expect the next wizard who comes along to cast Remove Curse.

I admit that this is rather lame, so what would be the result of wielding a sword that has the ghost of the former wielder bound to it (by ITL 84) if the obsession that binds his spirit to this world is "Kill all goblins" or whatever?

Re: Enchanting a Weapon vs. Target X
 

Ah, Danke. That appears to be intended to limit Users, but I suppose the same principle ought to apply equally for Targets.

The result would be a mighty interesting magical weapon, that's what. I shall have to try one now…

Re: Enchanting a Weapon vs. Target X
 

It's an interesting question; the limiting enchantment approach seems like a good immediate solution. But it basically means you go through all the work to make a perfectly good general purpose magic weapon and then have it only work against certain opponents.

Re: Enchanting a Weapon vs. Target X
 

Handwavium is the answer here, I think.

Re: Enchanting a Weapon vs. Target X
 

An excellent answer to most any question!

Re: Enchanting a Weapon vs. Target X
 

I thought there was already a way, but I'm remembering from GURPS Magic. The approach there would work, as could others.

Re: Enchanting a Weapon vs. Target X
 

Do the reverse. Enchant Curse, -1 on all rolls, limited to only against dragons.

It's a terrible sword when you're fighting dragons, but since you can't drop or break it (by ITL 167) and since "immunity to Drop and Break Weapon" is one of the three defining enchantments for a "magic weapon" by ITL 42, it's a magic weapon against all other foes.

Re: Enchanting a Weapon vs. Target X
 

I would house rule this. Allow the creation of the a magic enhancement at half the cost (time, ST and $) if it had a limitation put on it, given the limitation was well beyond half of potential opponents.

So a Orc slayer sword +1 DX, would take half the effort of a Sword +1 DX.

A Sword of +1 verses all humanoid would not qualify. This limitation is too broad. To qualify, the limitation would need the game master's judgement call.

Re: Enchanting a Weapon vs. Target X
 

That would make common weapons cheap and easy. To fit with the sources it needs to be unique and powerful.

Variant of WAE: The limitation is part of the base enchantment and can not be disenchanted independently. This enchantment is only applied to damage adds and multiplies these against the selected targets. Against all other targets the enchantment adds no damage. Otherwise the same time and cost as WAE.

Common: Like say all humans or all animals: times one effect.
Uncommon: One specific race of non-human humanoid, dragons, or all bears: times two effect.
Rare: Unicorns, Long Lankin, or one other specific rare critter: times three effect.

So a +3 damage against Long Lankin does no enchanted damage against any other target and +9 damage against Long Lankin. Or a +5 dragon slayer spear does +10 damage against dragons and no enchantment damage against other targets. Etc.

If the GM is unkind then make each specific "vs X" variant a different research topic.

Re: Enchanting a Weapon vs. Target X
 

The more I think about discounts, and the idea of trying to affect the work needed to enchant something by how "common" the target is, the more I think I'm happy with there being no such spell other than Limiting, because those things don't make much sense to me.

Limiting does makes sense to me, but I think it should be possible to make a Limiting enchantment that is intertwined with the enchantment it limits, such that the Limit cannot (or is very hard/unlikely to) be dispelled without also dispelling the limited enchantment.

Re: Enchanting a Weapon vs. Target X
 

The magic item creation process in TFT is exceptionally concrete and specific; this is good in that it helps players craft items as a campaign goal, but it is also a pretty complicated part of the game, and if you really go down the rat hole of financial and ST costs it can be gamed in irritating ways. I feel like the correct responses are 1) don't add a bunch of house rules that make it even more complex and tortuous; 2) make players sort out the pre-requisites on their own (i.e., if you want to make an item, you better know the relevant spells, obtain the necessary material components, and find and recruit all the assistants you'll need, because the game world won't just hand that stuff to you in exchange for some cash). I find principle #2 shuts down all schemes to defraud the universe with some campaign breaking magic item.

Re: Enchanting a Weapon vs. Target X
 

Make your Dragon Slayer spear a unique artifact that the WG wants to study, but hasn't found how to replicate.

Guided by sages and mages you go on a quest for the dingus, use it once, then hand it in for the payoff.

Re: Enchanting a Weapon vs. Target X
 

That's exactly what I decided to do. The 'limiting' rule would work, if I wanted to do it that way, but as has been mentioned, that's just insane. (Bonus against everything gets reduced to bonus against one thing? Why would anyone do that?)

So since the Rules don't provide any rational way to accomplish what I want, I'm just not going to bother explaining it at all. It just IS.

Plus, it's not a Dragonslayer weapon — I mentioned that only as an example — and the intended target is also an original creation, just like the weapon, so it's guaranteed not to appear in any other TFT adventure (unless people like my race and borrow it). Which means the weapon is literally a one-off.

Unless, of course, I make a sequel adventure. In that case the Player(s) may regret it if they sold that weapon off for spare cash, thinking they'd never need it again. ;)

But I suppose that means I still need to figure out how much the thing is worth…

Re: Enchanting a Weapon vs. Target X
 

Ghost slayer amulet: Hero died on a quest to recover his grandmother's $10 trinket. Find the amulet and toss it at his ghost and he'll vanish in a puff of logic.

