Magic Items as Attachable Templates - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Magic Items as Attachable Templates

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
samuraichicken
Feb 10, 2010 20:52:13
I came up with a rather interesting idea recently, and I would like to hear your thoughts about it:

Imagine if the magic item descriptions were templates that you can attach to any item that met the prerequisites. While this is true in the extent that DMs do this to make magic weapons and armor (book entry + specific weapon = magic weapon), I’m talking about letting the players add and remove such templates with ease in-game, even to the point of PCs swapping templates with each other, allowing for some interesting tactics.

For those of you who have played Final Fantasy 7, think of the magic item descriptions in the books as materia, and each weapon, armor, and implement as having one materia slot. For those of you who haven’t played the game, here are some examples to help explain what I’m getting at. (for these examples, the magic item templates will be called “runes”).

Example 1:

The PCs fight an orc warlord who wields a greataxe with the Flaming Weapon rune bestowed upon it. After the combat, the party removes the Flaming Weapon rune from the greataxe and attach the rune to the defender’s longsword. With the Flaming Weapon rune, the once non-magical longsword is now brimming with magical energy from the rune.

Example 2:

The party is making preparations to enter a volcanic dungeon, so the defender bestows the Firedrinker Armor rune onto his armor. His longsword with the Flaming Weapon rune will be of little use against the fire-monsters in this region, so he bestows the Frost Weapon rune in it’s place. The Flaming Weapon rune is kept in his backpack for now, not attached to any weapon. He might sell the rune back in town, exchange it for another magic rune, or trade it with an ally later on.

For rules purposes, only armor, weapons, and implements have these attachable templates (“runes”), and only one template per item. This makes it easier for players to keep the same items with them throughout their career. Otherwise, DMs run the risk of the “why does every dungeon have a magical rapier that is better than my current rapier, despite which ancient culture built the dungeon?” This method solves this problem, and lets the DM apply the magic item template to the opponents weapons or armor without having the monsters also wield the same weapons / wear the same armor as the PCs.

Handing out templates makes for better treasure for templates that can be attached to a wide range of items. Normally, treasure is divided based on what kind of weapon/armor/implement it is (the defender always getting the magic longsword, while the striker always gets the magic rapier). With this method, the PCs have to choose who gets which template when they are awarded with templates that can attach to “any” weapon or armor.

Characters can add or remove the magic item templates on their armor, weapons, and implements as many times as they like during a short or extended rest.

I haven’t thought much on how this method looks visually in-game (the “rune” concept fails for templates that haven’t been attached to any item. Materia works better for the not-currently-attached state, but I don’t want to completely rip-off the game).

So what do you think about this idea? Do you like it, or do you hate it? Would you use it in your game, or do you think it would involve too much bookkeeping?
#2
MechaPilot
Feb 10, 2010 21:07:13 I think it's an interesting way to flavor the ownership of magic items designed to play to certain creature's weaknesses or to defeat certain threats. I think the runes themselves would likely carry the same cost as the magic item itself, however I like this idea as it would reduce the weights carried by an adeventurer and would promt them to spend more to be better prepared.
#3
warcolonel
Feb 10, 2010 23:24:03 While I like this idea, nice and easy, you have to remember that the party is going to be selling back a lot less/dis-enchanting. It does make equipment more like, well, equipment, and I may implement this in my game.
#4
babyj
Feb 11, 2010 2:35:58 Actually....it fits really well with the current state of magical items. And as WarColonel stated, it would take out some of the enchanting disenchanting processes that might gum up a campaign.
   One small issue is of economy: Since it also does away with half the need for the Disenchant ritual.
   ...and thus you might want to increase the component cost of the Disenchant and Enchant rituals to compensate. Like, who needs to disenchant anything to get the weapon they need when they have the rune sitting around. Only time a PC needs it is for when they have 3 or 4 magic items they want to convert into a wondrous item.
   Its a similar problem I encountered with trying to devise my own Materia system..so I made new, more expensive rituals to handle it. Ones at level 8 (to put it on) and 12 (to take it off) to handle the magic item's property removal system. This simulates the process of transferring it to a new weapon without destroying the property. This is much more complicated for a wizard than Disenchant Item which just turns the weapon into 1/5 its worth in residuum while destroying the weapon and the property.
#5
pluisjen
Feb 11, 2010 7:08:05
Considering there's Transfer Enchantment which does pretty much this for 25gp, I think it should be fine, mostly. Maybe require a few gp for each transfer ("binding materials") to not make them constantly swap stuff out and slow the game down by overcontemplating?
#6
warcolonel
Feb 11, 2010 9:49:04

Considering there's Transfer Enchantment which does pretty much this for 25gp, I think it should be fine, mostly. Maybe require a few gp for each transfer ("binding materials") to not make them constantly swap stuff out and slow the game down by overcontemplating?

