Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Gnarl 12-03-06, 04:45 PM	Hi guys, I could use some constructive criticism on this spell (balance, flavour, wording, spell level etc...). I don't think it would reck my game but I'd like to make sure I'm not missing any obvious potential obuses with the spells. TRANSFER ENCHANTMENT Universal Level: Wizard/Sorcerer 3 Components: V, S, M Casting Time: 8 hours Range: Touch Target: One magic item and one non magical masterwork Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless, object) Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless, object) When using the Transfer Enchantment spells, you may transfer the enchantments on a magical item to another item of masterwork quality. The resulting magical item must be legal in all ways and the cost of the resulting enchantment must be equal or lower than the cost of the initial enchantment. Artificats cannot be affected by this spell. For example, you could transfer the +2 enhancement bonus to hit and to damage from a +2 halberd to a masterwork longsword but you could not transfer the +2 enhancement bonus to intelligence from a headband to gloves because the body slot affinity rule would make the resulting item 50% more expense than the initial one. Arcane Material Component: Various reagents depending on the involved items worth 10% of cost of the initial item. I'm thinking about making higher level, cheaper versions of the spell. Something like 5% of the cost at 6th level and free at 9th. Thanks for your help. Gnarl
Nathreet 12-03-06, 06:01 PM	For the transfer to be effective, the sum of the costs of the initial items must be lower or equal to the sum of the costs of the resulting items. Swap "initial" and "resulting". But other than that and other technicalities, I see no problems with the spell. It's not like you're publishing the spell; I wouldn't worry too much about the wording. I'd also say that you must meet the prerequisites to create all the items involved (old and new), including caster level, spells known, etc. Follow those restrictions and this could even be a 2nd level spell. A higher level version might let you ignore some spells-known prerequisites, but never caster level prerequisities. The casting time seems right on the button. Add that you may perform mundane activities during this time, such as eating, but nothing intensive. And the casting time extends by the time taken for these activities. I dunno about the material component. I dunno if it is even necessary to have any material component or if it should cost more or less.
User5127 12-03-06, 06:51 PM	hmm i liek the idea of the spell. but i'd be worried about some one taking a few weaker magic items and combining them in a way.. I'd require the enhancement bonus on items to be the same. so I could change something like a +2 short sword to a +2 halberd. no adding or rearanging properties, just moving them from one item type to another. spell fails if it can't have that type of enchantment (IE: keen on a blunt weapon) and an exp req as well, other wise players will swap enchaments willy nilly. and they must meet all pre-reqs to create the item in questioin in order to cast the spell. otherwise it fails i'd probably up the spell level to 4th as well. since changing the properties of a magic item is a pretty hard thing to do. or rather, it should be ahrd to do, but doable.
risner 12-04-06, 12:28 AM	The only other valid way to do something similar is Wish. I don't see why this needs to be 3rd level and consider it broken at 3rd. I wouldn't allow it below 8th level in the current form. I definitely wouldn't allow half cost or free versions of the spell.
ScipioX 12-04-06, 03:19 AM	Risner, care to explain why? Personally, I think that it should just be limited to swapping enchantments from one item to another. The current mix and matching is too much like item creation. T The biggest problem I see with it currently is its just so complex, but it also allows for a lot of potential mix maxing. Right now it allows players to customize their equipment for each major situation they're in. thus if they're starting a sea going campaign, or the evil lich king has invaded with his undead army, they can optomize all their gear in just a few days. I know if the party wizard had access to that, I'd pick up a bunch of bane weapons. If its limited to just transferring an enchangment from an existing item to a non-magical masterwork item, its fine. Helping players use non-standard weapons is probably a good thing.
