| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
jordanz
Senior Scribe
556 Posts |
 Posted - 25 Jun 2009 : 05:52:32
|
|
How do you distinguish between the two? Is there a hard line rule that says a certain attribute or bonus denotes artifact status? Also can someone give examples of really powerful (unique) weapons that are not artifacts or weapons that could possibly be artifacts but are questionable?
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jun 2009 : 12:35:17
|
| Unless there's some simple unrevealed 'artifact test' mages can submit a magic item to, chances are the situation of what are called artifacts in the Realms isn't cut and dried like the D&D classification. Most of the items labelled 'minor artifacts' in 3E have likely been thought an artifact by some and not by others, and black hands of Bane and the Arm of Valor are two more that come to mind. Uniqueness/rarity, antiquity, confirmed and supposed power, difficulty of creation and destruction, storiedness and the reverence of a particular group all factor into this, and they're all subjective or hard to confirm. Many nonmagical items and spellbooks are 'relics' to priesthoods and this is going to blend into the D&D sense of 'relic' as 'priestly artifact'. |
 |
|
|
Knight of the Gate
Senior Scribe
USA
624 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jun 2009 : 13:40:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Unless there's some simple unrevealed 'artifact test' mages can submit a magic item to, chances are the situation of what are called artifacts in the Realms isn't cut and dried like the D&D classification. Most of the items labelled 'minor artifacts' in 3E have likely been thought an artifact by some and not by others, and black hands of Bane and the Arm of Valor are two more that come to mind. Uniqueness/rarity, antiquity, confirmed and supposed power, difficulty of creation and destruction, storiedness and the reverence of a particular group all factor into this, and they're all subjective or hard to confirm. Many nonmagical items and spellbooks are 'relics' to priesthoods and this is going to blend into the D&D sense of 'relic' as 'priestly artifact'.
The core DnD definition is simple: Is it an item that you can make with item creation feats? Then it's just an item; if not, it's an artifact/relic. Faraer's definition looks like the correct one for the Realms. A good example would be Netherese Blast Scepters. They aren't artifact-level items, but the secret of their making is all but lost, and so they are considered artifacts in the Realms; despite the fact that a given NPC might know how to make them or even teach a PC to do so. |
How can life be so bountiful, providing such sublime rewards for mediocrity? -Umberto Ecco |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jun 2009 : 17:09:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Knight of the Gate
The core DnD definition is simple: Is it an item that you can make with item creation feats?
That's a bit circular, of course, since the purpose of that mechanic is to represent a creation process that's lost or prohibitively difficult. It may also be that fewer items would have been slotted into the 'minor artifact' category if 3E hadn't made magic-item manufacture easier than it is in the Realms or prior D&D (comparing those rules to Volo's Guide to All Things Magical, which has its own discussion of artifacts, is a particularly stark example of Wizards' foreshortening). |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jun 2009 : 17:28:01
|
I always figured 'minor artifacts' were items that could be made by epic-level characters, and 'Major (True) Artifacts' were things that couldn't be made... at least not by mortals.
However, Legacy Weapons adds a new component to the mix, and it is possible for a weapon that started out a minor artifact (say, like one of the Elfblades) to eventually attain 'Greater' status on it's own.
In fact, even non-weapons appear to have this ability - if enough legends and folklore surround an item, there is a chance the item could develop an ego, and start to gain other powers never intended by it's creator.
So, yeah... its not really all that cut and dried. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jun 2009 : 17:40:41
|
I don't know the D&D or Realms-specific definitions for the terms, but here are some English/Common Speech considerations.
A "weapon" is gonna be an item which is intended to or effectively serves to do injury, death, damage, or destruction to people, places, or things.
Whereas "artifact" is derived from the Latin arte factum, which simply means a thing made by art or skill.
The key there is that an artifact does not necessarily have any hostile or malicious intent or effect, while a weapon definitely does.
