Magic Items

Hoyce

Artisan
Dan Nickname Beshers said:
Justin/Tieran:

In your proposal, are we imposing a limit on the number of items available, or the number of ritual effects? If you put down a limit on the number of items available, you will see a tremendous devaluation of single effect items. When people know that they can only carry, say, 5 magic items, 2nd grader math shows that they have a maximum of 100 ritual effects in items available to them. It may cause the pocket scholar issue to valley for a bit, but once people know the limit is coming, they can and will begin making only super items with a minimum of 10 rits. This will in turn make having magic items MORE situationally unbalancing, since basically every item will be adding a huge increase in power.

I just don't think you'll see any major lasting paradigm shift with this.

-Dan "Miscellaneous Evil Entity's Advocate" Beshers
When's the last time someone made a magic item that didn't have at least 5-10 rituals on it anyway? No one wants to create anything less than that anyway because Preserve Duration and Permanence are so rare.

Seriously, of all the magic items I've created or seen others create I think one had less than ten rits on it, and that one still had like 5 or 6.
 

Celebolwa

Scholar
I will say I am all for limiting number of items carried by any one player, I will however agree with Dan "always with the quotes" Beshers, that it will possibly cause more of an issue in new ways if it is the only thing done to fix the current magic item problem. The era of the super item will be ushered in. I am saddened that the "activate item-incant" rule was shot down. I don't think that it would have fixed the item issue alone, but it was a step in the right direction.
Here are my 2 suggestion is as follows. ( not that I feel that mine is the only way- I am open to suggestions and critique)
Suggestion 1

Step 1-make a ruling on # of items carried. Locations(ex 1. 2 rings, 1 armor or clothing, 1 weapon,2 misc-the misc can be doubles of another type)OR (ex 2. players may not carry more than 6 items total at any time)

Note: I don't feel you should have to attune them or have to buy a skill to use them, again this is punishing people with items already. Attuning also adds a whole new logisitics step which is bad. Open use/trade is a rule they could post and that is that. Done. No new tags, no new step at logisitics. Trade in groups should be encouraged not penalized. Attuning certain items would change the dynamic of battle. (ex now-big bad drops magic sword wielding fighter, picks up sword uses sword to fight rest of mod. Fighter is embarrased/harassed or wants revenge for months over this, stories are told, etc- rp is the result. If attunement was in place. BB drops fighter ignores sword because- hey he can't use it, he isn't attuned- Fight goes on and the BB is dropped. No additional rp happens. Nothing is added. Items would be protected even more than they already are. Not much more admittedly, but that is one example of how open item use/trade vs attunement could be better

Step 2- add some sort of change to lengthen the item incant, in this way the scholar remains the Caster with the best magic; not the slow caster. Remember this would also slow down baddies! Anything to make the caster better at magic than Joe-fighter-guy.

Step 3- Encourage teams/players to make items with fewer rituals involved. I have ideas how to do this but I am sure they wouldn't be popular, so I will leave this one to further suggestion by others.

Suggestion 2 make magic items unique. In other words the rituals do something you can't do otherwise, or something strange. The current items will expire eventually, or in the case of permanent items they be even more special. This is to be added to some/all of the above suggested steps.

I feel, playing a scholar for years now, each time any suggestion is made to improve the scholar class to make them equal in power with the other classes, something else gets bumped up, or added to another class and they fall behind again. I love my character, but really am not happy with my class. I continue to play because this is a great game with a few flaws and by far one of the best systems for larp I have seen.

I know that most of us want each class to excel at what they are supposed to-(ie.the scholar to have the advantage when it comes to magic use, the fighter to be a damage machine, the rogue to be awesome at legerdemain and backstabs, etc)

I understand teams put time and effort into building items; retrieving all of the components, all of the scrolls, casting, etc. I also understand the game is really geared toward cooperative play (like nearly all rpg/larp games are) So i don't feel we should take items away, or give all current items a flaw. The only way to do this is to have a OOG effect "change" how items work behind the scenes, this will explain any changes IG. Many if not all RPG's have had rules changes (including this one a few years back) they want by having a "magical ripple race across the lands forever twisting the..." I know the players I game with want our game to be the best it can, I feel that scholars are already the weakest of the classes. The item rules are only a part of this.
 