Gnarl 12-04-06, 04:08 AM	I think I messed up the wording :D You can't create an enchantment that isn't on an item when the spell is cast. What I had in mind was to be able to take a little something from one item and put it on another. If neither weapon has the flaming ability, the resulting items can't have it. The sum of the costs limit ensures that you can't make one powerful item out of multiple smaller ones since stacking enchantments to an item multiples the cost by 1.5. In any event, for the sake of clarity and to prevent some potential abuses I thought of (like rearranging bane weapons to match the opponent’s race), I’ll rewrite the spell. The only other valid way to do something similar is Wish. I don't see why this needs to be 3rd level and consider it broken at 3rd. I wouldn't allow it below 8th level in the current form. I definitely wouldn't allow half cost or free versions of the spell. If you're not planning on developing your points, please keep your opinions for yourself. I asked for constructive criticism. Now of course if you’re willing to share with us why you think this is abusive than I really would like to hear that.
risner 12-04-06, 09:34 AM	If you're not planning on developing your points, please keep your opinions for yourself. I asked for constructive criticism. Now of course if you’re willing to share with us why you think this is abusive than I really would like to hear that. I did share. So I can only assume that means you don't want constructive criticism of any time that isn't "hey this is awesome." I would never allow this spell in any campaign and I would never play in any campaign that allows this spell. I understood everything from your first post that you clarified in this last post. The spell at 3rd level (5th level Wizard) is similar to only one other spell (9th level Wish, 17th level Wizard.) No other feat or ability allows this level of item creation short of Wish. In fact, the closest WotC came to this other than Wish is an artifact called Dwarven Glow stones.
DrMorganes 12-04-06, 09:46 AM	Hi guys, I could use some constructive criticism on this spell (balance, flavour, wording, spell level etc...). I don't think it would reck my game but I'd like to make sure I'm not missing any obvious potential obuses with the spells. TRANSFER ENCHANTMENT Universal Level: Wizard/Sorcerer 3 Components: V, S, M Casting Time: 8 hours Range: Touch Target: One magic item and one non magical masterwork Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless, object) Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless, object) When using the Transfer Enchantment spells, you may transfer the enchantments on a magical item to another item of masterwork quality. The resulting magical item must be legal in all ways and the cost of the resulting enchantment must be equal or lower than the cost of the initial enchantment. Artificats cannot be affected by this spell. For example, you could transfer the +2 enhancement bonus to hit and to damage from a +2 halberd to a masterwork longsword but you could not transfer the +2 enhancement bonus to intelligence from a headband to gloves because the body slot affinity rule would make the resulting item 50% more expense than the initial one. Arcane Material Component: Various reagents depending on the involved items worth 10% of cost of the initial item. I'm thinking about making higher level, cheaper versions of the spell. Something like 5% of the cost at 6th level and free at 9th. Hm. What happens to the initial item? I'm assuming you intend this spell to remove the enchantments from one item and place them on another. However, at some point you'll run into a player who feels "transfer" means "copy". Best to specifically state that the initial item becomes non-magical upon completion of this spell.
Gnarl 12-04-06, 10:10 AM	Hm. What happens to the initial item? I'm assuming you intend this spell to remove the enchantments from one item and place them on another. However, at some point you'll run into a player who feels "transfer" means "copy". Best to specifically state that the initial item becomes non-magical upon completion of this spell. You're right thank you. Of course the other item becomes non magical :D
User5127 12-04-06, 12:19 PM	Gnarl's Magical Transfusion Universal Level: Wizard/Sorcerer 6 or 7 Components: V, S, M, XP Casting Time: see text Range: Touch Target: One magic item and one non magical masterwork Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless, object) Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless, object) When you cast Gnarl's Magic Transfusion, you may move the enchantments on a magical item to another item of at least masterwork quality. The resulting magical item must be legal in all ways (as if you created the item through normal means). The cost of the magical properties in the new item must be equal to or less than the cost of the item the properties came from, non magical components (like the cost a masterwork weapon) can be ignored. Artifacts cannot be affected by this