| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Wenin |
Posted - 22 Nov 2010 : 01:03:52
What kind of action would it take to "willingly" lower the spell resistance afforded by the Staff?
I have a GM that wants to have it so that I must make a Readied action in order to lower the resistance and absorb the spell. I'm unsure of where I am on this issue, as I do see the ability to absorb spells to be damn handy, especially if you keep the staff low on charges.
A question that I thought about.... it states Single Target or Ray spells.
What about spells that allows for multiple targets, but the caster only picks a single target? Magic Missile, Scorching Ray... etc?
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 08 Dec 2010 : 21:47:05
Depends on what you do with it >:) |
| althen artren |
Posted - 08 Dec 2010 : 07:41:26
I have decided that if the PC's do their research and
go out of their way for special components that the
Creation Dc is a little less, and the powers incorporated
into the item get like +1 dmg/die or +1 to the Dc for the
save or whatnot. Give your pc's rewards for role-playing
out the process. Lets face it, in the era of min/max for
character creation, +1 per die extra damage doesn't go very far. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 08 Dec 2010 : 06:23:57
Hey, when you're only rolling d4's for hit points you need to hold on to every point of CON you can keep. A big invincible bodyguard won't help if he's impervious to the Fireball that kills you. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 08 Dec 2010 : 06:13:52
Don't know if it's been mentioned, but there were some really good examples of item creation in the 2nd ed Book of Artifacts. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 08 Dec 2010 : 06:02:12
quote:
Originally posted by Arik
It also didn't explain very well - given 2E race/class restrictions and such - why wizards would waste so much time filling the pages of the DMG with dozens of varieties of weapons, armour, and other items a wizard simply cannot use. Yes, they might multiclass or be commissioned to craft a two-handed battleaxe or ethereal plate armour or whatnot, but you'd think the vast preponderance of magical items littering the world would be staves, daggers, robes, and that sort of stuff.
I don't remember where I saw it, but there was a quote in one of the 2E books that said the best survival method for a wizard was to get some armor, enchant it as much as possible, put it on a fighter-type, and then stay behind him.  |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 08 Dec 2010 : 00:01:03
It also didn't explain very well - given 2E race/class restrictions and such - why wizards would waste so much time filling the pages of the DMG with dozens of varieties of weapons, armour, and other items a wizard simply cannot use. Yes, they might multiclass or be commissioned to craft a two-handed battleaxe or ethereal plate armour or whatnot, but you'd think the vast preponderance of magical items littering the world would be staves, daggers, robes, and that sort of stuff. |
| Wenin |
Posted - 07 Dec 2010 : 16:10:35
I can agree with that, as 3.5 is kinda like finding the man behind the curtain. It also certainly lowers expectations of there being a lot of effort to make magic items.
My memory maybe completely failing me, or I didn't know of a source, but the recipes to create the magic items were largely absent. Having a list as with the Staff of the Magi, was very rare. It may also be that I played 2nd edition when I was a teenager, with other teenagers.... we just made up stuff. If we wanted a magic item, we just thought it up, and we were done. We never created recipes for our own designs, ignoring the downfalls of permanency. =) As for magic items within the DMG, they were meant to be found, never created. =)
So yeah, to me 2nd Edition magic item creation was a Wizard of Oz like thing. The system itself seemed magical, since it didn't seem to explain the existance of sub-epic magic items. =) |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 07 Dec 2010 : 16:00:35
quote:
Originally posted by Wenin
I'm saying that the 3.5 magic item construction rules leaves plenty of room for a GM to still require a character to go on quests to find ultra rare materials to build things like a Staff of the Magi. It is after all a CL 20 item, which identifies it as an near epic level item to create. The amount of gold spent on making a magic item is only to represent the relative cost of the materials needed to create the item. A GM could easily have the players actually collect the materials by hand, and require that they find the correct recipe to create a Staff of the Magi. There is no requirement for a GM to allow for a pile of gold to be dumped into a cauldron, melted, and then easily but slowly poored upon a masterwork staff over the course of a few months.
Hence the ease of crafting a Staff of the Magi is still completely up to the GM.