Sunnfire

Squire
The argument that lengthening incants does not matter because bob can talk faster than you is not really a valid counterpoint to the reason for making the change to a longer incant.

I as fighter guy with an activate prison item, I can throw 10 prisons in 5 seconds. As my Templar I can cast 5 prisons in 5 seconds. With Activate 'incant' I can throw 3 prisons in 5 seconds.

You may talk faster or slower than I do, but your ratios will probably be close.

This is where the imbalance is. It does not matter if Shatner (Activate...... Prison!), is fighting the Micro Machines guy.

The fact is that anyone can put out spells faster through an item than through their build is the issue.

There is also the probability for error. If you have to say more words, you have more chances of screwing up the incant. I do not care if you are so awesome that you have never missed an incant. The fact of the matter is that it is a possibility that increases almost two fold, when casting from memory rather than out of an item.

Yes. Items are cool. Yes items are made by magic. Yes they are the 'pinnicle' of magic being created by the highest form of magic in the game. Does that mean they need to be in every way more powerful than the mage that created them? No.

Items have multiple advantages over spells in memory already. The faster incant is only one of them.

Another one is that you now possess an ability that you did not before.

Even if you have a 4 column, and you get a 5/day spell shield. Well now you have an additional 5 spells shields. That alone is a huge advantage over any other caster of equal ability.

If your a fighter with a 5/day spell shield, you are able to mimic a skill you will never (likely) possess. Also a huge advantage.

Items can be used in situations where spell casting cannot be done. Get webbed, drained, tied up, etc. You can still activate your way to safety, or even better, still take out the bad guy.

Then there is the fact that items can be traded around, spell memory cannot. Still got those prisons in your boot of bad guy kicking, give it to your friends going after a Litch, they didn't use it? take it back when you go after those brigands. You get dropped and the big bad is going to stab you and your healer? Your healer grabs it and prisons you both.

Once you add all of these things together, you have items where they are now. Better than spells in memory in every way.

Adding in the incant, removes one advantage.

It removes that advantage across the board. For every class, for every player.

It does not remove peoples treasure. It does not make guy with 500 items not able to use all his toys. It does not require the re-spending of build. It in fact will not change anything but the speed at which items can be used.

It will not change who has the items. It will only make those items slower than spell memory.

In all honesty, I still think they will be as good/better than spells in memory. Because of their other advantages.

None of the other proposed changes have an even affect across the player base. None of them.

Limit items carried/used people with lots of items or huge items are affected differently.

Limit items to build placement, even bigger issues.

I am not saying that other ideas do not have merit, they do. They may even be fair across the board (Ie, everyone has the exact same restrictions regardless of class or level) but their initial effects will not be the same to everyone.

Would changing the incant make casters suddenly wake up and feel like all the world loved them, will it fix all the little imbalances and problems in the game, will it make money rain from the sky and ice cream not fattening? No. But it is a step in the right direction.

The arguments against have been, it wont matter, and it doesn't fix the whole problem.

I ask, then why do you care?, and isn't fixing part of it better than doing nothing?
 

Ezri

Knight
HQ Staff
I've got to agree with Jesse here on the "bandaid" mentality.

Yes sometimes things are a bandaid fix - not a true fix. But let's look at what you're using for a metaphor there... would you ever say to somebody "No, don't put a bandaid on it just let it keep bleeding till you get to the ER?"

A bandaid fix should not completely replace a true fix, but should be used, just as the metaphor implies, as a temporary fix. Why not make things a little better until you can figure out how to really make it work?
 
Well, I'll use spellcrafting as an example. Spellcrafting is clearly a 'bandaid fix,' but as you can see from the beginning of the 'making rit levels more useful' thread, there is a lot of "You got spellcrafting, what more do you want?" mentality. Accepting a bandaid fix makes it harder to show later why the situation is bad, since it's not as bad with the new bells and whistles. I'd drop spellcrafting in a heartbeat if we could fix the ritual system, but I haven't seen much movement there since the bandaid went on. I expect that once the bandaid goes on and we're headed to the ER, that someone in the ER actually takes a look at what's wrong and tries to fix it.
 