spell. You still need the feats needed to create the kind of magic item you are affecting with this spell, but you don't need the spells. As well, you must meet all CL requirements that the new magic item will have. For example, you could transfer the magical properties of a +2 keen longsword to a masterwork halberd and get a +2 keen halberd and a masterwork longsword. But you could not transfer the +2 enhancement bonus to intelligence from a headband to a slotless ring because the body slot affinity rule would make the resulting item more expense than the initial one (though you could do the reverse and turn a slotless item into a slotted one, as long as doing so doesn't break any of the above limitations). This spell takes 1 hour to cast per 1000 gp of the value of the new item to be created, minimun of 1 hour. Arcane Material Component: Various reagents depending on the involved items worth 5% of cost of the initial item. XP cost: 500XP or the xp that would be needed to create the new magic item from scratch, wich ever is less. I'd allow the spell in my campaign if it looked like the above. I think a variable casting time makes sense since you are almost creating a new magic item, more expensive items should take longer to create. but a small item can be done reasonably quick. as well the spell should have an xp cost. I don't mind the players casting the spell, but I don't want the to re-arrange all thier equipment willy nilly. I dropped the cost to create the item because I added an xp cost. these two things help bring the item in line with the feel of psuedo magic item creation rules. I ruled you need the feats as well, since the feats allow your character to understand the intricacies of combining magic into nonmagical things. I dropped the spells known requirement because the spells needed to create a magic item like that are in the magic item you are targeting. ie: +2 keen longsword has the spells needed to make it that way already, you are just moving them from one item to another. I clarified the cost rule in the spell. the way it was ruled at first wasn't clear. What I mean when I say that is if I had a +2 dagger, and I wanted to turn it into a +2 longsword, I can't. the longsword costs more than a dagger. I could turn a +2 longsword into a +2 dagger though. so i think that was just an overlooked technicality and wasn't the intention of the original spell. I upped the spell level to 6 or 7, I'm not sure wich I'd place it at. probably a 7th level spell. this thing allows you to create a more useful magic item (most of the time) alot faster than normal means. a lower level version of the spell (say 3 or 4th) would allow you to repair broken magical items alot faster than normal. IE: your +5 vorpral greatsword that was sundered can be repaired faster and cheaper with a spell similar to this one than through normal magic item creation ways. And of course you must be able to create the item in question through normal means. meaning you need the feats and CL to do it. TRANSFER ENCHANTMENT Universal Level: Wizard/Sorcerer 3 Components: V, S, M Casting Time: 8 hours Range: Touch Target: One magic item and one non magical masterwork Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless, object) Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless, object) When using the Transfer Enchantment spells, you may transfer the enchantments on a magical item to another item of masterwork quality. The resulting magical item must be legal in all ways and the cost of the resulting enchantment must be equal or lower than the cost of the initial enchantment. Artificats cannot be affected by this spell. For example, you could transfer the +2 enhancement bonus to hit and to damage from a +2 halberd to a masterwork longsword but you could not transfer the +2 enhancement bonus to intelligence from a headband to gloves because the body slot affinity rule would make the resulting item 50% more expense than the initial one. Arcane Material Component: Various reagents depending on the involved items worth 10% of cost of the initial item. for referance purposes. ^_^
Gnarl 12-04-06, 12:39 PM	User5127 with all the restrictions you added the spell is nearly worthless. It will cost the players less money and as much experience points to sell the initial item and create a brand new one using the item creation feats. They would only gain a little time but I'm not sure a few days of work are worth the extra money. The whole idea is to give the players a break when they get both gauntlets of ogre strength and gloves of dexterity for instance. With a little extra money, the could have both instead of selling the items. But to be perfectly honest, I'm still not sure it's a good idea :D and I really wonder how game breaking it can get. I like your idea of adding an experience point cost, but maybe not as much as the cost to create the item. Thank you all for your help.
SeattleLightning 12-04-06, 12:53 PM	I tend to agree with Risner, though User5217's suggestion makes me feel a little better about it.