Re: Enchanting a Weapon vs. Target X
 

Certainly the best way to control the 'flow' of magical abilities and items in a campaign is to simply make them unavailable for automatic-access training and purchace from the wizard's guild.

Re: Enchanting a Weapon vs. Target X
 

I don't know about "complex and tortuous", but house rules can plug the "can be gamed in irritating ways" parts. (e.g. "No using Charms to avoid enchanting risks" and/or "there are no Charms")

Yes, I think "magic items are just available at list price" makes for magic items dominating a campaign.


Dwarf makes magic item - only works against orcs and dragons, or simply doesn't work against dwarves.

Re: Enchanting a Weapon vs. Target X
 

This seems to me that a weapon that doesn't work against a select group might actually cost more. "HA HA! My weapons doesn't get any bonuses against ME!"

I always call objects 'artifacts' when the effect or ability doesn't quite fit in with the magic item creation rules and it's likely to be a unique item, right up there with the solar powered flashlight.

Re: Enchanting a Weapon vs. Target X
 

Perhaps a sample list of unique legendary artifacts of Cidri could be provided to spark GM creative juices?

The article could also cover such things as what Spellsniffer or Master Armourer could determine about the items.

Re: Enchanting a Weapon vs. Target X
 

Here is a bit from the Artifact document I made for my world of Goranth.

"Magic items from other worlds might work on principles not know to the people of Goranth, but they still work. And once you understand how to make a magic artifact function, you can use it until it breaks or its magic runs out.

Enter magic items from other worlds and crossovers from other game systems. A wand that shoots 5d6 fireballs with no FT cost sounds awesome, but what if you can only use it 22 times? Or a ring of invisibility that stops working if you take certain actions? Of armor that makes you harder to hit instead of stopping extra damage? Any of these would be artifacts because they do not follow the know laws of magic and science of Goranth."

Here are a few of the "magic Artifact" types from the list:
Anything: this rare melee weapon form can change into any other melee weapon. If a warrior is wielding an Anything broadsword and is confronted by a charging elephant, he can change the Anything broadsword into an Anything Pike, which will inflict greater damage on the charging elephant.
No time is required for the change. However, if you wish to set for a charge or hold your action for later, you must have initiative; then you may change the weapon and act as appropriate.
Buoyant: this type of armor or clothing does not sink. If thrown into water it will float on the surface. It is not buoyant enough to stop the wearer from drowning, but it will not hinder his ability to swim. When in water, do not count the armor’s weight against the swimmers skill.
Charges: Some magic items function a limited number of times in a given time period; this could be per day, per week, per month, or in the items lifetime. A healing wand that works once a day is nice, since it never ‘wears out.’ A healing wand that will work 27 times and then be just a fancy stick is also nice, but not for as long. Any enchantment could be charged, but some wouldn’t be very practical.
Deflection: this is an armor bonus that makes you harder to hit. Add 1pt to your opponents die roll for each +1 of the armor or shield. In this case your enemy’s weapon seems to just hit, but it slides off instead of penetrating the armor.
Distance Cutting: allows the wielder to make melee attacks from up to 3-hexes distance from the target. Damage is calculated and inflicted normally.
Weightlessness: The armor, clothing, shield, or weapon does not count against your weight limit. This could be complete weightlessness (doesn’t count as encumbrance, even when in your backpack or on your belt) or partial (weighs a % of normal weight).

Here are a couple of specific items from the list:
Tenser’s Floating Disk: This is a blue/green crystalline, slightly bowl shaped, disk with a gold rim. The rim is inscribed with arcane symbols, some of which have been translated to “Tenser’s floating disk.”
The disk floats 2ft off the ground and can be loaded with people and/or gear weighing up to 400lb. The disk moves by the mental control of the owner with an MA 14 or less. The disk chooses its new owner (normally the first sentient being to touch it) when the old owner dies or has been out of physical contact for more than 1 year.
Magic Timekeeper: Not a mechanical watch, but a magical one. It keeps time for the world it is on, speeding up and slowing down to suit the length of the day and dividing it into 24 hours. It is a 3in round medallion with 2 moving hands behind a clear crystal lens. It can be work on a chain or carried in a pocket.

Most of the stuff was taken from other fantasy RPGs, one of which is pretty obvious, while others are my own creations.

Re: Enchanting a Weapon vs. Target X
 

I don't think I would want a super specialized Limited magic weapon.

I'd rather make/use a wide use magical weapon.

Sword of Sharpness comes to mind.

On any double damage to hit roll, the victim takes a hit directly to a limb, and regardless if it's 2 hits or 18 hits, the limb is severed. On a triple damage the head is severed.

Beyond these exceptional hits the weapon is just treated as a magical weapon of fine craftsmanship, being +1 to hit and +1 to damage, as a fine weapon of this caliber is require to create a Sword of Sharpness.

Re: Enchanting a Weapon vs. Target X
 

q.v. the Crippling Hits optional rule on ITL p.122.

Re: Enchanting a Weapon vs. Target X
 

I concur, that generally the thought process.

But... the Sword of Sharpness mentioned above only functions on a double damage or triple damage roll.

It's actually Less "critical" to strike than the Optional Crippling rule on ITL p. 122

But...the Sword of Sharpness is much more defined, If you Double, a Limb is severed...bring on Regeneration or your are SOL.

Roll a Triple, and decapitation, no save...Bring on a Wish.