But maybe you're not interested in English or Common Speech definitions. Maybe you really just want Realms-speak?  |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jun 2009 : 18:04:42
|
dont forget the sanctified items in the magic item compendium.
so no, there is no clear cut definition on what is and what is not an artifact.
best thing to do is, just to say artifacts are magical items that have survived for 100+ years and was first used by the Brave Sir Robin of Amn when he used it to slay the three headed orc. or some such nonsense.
in 3,x I created a weapon named Star fury, a +4 holy, flaming,freezing,corrosive, shocking and ever bright star metal longsword. It in itself could qualify for lesser artifact, and it in itself could be used to harm just about anything... |
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jun 2009 : 23:27:05
|
| To my knowledge minor artifacts are a powerful item which have been made in very few numbers. Like Staff of the Magi, where as a major artifatc is very powerful item in which only one have been made. There are exceptions thou, like the Netherscrolls but thats the generel idea. And thats how I go about it. plus the fact that it is virtually indestructible! |
|
|
|
jordanz
Senior Scribe
556 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2009 : 23:27:32
|
| I originally thought that only gods or godlike beings could create artifacts. Also whatever happen to the ill effects that mortals recieved from artifacts? Have those b een done away with? I've been away from the game for a LONG time.... |
|
|
|
Arivia
Great Reader
Canada
2965 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2009 : 23:46:59
|
Artifacts still have downsides, yes.
In one of the strictest 3e senses, only the gods can make artifacts - ie: items they make are specifically called artifacts. However, for some of the reasons mentioned above and others, the category of artifact itself is largely useless, if not totally contextual. |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2009 : 17:24:00
|
and some say its an item of magic that survived 100+ years
|
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
|
|
|
xaviera
Learned Scribe
Canada
149 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2009 : 17:25:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolai Withander
To my knowledge minor artifacts are a powerful item which have been made in very few numbers. Like Staff of the Magi, where as a major artifatc is very powerful item in which only one have been made.
"Each artifact or relic is a singular thing of potent powers and possibly strange side effects as well. Regardless of how any of these items come into your campaign, only 1 of each may exist." (1e DMG, 1979, p.155)
Yeah, I know it's old, but that's how I've always looked at it. They are unique items. |
Writings on Sharess: Thoughts & Prayers by Xaviera ~ High Priestess of Sharess |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36797 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2009 : 21:48:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by xaviera
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolai Withander
To my knowledge minor artifacts are a powerful item which have been made in very few numbers. Like Staff of the Magi, where as a major artifatc is very powerful item in which only one have been made.
"Each artifact or relic is a singular thing of potent powers and possibly strange side effects as well. Regardless of how any of these items come into your campaign, only 1 of each may exist." (1e DMG, 1979, p.155)
Yeah, I know it's old, but that's how I've always looked at it. They are unique items.
Ditto. I add in three other things, as well. One is a line from the 2E DMG: "At the top of the list is the fact that, in game terms, artifacts and relics are nothing more
than excuses for the DM to break any and every rule he cares to."
Another thing is that to destroy it would be nearly impossible to destroy, as many of the methods in the 2E Book of Artifacts illustrate.
The last thing (also from BoA, though it was mentioned in prior editions, as well) is that use of an artifact is inherently dangerous. Sure, it might wipe an enemy from existence or put you on par with a demigod... But it might also cause serious damage to you and the environment, change you in some unpleasant ways (like alignment or even race!), or cause a volcano to erupt... And simply having it is going to make you a target for everyone who either wants power for themselves, who wants to deny the same power to their enemies, and/or simply wants to make sure no one ever uses that power. Some artifacts piss off the gods -- that's pretty dangerous by itself.
Some of the things that 3E called artifacts were not artifacts in 2E. And that's part of my only real complaint about 3E: in their effort to make everything fit into some nice little pattern, they screwed up a lot of the magical goodies. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 01 Jul 2009 21:52:25 |
|
|
|
Arivia
Great Reader
Canada
2965 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2009 : 03:43:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And that's part of my only real complaint about 3E: in their effort to make everything fit into some nice little pattern, they screwed up a lot of the magical goodies.