[GSV] Kirstar 12-04-06, 04:09 PM	Here is the rewrite of teh 2nd ed version of the spell. Transfer Enchantment Enchantment Level: Sor/Wiz 7 Components: V, S, M Casting Time: 1 Hour Range: Touch Duration: Permanent Effect: 1 magic item Saving Throw: Willing Only Spell Resistance: Yes This spell "steals" the enchantment from a magical item and places it within another, non-magical item (the material component). Both objects must be touched by the wizard during casting. The two items must be of the same category (blunt weapon, edged weapon, ring, amulet, shield, armour, wand, etc.). The enchantment can be transferred only to a non-magical item. Only the energy of one item can be transferred; it is not possible to combine two magical items into one item. The new item has all the properties of the original magical item (including the same number of charges, if any). At the culmination of the spell, the original magical object is left non-magical but unharmed. Only un-attended or willing attended objects may be effected by this spell. The success of this spell is not guaranteed. There is a chance that the enchantment might be lost during transfer. The chance of success is 75% + 1% per level of the caster, to a maximum of 95% at 20th level. If the transfer fails, the enchantment is lost, both items become non-magical. The material component is the non-magical item which is to receive the enchantment. It must be of masterwork quality, and of equal or greater value than the object to be drained.
Gnarl 12-04-06, 04:18 PM	I did share. So I can only assume that means you don't want constructive criticism of any time that isn't "hey this is awesome." I would never allow this spell in any campaign and I would never play in any campaign that allows this spell. I understood everything from your first post that you clarified in this last post. I was expecting a little more than 'yuck it's broken'. 'Yuck it's broken because blablabla....' would be extremely appreciated. I would like to give my players a break but I don't want to ruin my game because I failed to see the consequences of one of my own custom spells. My mind is not set on whether I should allow this spell or not and that's why I'm asking for advice here. Once again, 'yuck it's broken' is worth nothing if you don't explain to me why. In the end I might even agree with you. What is so bad about letting the party fighter who has focused on a single weapon steal the enchantment from another weapon he hasn't focused on. I feel I'm robbing the fighter when I put a nice weapon he can't really take advantage of. Please tell me, that's all I'm asking for here :D The spell at 3rd level (5th level Wizard) is similar to only one other spell (9th level Wish, 17th level Wizard.) No other feat or ability allows this level of item creation short of Wish. In fact, the closest WotC came to this other than Wish is an artifact called Dwarven Glow stones. That you are very right on. Nothing Wotc has published that I know of is even close from this spell. New does not mean broken. If it's not within the spirit of the game the way you see it that's cool with me, but that does not make something mechanicaly broken.
wonlee76 12-04-06, 05:07 PM	The edited version looks okay but here are a few of my concerns. 1: It bypasses the xp cost that is normally associated with item creation in general. I understand that this xp cost was "paid" by whoever crafted the first magical item but being able to swap it onto another item seems kind of cheap to me. Maybe put an XP cost to the spell equal to what it would normally cost the caster to craft the item from scratch. (1/25 of the GP cost of the item). The fact that it bypasses the need for the item crafting feat itself is powerful enough as is so having the caster have to pay the xp cost seems reasonable to me. 2: Shortened time. Typically it takes days to craft an item. This spell truncates that time down to 8 hours no matter what the enhancement is. Being able to transfer the +5 Flaming enhancement of a halberd to a PC's longsword without having to spend the usual time necessary to do so seems kind of cheap to me in the sense that the PC who took the item crafting feat just got ripped off by a 3rd level spell. My suggestion would be change the casting time to 8 hours per day per 1,000 gp in value of the magical item in question. 3: Speaking of ripping off the PC who takes an item creation feat, there should be some kind of cap on the transferring ability. A level 9 PC with Craft Magical Arms & Armor could normally craft up to a +3 item. If a DM lets a +4 weapon slip into the game, this 3rd level spell lets the transferrence happen without meeting the pre-requisite normally associated with the item crafting feat. So maybe adding a clause to the spell saying that all pre-requisites normally required to craft the magical enhancements must be met by the spellcaster or something similar.