Ezri

Knight
HQ Staff
I don't know if spellcrafting was intended as a bandaid fix or if it just became one, but I see your point there. It really comes down to follow-through at that point to make sure that the real fix happens.
 

Jorundr

Artisan
Well, I'll use spellcrafting as an example. Spellcrafting is clearly a 'bandaid fix,' but as you can see from the beginning of the 'making rit levels more useful' thread, there is a lot of "You got spellcrafting, what more do you want?" mentality. Accepting a bandaid fix makes it harder to show later why the situation is bad, since it's not as bad with the new bells and whistles. I'd drop spellcrafting in a heartbeat if we could fix the ritual system, but I haven't seen much movement there since the bandaid went on. I expect that once the bandaid goes on and we're headed to the ER, that someone in the ER actually takes a look at what's wrong and tries to fix it.
QFT
 

Sunnfire

Squire
Ritual times changed. The amount of spell crafting allowed changed. Some games have added lco rituals and components to see how that works for people.

Tweaks, changes, and fixes are constantly discussed. Just nothing good, better, or super fantastic has yet come up.

Besides. Even in the 'ultimate' item fix, the 'bandaid' fix could remain part of it, or it could get removed.

Much like one rule change making another rule obsolete, and therefore it gets updated, removed, or just doesn't matter anymore.
 

Alavatar

Baron
Like most American processes, problems in the ER are dealt with in order of severity. Putting a band-aid on the problem will reduce the severity, thus putting it lower on the priority list. The band-aid effectively covers up the problem without actually solving it.

Sunnfire said:
Items have multiple advantages over spells in memory already. The faster incant is only one of them.
While magic items do have a faster incant I believe that the advantage gleaned from that is negligible. All of the other benefits far outweigh the "he can cast prisons faster with his MI then I can from memory" argument.

Sunnfire said:
Even if you have a 4 column, and you get a 5/day spell shield. Well now you have an additional 5 spells shields. That alone is a huge advantage over any other caster of equal ability.

If your a fighter with a 5/day spell shield, you are able to mimic a skill you will never (likely) possess. Also a huge advantage.
Exactly. That's what Alliance Magic Items do. Increasing the time to activate the magic items will not change that.

Sunnfire said:
It does not remove peoples treasure. It does not make guy with 500 items not able to use all his toys. It does not require the re-spending of build. It in fact will not change anything but the speed at which items can be used.
Which is a negligible advantage in the first place.

Sunnfire said:
In all honesty, I still think they will be as good/better than spells in memory. Because of their other advantages.
I completely agree.

Sunnfire said:
Would changing the incant make casters suddenly wake up and feel like all the world loved them, will it fix all the little imbalances and problems in the game, will it make money rain from the sky and ice cream not fattening? No. But it is a step in the right direction.
It is a step in A direction, not necessarily the right one. It is a step in adding a rule that covers up the problem rather then fixing it.

Sunnfire said:
I ask, then why do you care?, and isn't fixing part of it better than doing nothing?
I care because I play the game as well. I think that we need to actually fix the problem rather then cover it up with a band-aid safety blanket. And no, fixing part is not better because it actually isn't fixing anything.

Taiicho Ohno writes that in order to improve you have to understand the problem. In order to facilitate proper root cause analysis you need to ask "Why?" as many times as possible, preferably at least 5 times. Why are magic items better? Why are people complaining about pocket casters? Why can a magic item immitate any caster's spells for x/day, but they cannot immitate skills such as slays, dodges, eviscerates, etc x/day? Why can magic items have L9 activatable spells when scrolls and potions can't? Why can't player-made magic items have more unique abilities not found in a caster's spell tree? Why can we obtain magic items through goblin/dragon stamps?

