As a sample, and because I'm sure people want to use them, how are Warden's Swords built with this system?
The coat provides either a Great (+4) Block or Armor: 2 up to 3 times per session.
That works if you're doing a two-slot version of the coat. As a one-slot version it's two fewer times per session in either version. :)
I admit, I'm not sure I like the idea of -everything- being unable to be made 'always on'. There's a difference between systematically always on and in-setting. The books never even imply that Harry's coat is limited use, unlike his rings, which definitely are. Just that he has top off the enchantment every once in a while.
But we'll see how it works out. :)
I admit, I'm not sure I like the idea of -everything- being unable to be made 'always on'. There's a difference between systematically always on and in-setting. The books never even imply that Harry's coat is limited use, unlike his rings, which definitely are. Just that he has top off the enchantment every once in a while.
This is my leading assumption - that it's a two-slot item constructed at Great Lore with extra frequency.
As a one-slot item, either it just works once a session, or gives Fair / Armor:1 three times a session.
Reducing item strength for extra uses is 1:1. Using a whole slot for extra uses is 2:1, to create an incentive for doing so.
You can also add additional item slots to frequency, to give you an additional two uses per session. The original extra slot benefits of +1 strength and new item still apply.
Thanks. That makes sense.
there's one thing I do not understand in this change (or maybe I have missed this): with the new rules and more uses, defensive items can be a block or an armor.
if that wasn't changed then following rules are in use: if a block is overcome it winks out. if a armor is overcome it still stays in place (to the end of the spell's duration).
in the new use-based system I see no "need" for the armor effect. take the "block 8 or armor 4" example. if I am hit, it uses a charge and I can decide to block with 8 or have armor with 4. since the block would allow me to entire avoid the damage, most people would take the block. or can I decide, after the charge is triggered that for the current encounter I have block 4 for 4 excanges or an armor of 2 for 2 exchanges? I mean could you divide the power of the block/armor on duration after triggering? (then armor would still make sense.)
Is it possible that his coat would, just be a coat if he wasn't wearing it?
That's really the only way to get good layered protection going: block, then armor.
I was modeling off Thaumaturgy and figure it's one scene per session, but based on this I'm thinking it only lasts until someone tries to see through it?
Pretty extensive overhaul here. I like it though.
I'm assuming this'll make it into the print books? It goes way beyond simple errata.
I just want to be perfectly clear on this point:
I buy a refinement. I can either get 2 specializations, 2 focus items, or 4 enchanted item slots. If I spend a specialization on crafting frequency, it now ups frequency for all my enchanted items by 2. If I get a focus item crafting frequency, it ups frequency for all my enchanted items by 2 (and I'm assuming I don't need the focus item on me at the time for this to work, although I could be wrong). If I add an enchanted item slot to an existing item, I can up the frequency by 1. So all are equivalent bonuses, correct (except that with multiple items a focus or specialization would be "worth more" than a single item slot)?
So all are equivalent bonuses, correct (except that with multiple items a focus or specialization would be "worth more" than a single item slot)?
Lore +5, Specialization +1, and then ... +2 for an evocation focus item? I don't get it. I didn't realize you could have focus items for crafting, first of all, but also if I read your post correctly you were saying that it was a +2 for "evo". Can you expand on that point a little bit?
Yep. Already in the source files. :)Does this mean if I re-download the early bird files from your site that the pdfs will be updated?
Does this mean if I re-download the early bird files from your site that the pdfs will be updated?
You might wanna consider at least one push before then for the simple reason that a final proofing stage by all of us miiight catch something. I mean, since we're already mimicing an open beta here. :D
No worries. I'm sure things are ramping up to some pretty epic chaos over there, trying to get everything laid down for actual publishing.