infideli 12-04-06, 08:31 PM	Kirstar;10817969']Here is the rewrite of teh 2nd ed version of the spell. I like the steal enchantment from 2e also. I used it for two main reasons, the third reason was for image... always having a sword that looks exactly the same but has varied powers. -The first reason was so that my wizard could take 3 thin staves that are "woven" together an be held in one hand at the same time. You are touching all of them so you could command any of them without switching staves. The same thing goes for wands too or rings, though you would have to be like Jarlaxle and mentally command which of the rings was active. -The second reason was very similiar to the first, imagine "twin" short swords capable of being stored in one sheath, designed that when grasped in one hand they were still easy to use as a single one.... then throw shocking and speed on one, while the other has flaming and flight. The only changes to your the steal enchantment spell for 3.5 would be to: -change the duration to INSTANTANEOUS -change the percentage to a spellcraft DC = (15 + CL of the item) with a +4 bonus if you are capable of crafting the item in question. G
User5127 12-04-06, 10:04 PM	actually the xp cost caps at 500XP. so if the item was something sick with a huge xp cost it would cost only 500XP to do the spell version, but it would take longer to cast the spell because of the GP time requirement. the only requirement for the creation of the item is that they are the correct CL for it and that they have the prereq feats. since there are alot of restictions in my version of the spell I don't see why it couldn't be of a lower level version. but since the spell essentially has an item creation feel to what it can do, it would be a good idea to flesh out that feeling more, with the xp cost and material component cost and casting time being variable. as well. an errata to the spell. you can't quicken it. or mabye you can. who knows? but seriosuly, if I took your version of the spell I could quicken it into a 7th level slot and for a swift action transfer magic from one item to another. in the heat of battle that could be brutal. and possibly broken. it the spell is at least 6th level you need a 10th level slot to quicken it, so you'd have to be epic. and by the time you are high enough in level to cast 6th level spells, 500 xp (max) isn't to bad to basically change the form of a magic item to something else.
risner 12-05-06, 09:12 AM	I was expecting a little more than 'yuck it's broken'. 'Yuck it's broken because blablabla....' How about you tell me why you think it should be lower level than Wish (9th) and why it should be lower level than the 2nd edition version (7th) when it is identical if not better?
Finarin Panjoro 12-05-06, 03:29 PM	The problem I see with it is that this begins to screw with the wealth by level charts to some degree. It lets players take a less useful treasure and convert it into a useful treasure of the same value. Normally they would have to sell the less useful treasure at 50% value and so would need two such treasures to get the useful one. So you really are letting them get away with something here. However the spell is not without merit. I would require that the caster be capable of making the final item normally (he would need all requisite spells, item creation feats, and caster level). The material component would be 25% of the value of the new item, full XP cost for crafting the new item, and the old item would be destroyed in the process. The reason for destroying the initial weapon is that hopefully the fighter isn't going to just let you transfer the magic from his sword into the rogue's dagger if it means he's not going to get the sword back. I'd probably raise the spell level to 4th level. Its probably not going to see great use before that point anyway because the PCs aren't likely to have weapons with high enough bonuses to warrant transfering. Around 7th level they're likely to be getting some +2 weapons (flaming, bane, etc) with magic that is desireable to transfer. Previous to that the difference between a +1 weapon and a masterwork weapon is usually negilible. It's only a real issue when you come up against DR and that's what the spell magic weapon is for.
Gnarl 12-05-06, 03:49 PM	The problem I see with it is that this begins to screw with the wealth by level charts to some degree. It lets players take a less useful treasure and convert it into a useful treasure of the same value. Normally they would have to sell the less useful treasure at 50% value and so would need two such treasures to get the useful one. So you really are letting them get away with something here. That's a very good point you got there. I think I might reconsider before letting this spell lose.