To be honest, that's a falsehood. 3e implements and cares about artifacts in the same way (see the DMGII or the Arms and Equipment Guide.) It didn't change, in form or function, the rules or narrative texture of artifacts in any way. What it did do, however, is introduce the category of minor artifacts, items that couldn't be made by current magics. In 2e's poetically-based system (and at least to some degree the system detailed in VGtATM), this wasn't a necessary category. In 3e, in the face of item creation as a clearer, mathematic system, this was a necessary step to *enable* your first point, and to some degree the second (it also opened up design space and got us the artificer, which was a very good thing). The classification of items as minor artifacts changes nothing about them, and the DMGII is fairly clear on the point that they can be treated like most any other magical item, with appropriate care taken. That classification means very little from a rules perspective, and changes nothing in the course of play or in the setting. In fact, if anything, the Realms as a setting benefited by being able to mark items as inviolate and perpetual, allowing for the design of artifacts as historical entities first and foremost and items of game balance second. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36797 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2009 : 05:16:44
|
I disagree. When items that were formerly common become nonexistent or impossible to make, that's a problem. When items that were rare and powerful but not necessarily any other kind of special make the transition from regular magical items to artifacts, that's a problem.
While I will agree that there was never a nice neat classification before 3E, there was enough of a loose categorization there to cover everything. 3E, in its effort to classify everything, wound up making the artifact/unique powerful item/rare powerful item boundaries non-existent. They over-corrected a non-existent problem, and in doing so, created the problem. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Arivia
Great Reader
Canada
2965 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2009 : 15:12:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I disagree. When items that were formerly common become nonexistent or impossible to make, that's a problem. When items that were rare and powerful but not necessarily any other kind of special make the transition from regular magical items to artifacts, that's a problem.
Please provide an example. I can't think of any common items that were converted into minor artifacts, and the old stalwarts that were (for example, hammers of thunderbolts and the deck of many things) were quite obviously converted for reasons of game balance.
quote:
3E, in its effort to classify everything, wound up making the artifact/unique powerful item/rare powerful item boundaries non-existent. They over-corrected a non-existent problem, and in doing so, created the problem.
This is again, incorrect. There's plenty of room for those in 3e: see special/unique weapon listings in most any supplement. (I mention weapons because they're where the vast majority of such items occur in D&D.) If anything, in fact, the boundaries are stronger in 3e, as not only do you have the usual 1e-3e major artifact guidelines to work with, but a codified direction on what often separates artifacts from other magical items (See Deities and Demigods or the ELH.) Again, it's not a non-existent problem, either - it's a problem that became quite apparent when 3e changed magic item creation into something systematic instead of something needing out-of-character prayer dedicated at the DM. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36797 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2009 : 16:20:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I disagree. When items that were formerly common become nonexistent or impossible to make, that's a problem. When items that were rare and powerful but not necessarily any other kind of special make the transition from regular magical items to artifacts, that's a problem.
Please provide an example. I can't think of any common items that were converted into minor artifacts, and the old stalwarts that were (for example, hammers of thunderbolts and the deck of many things) were quite obviously converted for reasons of game balance.
In the 3.5 DMG, every single item listed under Minor Artifacts was previously listed with regular magical items. And while some of them do seem difficult for PCs to make, what's so special about the Staff of the Magi? It's just another charged item -- granted, it has a lot more powers packed into it, but that was not such a big deal in 1E or 2E.
How about the Talismans of Pure Good or Ultimate Evil? An alignment-based earthquake. This is really worthy of being called an artifact, or of -- quoting from the book -- being "the center of a whole set of adventures"?
And minor artifacts aren't even unique... Which cheapens the entire definition of an artifact.
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
3E, in its effort to classify everything, wound up making the artifact/unique powerful item/rare powerful item boundaries non-existent. They over-corrected a non-existent problem, and in doing so, created the problem.
This is again, incorrect. There's plenty of room for those in 3e: see special/unique weapon listings in most any supplement. (I mention weapons because they're where the vast majority of such items occur in D&D.) If anything, in fact, the boundaries are stronger in 3e, as not only do you have the usual 1e-3e major artifact guidelines to work with, but a codified direction on what often separates artifacts from other magical items (See Deities and Demigods or the ELH.) Again, it's not a non-existent problem, either - it's a problem that became quite apparent when 3e changed magic item creation into something systematic instead of something needing out-of-character prayer dedicated at the DM.