Edit: These questions will then lead to more "Why?" questions. Once a root cause is identified we can then work to solve that rather then attempt to treat the symptoms.
 

Celebolwa

Scholar
I have numerous characters in the Alliance of all classes but, my primary is the dreaded Celestial caster and at 22 level or so I think I have a pretty good grasp of how this subject affects my character. I am going to answer from the view of a player that plays a caster. Again IMHO. I also agree with Scott magic items are fun, they are a great reward for IG and OOG work. I also want it to be noted that I understand the owners and ARC do their very best to make this game all it can be, I don't want anyone to think I am angry or dismissing the effort on this subject.

Why are magic items better?
here are a few reasons- they can be used in situations I can't cast in (web, silence), they can be used faster (incant is short) they add magic to non magic classes, they can be traded to other people. As Scott said early on in this chain-
An even more extreme example (and I hate revealing this but I think it's good to have a real example): My 38th level fighter is equivalent to over a 75th level templar because of magic items...not counting cloaks & banes.
Why are people complaining about pocket casters?
because a character with caster abilities, whom can't buy an item IG or OOG that replicates fighter abilities, should be able to use magic more effectively than a fighter that has 15 necklaces that can be used in situations I can't cast in (web, silence), they can be used faster (incant is short) they add magic to non magic classes, they can be traded to other people.

Why can a magic item imitate any caster's spells for x/day, but they cannot imitate skills such as slays, dodges, eviscerates, etc x/day?
I believe it was taken out of the game because it seemed broken. So it is broken for non fighters or non rogues to have those skills but not the other way around?

Why can magic items have L9 activatable spells when scrolls and potions can't?
Not sure.I wish it wasn't so. I actually think it could be cool to have items that only can replicate 4th or lower spells. That way the Cele caster is the big boom and the Earth caster is the healing guru.

Why can't player-made magic items have more unique abilities not found in a caster's spell tree?
how about all items doing this, meaning player made and treasureitems ? I think the main reason this isn't implemented is- this would require a complete ritual overhaul and that could lead to new problems. Also that still doesn't treat the present issues with items that are already IG.

Why can we obtain magic items through goblin/dragon stamps?
As it has been said before people do a lot of work to help the game that we all benefit from. That should be rewarded. I feel that allowing only scrolls and comps though rather than premade items is really the best way to fix this. It will allow for players to have another pc (usually) to create the item IG. Yay ritualists being made cool.


Just my opinion, probably a mix of what alot of others have already said.
 

Ezri

Knight
HQ Staff
Here's the thing:

The real fix (in my opinion anyway) would be to make it so that you can only use items that your character has the skill for. So only fighters could use a skill store eviscerate, only rogues a skill store dodge, and only casters could use activates of the appropriate school - then nobody is duplicating another class but instead enhancing what they already do.

HOWEVER

1. There are very few players out there who will give up their spiffy items for "the good of the game."
2. Even if they would, is it right to take these things away?

Would a fighter be willing to trade his magic items for extra slays, parrys or ripostes? How about extra armor or body?

Truly fixing this would mean changing the way items work, and the skills they can hold (which ultimately would mean changes to the ritual system). Is the game prepared to make a change like that?
 

Tyson

Scholar
Gettysburg Staff
3. Does this then make the hybrid classes more powerful than the 'streamlined' classes?
 
Why can a magic item imitate any caster's spells for x/day, but they cannot imitate skills such as slays, dodges, eviscerates, etc x/day?
I believe it was taken out of the game because it seemed broken. So it is broken for non fighters or non rogues to have those skills but not the other way around?



No actually I think the break occurs when the fighter with the 4-column pocket scholar in both schools also gets the 19xday Dodge item to go with them.

