Attribute Adding Magic Items

[Wayne]

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.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Wayne

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.

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.

[Skarg]

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.)

[Anthony]

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.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Anthony

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

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.

[ecz]

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

[Rick_Smith]

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. ...

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.

[Jim Kane]

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

[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!

[ecz]

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

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.

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.