I don't know if I missed something, but don't the new rules kill the usefulness of the Frequency (Crafting) specialization for Thaumaturgy? Why use Refinement to get a +1 to Frequency (which gives an additional use to each enchanted item) when one could get a +1 to Strength (which could be used to boost overall power for each enchanted item or be used to give one additional use)? Shouldn't the Frequency (Crafting) specialization give 2 uses/+1 similar to the use of enchanted item slots?
The way the rewrite goes, you don't add in the specialization bonuses until after you've made your "trades". So you can't trade that +1 Strength from your specialization (or focus item) in for frequency, you can only trade in the shifts of Strength you have in your base.
I don't know if I missed something, but don't the new rules kill the usefulness of the Frequency (Crafting) specialization for Thaumaturgy? Why use Refinement to get a +1 to Frequency (which gives an additional use to each enchanted item) when one could get a +1 to Strength (which could be used to boost overall power for each enchanted item or be used to give one additional use)? Shouldn't the Frequency (Crafting) specialization give 2 uses/+1 similar to the use of enchanted item slots?
That makes sense, but I still don't know if I like the "devaluing" of the frequency specialization as it compares to the strength specialization that this implies (strength specialization raises Lore, while frequency specialization can reproduce only one effect of Lore (a sacrifice of one shift for additional uses)).
I'm thinkin about those Wolfbelts from the Hexenwulfen (Item of Power would be a possibility, but those Belts werent hard to destroy. And to be honest I want to know how to do it with Thaumaturgy)
Yeah, sometimes the situation goes well beyond what the small scale items (i.e., enchanted items et al) system can do and has to extend into powers and refresh cost. Nature of the beast. If we had to make it so every magical effect ever could be encapsulated in the crafted items subsystem of spellcraft, you'd still be waiting on the RPG to go into preorder... for another year.
When should it be an Item of Power?
Another question. Should we flat out disallow Thaumaturgic spells in Magic Items?
Where all FBI goons killed? Not shure, cant remember if the Werewolf got them all.
Even if, they all died. Seems like an lame destroy condition. The Swords of the Cross would be gone the way of history with this condition...
Likely whenever the spell effect you're going for can't be encapsulated within the casting strength limits of an enchanted item.So it depends on the Caster.
As for the comparison, consider that Harry thought he could make a Hexenwulf belt. People don't think that kind of thing about the Swords.I think thats the reason why I thougth about them as Magic Item and not as Item of Power.
I do, however, think we need brief guidelines for Thaumaturgical shapeshifting. It's probably not gonna be available in the midst of combat without buying some other power, but it's clearly an available ability in the setting, and some basic guidelines on difficulty seem somewhat necessary.+1
What powers would be work best for an Item Of Power whose sole purpose is to block spells - any spell - without needing a spell-caster to use it? And when I say "block" I mean "hold it between you and the incoming magic and the spell is blocked" - though not, I imagine, with absolute certainty of success. To be honest, I'm not entirely certain such an item is possible in the setting...
How would you handle one person (in-game) making an item that someone else could use that has no Enchanted Item slots? Would it just permanetly fill up the person who made it's slots or no? I guess the best examples here could be Luccio's swords, if she made them for a pure mortal? (Doesn't happen as far as we know, but work with me here) How does that apply to HER slots?
Quote from: Sigma77 on Today at 06:20:15 AM
How would you handle one person (in-game) making an item that someone else could use that has no Enchanted Item slots? Would it just permanetly fill up the person who made it's slots or no? I guess the best examples here could be Luccio's swords, if she made them for a pure mortal? (Doesn't happen as far as we know, but work with me here) How does that apply to HER slots?
If the recipient can't "adopt" the item, you're stuck with it consuming your own slots.
If the recipient can't "adopt" the item, you're stuck with it consuming your own slots.
Mmm, good point there. I might be inclined to limit the number of slots you can put in a single enchanted item to your Lore skill, which would put a practical limit of 4 or 5 on that practice, as has been noted.
Another possible cap might be: you can't create an enchanted item with a strength greater than twice your Lore. That's actually more attractive, as it caps your spell effects out around 8 or 10 regardless of where you're getting the bonuses from.