I'm not talking about weapons. What about the 2E wand of lightning? It could cast a lightning bolt or a shocking grasp. The wand of fire also had more than one spell in it. In 3E, putting more than one spell in a wand was impossible -- so a lot of previously common magical items could no longer exist.
And I recall at least two or three different methods of creating magical items that were detailed in 2E. Volo's Guide to All Things Magical had what I thought was the best method. As I recall, the Tome of Magic had a different method, the Complete Wizard's Handbook (which annoyed me for assuming that everyone would naturally want to play a specialist wizard, and not a generalist) had one, and the DMG had one. Those are just the ones I recall immediately.
So we already had methods to pick and choose from, or to mix into one... Why did we need yet another one?
As far as magical items are concerned, 3E broke everything and fixed nothing. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2009 : 17:18:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
As I recall, the Tome of Magic had a different method, the Complete Wizard's Handbook (which annoyed me for assuming that everyone would naturally want to play a specialist wizard, and not a generalist) had one, and the DMG had one. Those are just the ones I recall immediately. <snip>
Accent, mine.
Power-Gamers would NEVER choose a generalist, and the game has been catering to 'those types' for at least two editions now. 
Sadly, as much as I consider myself a Roleplayer, the last few times I was lucky enough to be a player in a campaign I too chose to be a specialist, just for the added spells. In older editons, that extra spell at 1st level was like starting out at level two, and simply TOO GOOD to ignore.
As for the rest of your comments - I would have to agree that with each edition certain aspects of the game get murkier, rather then better-defined. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2009 : 17:25:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
As I recall, the Tome of Magic had a different method, the Complete Wizard's Handbook (which annoyed me for assuming that everyone would naturally want to play a specialist wizard, and not a generalist) had one, and the DMG had one. Those are just the ones I recall immediately. <snip>
Accent, mine.
Power-Gamers would NEVER choose a generalist, and the game has been catering to 'those types' for at least two editions now.
Sadly, as much as I consider myself a Roleplayer, the last few times I was lucky enough to be a player in a campaign I too chose to be a specialist, just for the added spells. In older editons, that extra spell at 1st level was like starting out at level two, and simply TOO GOOD to ignore.
As for the rest of your comments - I would have to agree that with each edition certain aspects of the game get murkier, rather then better-defined.
Side track: Pathfinder made it so being a 'Universalist' or general Wizard means getting some nifty powers that specialists don't get.
In regards to the Artifact question, I always felt that artifacts are unique and have been 'imbued' with a portion of the creator to make them stand out from the sword of awesomeness +8 or somesuch.
Would it be possible for a PC to create an artifact? Well, I'd set it up as a lifelong goal and once they did, that PC would be retired. But I also agree that artifacts have been somewhat diluted in 3E. But it's pretty much the same discussion as NPC Stats. In previous editions you only got a 'feeling' for how powerful Elminster is. But with the release of the stats in 3E, some of the mystery is gone. He's still just as powerful but, like the artifacts, he doesn't feel as 'unique' anymore. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Arivia
Great Reader
Canada
2965 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2009 : 17:45:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And while some of them do seem difficult for PCs to make, what's so special about the Staff of the Magi? It's just another charged item -- granted, it has a lot more powers packed into it, but that was not such a big deal in 1E or 2E.
No other item in 3e can be recharged through absorption, and very few items have the ability for a retributive strike. The staff of the magi's little sister, a staff of power, is over 200,000 gold. Items over 200,000 gp aren't supposed to be used before level 20 for game balance reasons. If the staff of power's breaking the rules, I wonder what the role of a staff that has three times as many spells in it might be.
quote:
How about the Talismans of Pure Good or Ultimate Evil? An alignment-based earthquake. This is really worthy of being called an artifact, or of -- quoting from the book -- being "the center of a whole set of adventures"?
If you missed it, they kind of seal someone in the middle of the earth. Permanently: ie, worse than imprisonment. That isn't something that can go without oversight. And yes, you could have some adventures around just that.
quote:
And minor artifacts aren't even unique... Which cheapens the entire definition of an artifact.