Llathos 12-05-06, 05:02 PM	I think the spell is a cool idea, frankly. I'm a little confused once you start to digress into wondrous items though. When you are talking about taking the enchantment off the shiny new full plate +3 you found and putting it on your rogue's leather, I think it sounds cool. When you start talking about winding together a pair of attribute boosting pieces of jewelry or clothing, you've lost me. Risner, you're usually pretty sensible but lately you've been kinda inflammatory and over the top. Been having a bad couple days? :confused: First the billion gold estimate on the epic ring and now this. This isn't a 9th level spell. It's not even close in my opinion....but maybe I'm being naive with the OP's intent... Again, I'm thinking about transferring basic enhancement bonuses, was that not the goal of this? If not, then maybe I'd think about scoping it down to that level.
risner 12-05-06, 10:49 PM	Risner, you're usually pretty sensible but lately you've been kinda inflammatory and over the top. Been having a bad couple days? :confused: First the billion gold estimate on the epic ring and now this. This isn't a 9th level spell. It's not even close in my opinion....but maybe I'm being naive with the OP's intent... The "250 HP mass heal at will each round" item was over the top. I still think a billion is a fair price for something as absurd as that. As for this, I don't think it should be 9th level. It needs to be 6th to 7th level, since similar (if not identical) abilities designed by WotC are 7th to 9th level. I just don't see what the OP has created here that warrants lowering the level below what WotC set for this type of action. I don't see how it is limited in such a way as to allow it to be a lower level spell.
SephDragoon 12-06-06, 02:43 AM	How about you tell me why you think it should be lower level than Wish (9th) and why it should be lower level than the 2nd edition version (7th) when it is identical if not better? Because Wish can do ANYTHING within limits... this does one thing. THe same arguement can be made since wish can be used to cast any spell of lower level than it. Does that make fireball level 9 as well? You know, this whole spell could be alot better if you stopped thinking of transfering, made it a transmutation, and gave it the ability to change a weapon's shape instead (or other item's shape).
Gnarl 12-06-06, 03:21 AM	As for this, I don't think it should be 9th level. It needs to be 6th to 7th level, since similar (if not identical) abilities designed by WotC are 7th to 9th level. I just don't see what the OP has created here that warrants lowering the level below what WotC set for this type of action. I don't see how it is limited in such a way as to allow it to be a lower level spell. That I can explain. To start, I didn't know about the 2nd edition spell. Anyway, 2nd and 3rd edition have a very different approach to item creation so I have doubts on whether you can apply 2nd edition logic to determine balance on this topic or not. The level of the spell is to my mind irrelevant. If the game mechanically breaks because of the spell as a 3rd level spell it will also break as a 7th level spell. It’s pretty much a matter of how early in their career is a DM ready to allow his players to rearrange their body slots, weapons and armors because that’s what we’re really talking about. The random treasures are made in a way that on average, after 12 fights of your CR, a party of 4 characters has average wealth for its level (check out page 52 of your DM’ Guide). Furthermore, the DM’s Guide does not have alternate body slots for items making a lot of these items useless at mid to high levels. These are the main reasons I felt a spell like this one should exist. Now I also felt that the spell needed some ‘balancing’ factor somewhere. Balancing factors for spells are experience and gold. To my mind, this spell is supposed to complement item creation and not replace it so adding an experience point cost doesn’t feel right. Furthermore, for these kinds of spells, I prefer when the beneficiary pays the cost. So that removes experience points. The material component should be anywhere from free to 50% of the item’s cost. At 50% it’s the same as selling the item and buying a new one. Considering that characters without item creation feats would be, on average, below average wealth per level without the spell, I felt it should be cheap. 10% was a guess; it could have been 25%, I’m not settled on that part yet. I don’t know about you guys but the idea I liked the most so far was infideli’s suggestion.
Gnarl 12-06-06, 03:24 AM	You know, this whole spell could be alot better if you stopped thinking of transfering, made it a transmutation, and gave it the ability to change a weapon's shape instead (or other item's shape). Now that... that is... so simple. :D I like the idea a lot.
saidin0111 12-06-06, 03:53 AM	either something like reworking the weapon into another weapon, or fusing the enchanted weapon into a masterwork weapon of another kind, it should probably cost the full amount to craft a masterwork weapon if you transmute it, and a somewhat lesser amount if you fused it into a new weapon