In the end a Staff of the Magi could be just as hard to make in 3rd edition, as it was in 2nd edition. Cause it all comes down to the GM laying out a series of adventures that are designed with the end result being the character obtaining what is needed to make the Staff of the Magi. In 2nd Edition, it could be covered by a single adventure of robbing a wizard's tower that holds all the materials. =)
Though in defense of the "2nd Edition was harder", it was always the Con drain that made making magic items so damn difficult in 2nd edition. =) I'm glad that's gone, along with the requirement of using the Permanency spell. Huge improvement with just that overall change.
I can see that losing the Con drain is an improvement, but I still felt that magic item creation in 2E was more flavorful than it was in 3E.  |
| Wenin |
Posted - 07 Dec 2010 : 15:55:27
I'm saying that the 3.5 magic item construction rules leaves plenty of room for a GM to still require a character to go on quests to find ultra rare materials to build things like a Staff of the Magi. It is after all a CL 20 item, which identifies it as an near epic level item to create. The amount of gold spent on making a magic item is only to represent the relative cost of the materials needed to create the item. A GM could easily have the players actually collect the materials by hand, and require that they find the correct recipe to create a Staff of the Magi. There is no requirement for a GM to allow for a pile of gold to be dumped into a cauldron, melted, and then easily but slowly poored upon a masterwork staff over the course of a few months.
Hence the ease of crafting a Staff of the Magi is still completely up to the GM.
In the end a Staff of the Magi could be just as hard to make in 3rd edition, as it was in 2nd edition. Cause it all comes down to the GM laying out a series of adventures that are designed with the end result being the character obtaining what is needed to make the Staff of the Magi. In 2nd Edition, it could be covered by a single adventure of robbing a wizard's tower that holds all the materials. =)
Though in defense of the "2nd Edition was harder", it was always the Con drain that made making magic items so damn difficult in 2nd edition. =) I'm glad that's gone, along with the requirement of using the Permanency spell. Huge improvement with just that overall change. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 07 Dec 2010 : 07:50:18
Fair enough, Wenin. *I* should have elaborated: a Staff of the Magi is magnitudes more difficult to craft than a weapon +1, most especially under the more difficult "old style" magic-item-creation rules. (Of course, that also doesn't really need to be said. But if impossible/exotic/rare materials are required, especially if they're needed for each individual magical ability of the item, then making a single such staff could be a career in itself. Yes, collecting all the components for a lowly weapon +1 wouldn't require much more than a little quest or two.) |
| Wenin |
Posted - 07 Dec 2010 : 07:09:41
Was that really needed to be said? I don't believe my point needs more elaboration, in order to not confuse you into thinking that I was equating a Staff of the Magi to a +1 weapon. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 06 Dec 2010 : 17:14:54
A Staff of the Magi is a far more than a weapon +1. |
| Wenin |
Posted - 06 Dec 2010 : 05:13:36
I personally love the 3.5 system of Item Creation, and don't feel they went far enough to better detail the system.
It is also a system that doesn't deny a GM from having players needing to obtain rare items or recipes to create items. Though if a GM was to institute that level of detail, then they should keep in mind the amount of magic that is out there. Essentially, a +1 weapon shouldn't require much in the way of rare materials. =)
I also don't look at 3rd edition without considering the problems that existed in prior systems. |
| Jakk |
Posted - 06 Dec 2010 : 03:53:30
I agree in part, Wooly... but my biggest complaint about 3E magic item creation was how rules-laden it became. Knowing "how" was nice, but there didn't need to be a whole rules subsystem for it; just tell us which spells are needed, and describe the physical components in more detail, if not more poetically, as you mention. I like the "impossible substances" idea too, but I'm pretty happy with the system as it exists now with Pathfinder. Maybe just because I've gotten used to it with 3.x... |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 05 Dec 2010 : 05:04:05
As a DM, I'd say that crafting magical items would be easier and result in more powerful items if relevant materials were involved. Maybe not impossible ingredients, like Arik mentions, but still appropriate stuff. Like, for lightning-based magical items, either wood from the stump of a tree struck by natural lightning, or water gathered from that stump after a thunderstorm. For fire magic, maybe coal or sulfur, or the ashes of something destroyed by a fire elemental... And so on.