Or make it 25gp per 'level' of the enchantment.
#7
babyj
Feb 12, 2010 13:47:18

Considering there's Transfer Enchantment which does pretty much this for 25gp, I think it should be fine, mostly. Maybe require a few gp for each transfer ("binding materials") to not make them constantly swap stuff out and slow the game down by overcontemplating?

Or make it 25gp per 'level' of the enchantment.

   Neither of these descriptions refers to what SamuraiChicken is talking about though. If I Transfer (specifically Transfer Enchantment) it, I use a ritual and components, and I already have at least one magical item. There are basically more restrictions.
   Ex: one is a +1 Flaming axe, and the other is a mwk longsword. I transfer the +1 flaming property for the costs described in Transfer Enchantment, and I am done! (but now I have a +1 flaming longsword, and I would be left with a normal mwk axe)
   He is talking about taking that +1 flaming, and detaching it as a rune, and having it carried around, and then just being like "Ok lets slap this rune on this mwk mace I found. Bam: Its now a +1 flaming mace. Oh wait..these are fire creatures we are gonna fight? Let's take it off and put the ice rune on it. Bam: Its now a +1 frost mace."
   That's certainly worthy of costing a bit more to be able to carry the enchantment around with you, and place it into a similar item as needed. Not only that, he's also describing a process that doesn't destroy an item's old properties to pass along the power. So, you can keep both items in his scenario, unlike Transfer Enchantment which could be used to pass a power to a lesser magical item, but in the process destroys the receiving item's old power.
#8
samuraichicken
Feb 23, 2010 16:15:55

   Neither of these descriptions refers to what SamuraiChicken is talking about though. If I Transfer (specifically Transfer Enchantment) it, I use a ritual and components, and I already have at least one magical item. There are basically more restrictions.
   Ex: one is a +1 Flaming axe, and the other is a mwk longsword. I transfer the +1 flaming property for the costs described in Transfer Enchantment, and I am done! (but now I have a +1 flaming longsword, and I would be left with a normal mwk axe)
   He is talking about taking that +1 flaming, and detaching it as a rune, and having it carried around, and then just being like "Ok lets slap this rune on this mwk mace I found. Bam: Its now a +1 flaming mace. Oh wait..these are fire creatures we are gonna fight? Let's take it off and put the ice rune on it. Bam: Its now a +1 frost mace."
   That's certainly worthy of costing a bit more to be able to carry the enchantment around with you, and place it into a similar item as needed. Not only that, he's also describing a process that doesn't destroy an item's old properties to pass along the power. So, you can keep both items in his scenario, unlike Transfer Enchantment which could be used to pass a power to a lesser magical item, but in the process destroys the receiving item's old power.

This is exactly what I am talking about. Allowing players to carry around the magical item templates without having to attach them to items (yet they only work when attached to items). This increases the player's options, and to me makes for more tactical encounters. While *Bam* wasn't quite the sound effect I was thinking of (since transferring can be done only during a short or extended rest), It seems to get the point across of how easy it is to add/remove a template.
The Enchant Magic Item ritual still works for players creating their own magic items (instead of relying on those the DM awards as treasure), and the Disenchant Magic Item ritual still works for gathering residuum.
I'm having trouble finding the Transfer Enchantment ritual - I've heard about it, but now that I'm looking for it I cannot find it. Anyone know where it is printed?