The thing is, even if you implement items that duplicate everything, the class structure still doesn't allow for balance. If you take a fighter char and a scholar char of say 10th level, and you give each of them magic items that gives the fighter the same spells that the scholar has, and the scholar items that gives him the same weapon skills/damage/power moves, the fighter still has 2.5x the armor and 3 times the body points as the scholar (and not getting into the activating while no-skills thing or short incant that horse is a smear on the ground). I would seriously advocate that since we're at this crossroads of changing the name of the game, new rules set, trying to improve our game experience at all levels, that we take this chance to do a serious overhaul of game mechanics like this. Let's step back and take a look at what we REALLY want our game to be. My ideal (which I think would satisfy, if not completely please most of these arguments and problems) is go to a magic item system that any rituals that duplicate build only duplicate them for skills posessed by the user. Things like Arcane Armor, Cloak, Bane, Weapon Auras (not +damage but magic and elemental) etc would be universal, but spells and combat skills only if you've bought them with build. It would make fighters fight better, casters cast better, and those middling classes like templar and scout more appealing to the solo character or jack-of-all-trades. Previous threads have shown that most people want a team-oriented game, which this promotes but does not make mandatory (those middling classes I mentioned). It would keep the cool factors in their separate corners, big boom and heals coming from casters and all day damage coming from the combat monkeys.

I say let's rip off the band aids and spray on some Bactine, before it leaves a scar.

Obviously I agree with Ezri, just can't type as fast!
 

Saephis

Squire
With all of the thoughts on additions to this, additions to that, I think that a likely easy fix and different flavor to things would be just to eliminate the <Activate Spell> Business all together.

Put a bigger emphasis on the other rituals through this, we'd see more use of the more creative rituals (Be honest to yourself, throwing a bunch of actiavables together into your pocket isn't creative, its just min/max'ing). Use rituals like Sacrifice instead of Activatable Life. Use Spellstrikes instead of the Activatable versions. Bring more Elemental Bursts into play.

Ritual magic, in this system, really seems like its supposed to be more exacting than some of the stuff in there now. Why would someone want an Activatable Spell Shield when they could get a smart defense like Cloak or a Bane? Sure, it has to be oriented towards one type of spell, but you know that your Cloak Gift will soak a Death spell rather than get blown by some yay-hoo chucking disarms just to blow spell shields.

Again, everyone's seems to be too interested in adding this, or adding that restriction... If you eliminate the problem all together, and put more emphasis on other things in the process, what's there to lose?

Heck, that sort of fix may even make Healers and Celestial Scholars more worth it than they currently are.
 

Togashin

Scholar
I believe there should be a limit put on the number of LCO items put out and the one's that are should be small in size unless they are true lot items, then they should be short in duration. The fact is right now it's very easy to get good, long lasting LCO items. This should change.

I think the idea of removing 9th level spells from times per day items is a good idea. 9th level spells are the mainstay thing for scholars to be able to cast besides formal. This change would make scholars truely usefull and wouldnt hurt people that have a large amount of magic items. For items with 9th lvl. times per day activates they could be changed into the same amount of levels of other spells. For example: a 1/day life would be turned into 9 levels worth of spells like a 1/day magic armor and 1/day destruction. For items that allready have the max amount of rits on them could be changed and allowed to have more then 20 rits on them, grandfathered in as you might call it. Or multiple items could be made out of the one.
I realize this change would be a logistical nightmare while everything is worked out, but i belive it's the best cource of action.

Earth scholar and formalist,
Ryan Z.
 

Sunnfire

Squire
Those are all fair questions.

I can say that some of them don't have good answers and that others are also being discussed. But mainly the main complaint I hear is that they are just plain better than spell casters for the reasons listed before. Activate <incant> would address one of the reasons they are better.

I do not know how you can possibly say that being able to cast at twice the speed and half the margin for error, is not a fantastic advantage. Again this is not a my speed vs your speed. This is flat out, I can throw twice as much **** out of an item in any given time period than I can if I were casting the same stuff from memory.

In the time that it takes me to cast from memory and take down a spell shield and prison someone, I can use items instead and get two people. Thats not a huge advantage?

I can see your concern that putting a 'bandaid' on the problem will move it out of the limelight, and possibly delay a 'real' fix.

I do not see that change as being a 'bandaid' I see it as being part of an overall solution.

Regardless of who can carry or use an item, or how many they can have, or if its a 9th level spell or a 1st, the build spent on the actual skill should not be trumped by an item.