If you haven't noticed, I've been taking pains to point out that minor and major artifacts are two separate designations for both the purposes of play and story. They don't share a defintion in most ways, or at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
I'm not talking about weapons. What about the 2E wand of lightning? It could cast a lightning bolt or a shocking grasp. The wand of fire also had more than one spell in it. In 3E, putting more than one spell in a wand was impossible -- so a lot of previously common magical items could no longer exist.
Actually, they're now just staffs. Staffs and wands were separated out for game balance and use reasons - the scaling for them is totally different to enable their appropriate use at the appropriate, classical levels.
quote:
So we already had methods to pick and choose from, or to mix into one... Why did we need yet another one?
Well a) telling people to go look at an older edition with spells that no longer exist would be really really weird as a rules concept and b) because none of them actually work. There's no doubting that 3e's system might be less flavourful than the 3 2e ones you listed (there's none in the Complete Wizard's Handbook, I checked) but it's internally consistent and actually playable (again, see the artificer). It's integrated with 3e as a whole, as opposed to a tacked-on extra system that doesn't match up with other game mechanics and possibly works against them. 3e doesn't stop you from making items in any way, but it does make it less of a magic (in the mysterious and random sense) than what was already there. |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2009 : 17:45:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
Artifacts still have downsides, yes.
Come on, the aspect of artifacts tending to have severe, unpredictable harmful effects on the user and "making their possessor reclusive, secretive, arrogant, and/or greedy" was greatly downplayed in 3E in favour of its philosophy of making magic items PC power tools. (Interestingly, this aspect only appeared in the 1E Dungeon Masters Guide, not in Eldritch Wizardry.)quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Power-Gamers would NEVER choose a generalist, and the game has been catering to 'those types' for at least two editions now.
Which is a particularly bad fit for the Realms, where school-specialist wizards are rare, and where the schools concept itself is a less important part of magic than in D&D. (There's a whole different set of language that mages use to categorize spells, which only sometimes overlaps with the school system.) |
|
|
|
Arivia
Great Reader
Canada
2965 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2009 : 17:48:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
As I recall, the Tome of Magic had a different method, the Complete Wizard's Handbook (which annoyed me for assuming that everyone would naturally want to play a specialist wizard, and not a generalist) had one, and the DMG had one. Those are just the ones I recall immediately. <snip>
Accent, mine.
Power-Gamers would NEVER choose a generalist, and the game has been catering to 'those types' for at least two editions now.
Sadly, as much as I consider myself a Roleplayer, the last few times I was lucky enough to be a player in a campaign I too chose to be a specialist, just for the added spells. In older editons, that extra spell at 1st level was like starting out at level two, and simply TOO GOOD to ignore.
As for the rest of your comments - I would have to agree that with each edition certain aspects of the game get murkier, rather then better-defined.
The rule in question provides a benefit to specialists working in their specialty schools and prevents them from making items with effects in their prohibited schools. If anything, it's common sense, not powergaming (and 3e carried most of that same sense forward.) |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36797 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2009 : 18:18:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
As I recall, the Tome of Magic had a different method, the Complete Wizard's Handbook (which annoyed me for assuming that everyone would naturally want to play a specialist wizard, and not a generalist) had one, and the DMG had one. Those are just the ones I recall immediately. <snip>
Accent, mine.
Power-Gamers would NEVER choose a generalist, and the game has been catering to 'those types' for at least two editions now.
Sadly, as much as I consider myself a Roleplayer, the last few times I was lucky enough to be a player in a campaign I too chose to be a specialist, just for the added spells. In older editons, that extra spell at 1st level was like starting out at level two, and simply TOO GOOD to ignore.
As for the rest of your comments - I would have to agree that with each edition certain aspects of the game get murkier, rather then better-defined.
The rule in question provides a benefit to specialists working in their specialty schools and prevents them from making items with effects in their prohibited schools. If anything, it's common sense, not powergaming (and 3e carried most of that same sense forward.)