#9
babyj
Feb 23, 2010 20:28:02 Transfer Enchantment is on pg. 199, Adv.Vault
#10
Qube
Feb 24, 2010 11:39:08 interesting idea. Though instead of runes, I was more thinking of magical 'attachments':
Daos have a scarf on the end

Katana's can be equiped with a small rope to prevent disarming

A small keychain with gem (or skull) on the pomel

A holy wooden stick to replace the wood part from hammers or axes

the fabric used to equip the handle with

a decorative object in the handle (like a katana's menuki)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 samuraichicken Feb 10, 2010 20:52:13	I came up with a rather interesting idea recently, and I would like to hear your thoughts about it: Imagine if the magic item descriptions were templates that you can attach to any item that met the prerequisites. While this is true in the extent that DMs do this to make magic weapons and armor (book entry + specific weapon = magic weapon), I’m talking about letting the players add and remove such templates with ease in-game, even to the point of PCs swapping templates with each other, allowing for some interesting tactics. For those of you who have played Final Fantasy 7, think of the magic item descriptions in the books as materia, and each weapon, armor, and implement as having one materia slot. For those of you who haven’t played the game, here are some examples to help explain what I’m getting at. (for these examples, the magic item templates will be called “runes”). Example 1: The PCs fight an orc warlord who wields a greataxe with the Flaming Weapon rune bestowed upon it. After the combat, the party removes the Flaming Weapon rune from the greataxe and attach the rune to the defender’s longsword. With the Flaming Weapon rune, the once non-magical longsword is now brimming with magical energy from the rune. Example 2: The party is making preparations to enter a volcanic dungeon, so the defender bestows the Firedrinker Armor rune onto his armor. His longsword with the Flaming Weapon rune will be of little use against the fire-monsters in this region, so he bestows the Frost Weapon rune in it’s place. The Flaming Weapon rune is kept in his backpack for now, not attached to any weapon. He might sell the rune back in town, exchange it for another magic rune, or trade it with an ally later on. For rules purposes, only armor, weapons, and implements have these attachable templates (“runes”), and only one template per item. This makes it easier for players to keep the same items with them throughout their career. Otherwise, DMs run the risk of the “why does every dungeon have a magical rapier that is better than my current rapier, despite which ancient culture built the dungeon?” This method solves this problem, and lets the DM apply the magic item template to the opponents weapons or armor without having the monsters also wield the same weapons / wear the same armor as the PCs. Handing out templates makes for better treasure for templates that can be attached to a wide range of items. Normally, treasure is divided based on what kind of weapon/armor/implement it is (the defender always getting the magic longsword, while the striker always gets the magic rapier). With this method, the PCs have to choose who gets which template when they are awarded with templates that can attach to “any” weapon or armor. Characters can add or remove the magic item templates on their armor, weapons, and implements as many times as they like during a short or extended rest. I haven’t thought much on how this method looks visually in-game (the “rune” concept fails for templates that haven’t been attached to any item. Materia works better for the not-currently-attached state, but I don’t want to completely rip-off the game). So what do you think about this idea? Do you like it, or do you hate it? Would you use it in your game, or do you think it would involve too much bookkeeping?
#2 MechaPilot Feb 10, 2010 21:07:13	I think it's an interesting way to flavor the ownership of magic items designed to play to certain creature's weaknesses or to defeat certain threats. I think the runes themselves would likely carry the same cost as the magic item itself, however I like this idea as it would reduce the weights carried by an adeventurer and would promt them to spend more to be better prepared.
#3 warcolonel Feb 10, 2010 23:24:03	While I like this idea, nice and easy, you have to remember that the party is going to be selling back a lot less/dis-enchanting. It does make equipment more like, well, equipment, and I may implement this in my game.
#4 babyj Feb 11, 2010 2:35:58	Actually....it fits really well with the current state of magical items. And as WarColonel stated, it would take out some of the enchanting disenchanting processes that might gum up a campaign. One small issue is of economy: Since it also does away with half the need for the Disenchant ritual. ...and thus you might want to increase the component cost of the Disenchant and Enchant rituals to compensate. Like, who needs to disenchant anything to get the weapon they need when they have the rune sitting around. Only time a PC needs it is for when they have 3 or 4 magic items they want to convert into a wondrous item. Its a similar problem I encountered with trying to devise my own Materia system..so I made new, more expensive rituals to handle it. Ones at level 8 (to put it on) and 12 (to take it off) to handle the magic item's property removal system. This simulates the process of transferring it to a new weapon without destroying the property. This is much more complicated for a wizard than Disenchant Item which just turns the weapon into 1/5 its worth in residuum while destroying the weapon and the property.