Adding this to YS280:
"Regardless, an item’s casting strength after all bonuses are totaled may never exceed two times the crafter’s Lore rating. It’s a hard cap."
I'll also point out that, even without this edit, our theoretical 28-slot enchantment guy is off the chart on YS281 when it comes to the size of the enchanted item in question. A refresher:
Up to 4 enchantment slots: no smaller than a ring
Up to 8: no smaller than a fist or rod
Up to 12: no smaller than a basketball or staff
Going by 4's, 28 slots is 5 rungs above where that chart goes:
Up to 16: ?
Up to 20: ?
Up to 24: ?
Up to 28: ?
I'm thinking that since the progression (spherically) is ring to fist to basketball over three rungs, that by the time you're at 24 slots you're talking about something no smaller than a human being, maybe larger. 28 slots? Basically it's a car. So best of luck transporting that around conveniently. At the end of the day, the thing being described is... a tank. A big, magic tank. :)
Adding this to YS280:
"Regardless, an item’s casting strength after all bonuses are totaled may never exceed two times the crafter’s Lore rating. It’s a hard cap."
As an exercise in curiosity for everyone, if you were going to design a 9 refresh offensive item of power, what would it look like?
Knowing where it is and being able to lay your hands on it are two rather different things.
Knowing where it is and being able to lay your hands on it are two rather different things.
People will come after you for your gizmo, either to have it themselves, to keep you from having it, or to keep someone ELSE from taking it from you. And since you're a one-trick pony, it won't be hard for someone of sufficient determination to do so.
What you describe isnt an MinMaxer.Someone cranking out a single "nuke anything" item out of *all* possible enchantment slots is certainly minmaxing *something*. "Min" doesn't mean minimize weaknesses necessarily.
He forgot to minimise His weaknesses...
My group is one of the ones doing an online playtest, right? So, we're actively trying to break the game in every which way, poking things that look like they can be exploited, etc.. Recently, we think we found something in the enchanted item varient that can be...well, it's ugly, so I'll walk you through the example.
Ex.:
Submerged Power Level
Focused Practitioner
Channeling (Spirit) [-2]
Ritual (Crafting) [-2]
Refinement (Enchantment Slots) [-2] x5
Total Enchantment Slots: 28
Now, lets say this guy doesn't use any Foci - he turns it all into enchantment slots. The build process follows:
The Item in question lets out a concentrated blast of force. It can be anything large, as per the rules, like a staff, basketball, but in this case? I used a Shotgun. Said shotgun can't be used NORMALLY, but I thought it was appropriate for what I'm about to do.
Let's say the creator has a Superb Lore, but nothing else. So the base strength is 5.
One Slot to House the Item.
Two Slots to Give it Four Extra uses per session.
25 Slots to the Strength of the Item.
We suddenly have what's basically a Weapon: 30 that can be used 5 times a session, with more times by calling on but a single box of stress - which, honestly, with that much power? Kind of a good trade off. My question is, was anything here done wrong in the creation process that allowed this kind of silliness, or is in fact, legal?
I think focusing on the size of the item and the plot impact of "People will WANT this" are healthier than that hard cap.Would be nice to expand the size table in the book...
I think focusing on the size of the item and the plot impact of "People will WANT this" are healthier than that hard cap.
Would be nice to expand the size table in the book...
The more I think about the 'no more than twice the lore' rule, the more I don't like it. It's not THAT high a limit; take an enchanter with Great lore; +4 from specialization and focus items isn't that hard, and you've already eliminated the option of burning an item slot. I think focusing on the size of the item and the plot impact of "People will WANT this" are healthier than that hard cap.
Is there any chance it could be rephrased into a 'If a GM doesn't like it, they could cap it this way' instead of a default 'it's just how it is' note? I mean, I know it's always possible for the GM to say that's not how it is here, but I think that trying to head off the problem this way doesn't get at the root of the problem, and will just get people thinking in ways that are just as potentially problematic(see the post that popped up while I was composing this one) but harder to solve cleanly with simple plot tools.