Yeah, but it gave them bonuses and extra spells. So a specialist might not be able to use all of the same spells as a generalist, but he's got an advantage the generalist lacks with a fair number of his spells. In 2E, the only real reason to not be a specialist was to not have prohibited schools. That's not really any kind of balance. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36797 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2009 : 18:30:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And while some of them do seem difficult for PCs to make, what's so special about the Staff of the Magi? It's just another charged item -- granted, it has a lot more powers packed into it, but that was not such a big deal in 1E or 2E.
No other item in 3e can be recharged through absorption, and very few items have the ability for a retributive strike. The staff of the magi's little sister, a staff of power, is over 200,000 gold. Items over 200,000 gp aren't supposed to be used before level 20 for game balance reasons. If the staff of power's breaking the rules, I wonder what the role of a staff that has three times as many spells in it might be.
It's still just a big stick with a lot of spells. Adding in a couple nifty abilities does not make it transcend its basic nature.
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
How about the Talismans of Pure Good or Ultimate Evil? An alignment-based earthquake. This is really worthy of being called an artifact, or of -- quoting from the book -- being "the center of a whole set of adventures"?
If you missed it, they kind of seal someone in the middle of the earth. Permanently: ie, worse than imprisonment. That isn't something that can go without oversight. And yes, you could have some adventures around just that.
So a slight advantage over an existing spell. I don't see that being all that special.
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And minor artifacts aren't even unique... Which cheapens the entire definition of an artifact.
If you haven't noticed, I've been taking pains to point out that minor and major artifacts are two separate designations for both the purposes of play and story. They don't share a defintion in most ways, or at all.
In other words, an artifact isn't necessarily an artifact. 
Calling two different classes of item the same thing, but saying they're not at all alike, is not simplifying a thing. It's complicating things.
If you tell me something is a duck, I expect it to have wings, webbed feet, and a tendency to quack. If it has none of those things, it's not a duck.
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'm not talking about weapons. What about the 2E wand of lightning? It could cast a lightning bolt or a shocking grasp. The wand of fire also had more than one spell in it. In 3E, putting more than one spell in a wand was impossible -- so a lot of previously common magical items could no longer exist.
Actually, they're now just staffs. Staffs and wands were separated out for game balance and use reasons - the scaling for them is totally different to enable their appropriate use at the appropriate, classical levels.
Yeah -- having to use a big stick instead of a little stick is great game balance.
How is it unbalancing to have a small piece of wood have more than one power, especially when those powers are closely related?
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
So we already had methods to pick and choose from, or to mix into one... Why did we need yet another one?
Well a) telling people to go look at an older edition with spells that no longer exist would be really really weird as a rules concept and b) because none of them actually work. There's no doubting that 3e's system might be less flavourful than the 3 2e ones you listed (there's none in the Complete Wizard's Handbook, I checked) but it's internally consistent and actually playable (again, see the artificer). It's integrated with 3e as a whole, as opposed to a tacked-on extra system that doesn't match up with other game mechanics and possibly works against them. 3e doesn't stop you from making items in any way, but it does make it less of a magic (in the mysterious and random sense) than what was already there.
Yeah, reprinting one of those methods with slight modifications was totally impossible. They could only do that with regional sourcebooks.
And I don't see that any of the previous methods didn't work. I think they all did; the only real difference was in flavor. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Arivia
Great Reader
Canada
2965 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2009 : 22:26:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
Artifacts still have downsides, yes.
Come on, the aspect of artifacts tending to have severe, unpredictable harmful effects on the user and "making their possessor reclusive, secretive, arrogant, and/or greedy" was greatly downplayed in 3E in favour of its philosophy of making magic items PC power tools.
This is true, but there's a far cry between no downsides and what 3e has in terms of drawbacks for many artifacts. I think you're right that it was dropped (and that's a sad thing), but that was a lost cause once the DMG printed the Shield of Prator and so on.
I'm going to drop the argument I'm having with Wooly; we're going in circles and it's quickly turning into sniping quotations at each other from various sources. It doesn't do me, him, or the issue at hand credit and isn't needed here. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Is it just a powerful weapon or an Artifact?