#5 pluisjen Feb 11, 2010 7:08:05	Considering there's Transfer Enchantment which does pretty much this for 25gp, I think it should be fine, mostly. Maybe require a few gp for each transfer ("binding materials") to not make them constantly swap stuff out and slow the game down by overcontemplating?
#6 warcolonel Feb 11, 2010 9:49:04	Considering there's Transfer Enchantment which does pretty much this for 25gp, I think it should be fine, mostly. Maybe require a few gp for each transfer ("binding materials") to not make them constantly swap stuff out and slow the game down by overcontemplating? Or make it 25gp per 'level' of the enchantment.
#7 babyj Feb 12, 2010 13:47:18	Considering there's Transfer Enchantment which does pretty much this for 25gp, I think it should be fine, mostly. Maybe require a few gp for each transfer ("binding materials") to not make them constantly swap stuff out and slow the game down by overcontemplating? Or make it 25gp per 'level' of the enchantment. Neither of these descriptions refers to what SamuraiChicken is talking about though. If I Transfer (specifically Transfer Enchantment) it, I use a ritual and components, and I already have at least one magical item. There are basically more restrictions. Ex: one is a +1 Flaming axe, and the other is a mwk longsword. I transfer the +1 flaming property for the costs described in Transfer Enchantment, and I am done! (but now I have a +1 flaming longsword, and I would be left with a normal mwk axe) He is talking about taking that +1 flaming, and detaching it as a rune, and having it carried around, and then just being like "Ok lets slap this rune on this mwk mace I found. Bam: Its now a +1 flaming mace. Oh wait..these are fire creatures we are gonna fight? Let's take it off and put the ice rune on it. Bam: Its now a +1 frost mace." That's certainly worthy of costing a bit more to be able to carry the enchantment around with you, and place it into a similar item as needed. Not only that, he's also describing a process that doesn't destroy an item's old properties to pass along the power. So, you can keep both items in his scenario, unlike Transfer Enchantment which could be used to pass a power to a lesser magical item, but in the process destroys the receiving item's old power.
#8 samuraichicken Feb 23, 2010 16:15:55	Neither of these descriptions refers to what SamuraiChicken is talking about though. If I Transfer (specifically Transfer Enchantment) it, I use a ritual and components, and I already have at least one magical item. There are basically more restrictions. Ex: one is a +1 Flaming axe, and the other is a mwk longsword. I transfer the +1 flaming property for the costs described in Transfer Enchantment, and I am done! (but now I have a +1 flaming longsword, and I would be left with a normal mwk axe) He is talking about taking that +1 flaming, and detaching it as a rune, and having it carried around, and then just being like "Ok lets slap this rune on this mwk mace I found. Bam: Its now a +1 flaming mace. Oh wait..these are fire creatures we are gonna fight? Let's take it off and put the ice rune on it. Bam: Its now a +1 frost mace." That's certainly worthy of costing a bit more to be able to carry the enchantment around with you, and place it into a similar item as needed. Not only that, he's also describing a process that doesn't destroy an item's old properties to pass along the power. So, you can keep both items in his scenario, unlike Transfer Enchantment which could be used to pass a power to a lesser magical item, but in the process destroys the receiving item's old power. This is exactly what I am talking about. Allowing players to carry around the magical item templates without having to attach them to items (yet they only work when attached to items). This increases the player's options, and to me makes for more tactical encounters. While Bam wasn't quite the sound effect I was thinking of (since transferring can be done only during a short or extended rest), It seems to get the point across of how easy it is to add/remove a template. The Enchant Magic Item ritual still works for players creating their own magic items (instead of relying on those the DM awards as treasure), and the Disenchant Magic Item ritual still works for gathering residuum. I'm having trouble finding the Transfer Enchantment ritual - I've heard about it, but now that I'm looking for it I cannot find it. Anyone know where it is printed?
#9 babyj Feb 23, 2010 20:28:02	Transfer Enchantment is on pg. 199, Adv.Vault
#10 Qube Feb 24, 2010 11:39:08	interesting idea. Though instead of runes, I was more thinking of magical 'attachments': Daos have a scarf on the end Katana's can be equiped with a small rope to prevent disarming A small keychain with gem (or skull) on the pomel A holy wooden stick to replace the wood part from hammers or axes the fabric used to equip the handle with a decorative object in the handle (like a katana's menuki)