Of course, to me, all that stuff adds flavor to item crafting. I didn't like the 3E approach to magical items at all -- that's one of the few complaints I have about 3E, is that they did their best to take the wonder out of magic. |
| Rhewtani |
Posted - 05 Dec 2010 : 00:05:28
That's some magma, some hail, and a moon rock, right? |
| althen artren |
Posted - 01 Dec 2010 : 00:11:16
You would if your DM is EVIL  |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 30 Nov 2010 : 07:13:53
A Staff of the Magi is definitely much easier to craft in 3E than in 2E. For starters, in 3E you don't need to figure out how to collect a ton of "impossible materials" ("breath of a mountain", "tears of a wargod", "bones of the moon", and such). |
| althen artren |
Posted - 30 Nov 2010 : 02:51:55
Going back to Harpell for a second, he actually know how to
make them before he was epic level. So it can't bee
all that difficult despite what the DMG says in 3.x. |
| Wenin |
Posted - 29 Nov 2010 : 15:32:02
This is one weird thread. I tried to reply to this yesterday and it failed.
Thanks for the info on the spell resistance. I wasn't aware that it took a standard action to lower. That is really all I needed. |
| althen artren |
Posted - 28 Nov 2010 : 02:21:27
If he knows, it means that the formula is out there, plus
there are lost ones. Ed says there is one in the Royal Palace in
Suzail that acts as a bed post, and one lost in the roof tops of
Suzail. |
| Dracons |
Posted - 27 Nov 2010 : 23:50:50
Never said he did open a factory, just that it be shocking if he didn't know HOW to make one :). |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 27 Nov 2010 : 23:38:31
Knowing how to make such staves doesn't mean opening a factory. Even under easy new item creation rules, a Staff of the Magi would require a very serious investment in time and resources. Assuming that's all Malchor wants to do with his life. |
| Dracons |
Posted - 27 Nov 2010 : 20:45:59
quote:
Originally posted by althen artren
well Malchor Harpell knows how to make them, so
maybe they are more common.
Malchor Harpell is also an epic level character, with a history of magic studying, his family studies magic, his family history, all magic. It be shocking if he didn't know how to craft one. |
| althen artren |
Posted - 27 Nov 2010 : 19:48:01
well Malchor Harpell knows how to make them, so
maybe they are more common. |
| Razz |
Posted - 27 Nov 2010 : 15:17:00
Bah no mention of Gremlins...it still peeves me to think WotC never bothered doing 3.5 stats for them. I guess their Tome of Horror I stats work out for now, and Pathfinder has a number of them, though it's their own versions. |
| Dracons |
Posted - 24 Nov 2010 : 01:47:15
Same here bro. It's a very rare item in my world, that one of my players was in shock when he found one that was in ruins. He's spent alot of time and money working to get it to repair against the elder evil they're about to face.
I've just seen some DMs and players here, and other boards, that feel that they're god simply because they're a wizard at level 1 or 2. That no fighter can dare go against, and Kings better kiss their asses. A player tried that attitude, they'd be jailed or worst. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 24 Nov 2010 : 01:38:28
Well - I might be wrong - but offhand I can only name perhaps a half-dozen NPCs in the Realms who are known to own a Staff of the Magi. In my Realms such a staff far rarer than commonplace walking sticks for every puny 12th level wizard. |
| Dracons |
Posted - 23 Nov 2010 : 18:36:51
AHh but remember Arik. It's Forgotten Realms. Wizards are suppose to have staff's of the magi by level 12. A fighter can only have a club. Maybe a MW version if he saved his money up enough.
That just judging from some DM's and player perceptions here that wizards are end all be all in this game. Not something I ever would agree on. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 22 Nov 2010 : 19:41:32
Why would you limit the Staff's absorption powers to just force-effects? Spells like Shield can already protect against such magics.
As DM I would simply use a lesser Staff of Power or even a Staff of Thunder and Lightning (or something similar) before handing out a full-blown Staff of the Magi, but I wouldn't alter the scope of their powers (I personally view them as well-balanced enough, in relation to each other at least, given they are items of great power comparable to lesser artifacts). Especially when considering that each player should possess items of comparable power, just to be fair. Each DM would rule differently, of course.
I'd suggest Cremlins (Computer Gremlins), or maybe even Crimps |