I'll consider softening the "It's a hard cap" statement if I can manage to fit softened language in about 20 letters and spaces. :)
I'll consider softening the "It's a hard cap" statement if I can manage to fit softened language in about 20 letters and spaces. :)
With this idea, the Cop could sport the enchanted item under his own slots.To them, I would call it an item of power that had refinement slots on it.
and next to the chart:
HARRY: Hey, Billy, why does the chart stop here? What if someone wants to craft an item out of even more slots?
BILLY: Well, if you go beyond the end of the chart, you’re doubling or tripling the dimensions each step, so at best you’re talking about something which is vehicular, if not completely stationary. So what’s shown is what you can actually carry. And it seems to me that wizards do better when they can actually bring their items to where they need to use them.
HARRY: Good point. There’s no Little Chicago in my pocket.
A suggestion my group came up with recently:
Open up refinement (or something similar?) to anyone for Enchanted Item slots.
...
I like this idea - especially in the context of a more fantasy oriented setting - but I think there is one big drawback. There was a post here(http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,17490.0.html (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,17490.0.html)) where the Sword of the Phoenix has enchanted item slots that are based on someone else's lore.
There would have to be some rule that limits the power of an enchanted item base upon the skills of the character it is attached to rather than the character that created it. Otherwise you will have guys with Mediocre Lore using item created by guys with Superb (or better!) Lore.
There would have to be some rule that limits the power of an enchanted item base upon the skills of the character it is attached to rather than the character that created it. Otherwise you will have guys with Mediocre Lore using item created by guys with Superb (or better!) Lore.
Maybe a Stunt that allows you to use items up to your Conviction or Discipline?
If a True Mortal adopted an item, would he lose his refresh bonus?
New question, really hope I'm not repeating something that hasn't already been answered. Lets say you have an enchanted item that is block X/armor:X/2 with 3 uses per session. How long does each use of the item last? Just for the one defense roll its activated for, or the entire exchange?
New question, really hope I'm not repeating something that hasn't already been answered. Lets say you have an enchanted item that is block X/armor:X/2 with 3 uses per session. How long does each use of the item last? Just for the one defense roll its activated for, or the entire exchange?
New question, really hope I'm not repeating something that hasn't already been answered. Lets say you have an enchanted item that is block X/armor:X/2 with 3 uses per session. How long does each use of the item last? Just for the one defense roll its activated for, or the entire exchange?
It seems to me that you have to factor in the duration of the effect when you create the enchanted item. The enchanted item is basically a spell in an object, and you have X Shifts of power to give to that spell. Some of those shifts might go towards duration, others would go towards other things.
The quasi-retroactive facet is an important one, yeah, that a lot of players of other systems might not intuit on their own. Is that clearly implied anywhere in the new source text?I don't recall, and my current patience level ain't letting me go look. :)
I'm assuming the intent is that they're a free action, but i can't find that actually stated anywhere.
Since you can use them at the time that the attack connects, it would follow.
Right. Absolutely...where does it say they can do that? Like I said, I looked around and couldn't find it except in discussions in this thread.
Of course, you (unlike I) have the current source document, and it might easily be in there along with the changes in the first post. But it's not explicitly in the first post itself, nor in the Early Bird PDF I've got.
The first post doesn't reflect the full revision to the text. The text will reflect the full revision to the text. :)
Cool. As long as it's in there I'm in seventh Heaven. :)
It just got brought up in a game I'm in and I got to looking for references...and couldn't find an explicit one. So I worried.
Other Thoughts
This allows you, on any defensive item, to use either the Armor or block benefit with one use and take the more advantageous effect. It also means that you can get a benefit on odd-numbered Lore scores, and make a defensive item even if you only have Average Lore that doesn't totally suck, because you no longer have to cut the shifts in half twice.