Even if you were to say you can only carry 5 items, and to use them you need to possess the skill, or that they can only contain 1st level spells. The item would still be better than spells in memory. All you are doing is forcing the items into specific hands.

Again not that those are bad ideas, but they do not address the problem that the proposed rule was trying to.

If you have 1 item or 100, it doesn't matter. Every single one is flat out better than having that spell in memory. That particular change would leave the usefulness, and lower the speed.

The main answer that I have gotten from people when I asked, if you think that it will have no real effect on the game then why do you care if it gets implemented? has been, well it would be annoying to have to say the whole incant. Why would it be annoying? Because it takes longer, and its harder to say.

Exactly.

So people don't like it because they want their items to stay quicker and easier to use than spells.

Not liking the rule because you don't think it fixes the whole problem, thats fair. But no one rule is going to 'fix' all the perceived problems there are in the game.

Skill store items do not have this problem because they do require the full incant to use. It is no faster for a Mage with an Eviscerate item to use it than for the fighter to use his, or whatever other skill store item we are talking about. (Those should require 'activate' too in my opinion)

If you have me fight myself (no really, its a good time), as a scholar and a fighter, each with the skills of the other in items. The fighter duel would be relatively even, and the Mage duel would go to the fighter every time.

If you honestly do not think that the speed of items is a problem, then we are going to have to agree to disagree on that fact.
 

Togashin

Scholar
Wasn't the reason items were origonaly made to only have to say activate was so they were faster then reguler incants?
 

Saephis

Squire
Not sure on the reason behind it, but I'd guess it was just a simple "Oh, well, you're using this, so this phrasing works pretty easy." Both as a way to note that an item is being used and to differentiate it from being cast / activated.

I'm still in favor of getting rid of activable spells through the Ritual or limiting magic items to only being able to be used by someone who would otherwise be able to do it without said magic item.
 

Ezri

Knight
HQ Staff
Sunnfire said:
Those are all fair questions.

I can say that some of them don't have good answers and that others are also being discussed. But mainly the main complaint I hear is that they are just plain better than spell casters for the reasons listed before. Activate <incant> would address one of the reasons they are better.

I do not know how you can possibly say that being able to cast at twice the speed and half the margin for error, is not a fantastic advantage. Again this is not a my speed vs your speed. This is flat out, I can throw twice as much **** out of an item in any given time period than I can if I were casting the same stuff from memory.

In the time that it takes me to cast from memory and take down a spell shield and prison someone, I can use items instead and get two people. Thats not a huge advantage?

I can see your concern that putting a 'bandaid' on the problem will move it out of the limelight, and possibly delay a 'real' fix.

I do not see that change as being a 'bandaid' I see it as being part of an overall solution.

Regardless of who can carry or use an item, or how many they can have, or if its a 9th level spell or a 1st, the build spent on the actual skill should not be trumped by an item.

Even if you were to say you can only carry 5 items, and to use them you need to possess the skill, or that they can only contain 1st level spells. The item would still be better than spells in memory. All you are doing is forcing the items into specific hands.

Again not that those are bad ideas, but they do not address the problem that the proposed rule was trying to.

If you have 1 item or 100, it doesn't matter. Every single one is flat out better than having that spell in memory. That particular change would leave the usefulness, and lower the speed.

The main answer that I have gotten from people when I asked, if you think that it will have no real effect on the game then why do you care if it gets implemented? has been, well it would be annoying to have to say the whole incant. Why would it be annoying? Because it takes longer, and its harder to say.

Exactly.

So people don't like it because they want their items to stay quicker and easier to use than spells.

Not liking the rule because you don't think it fixes the whole problem, thats fair. But no one rule is going to 'fix' all the perceived problems there are in the game.

Skill store items do not have this problem because they do require the full incant to use. It is no faster for a Mage with an Eviscerate item to use it than for the fighter to use his, or whatever other skill store item we are talking about. (Those should require 'activate' too in my opinion)

If you have me fight myself (no really, its a good time), as a scholar and a fighter, each with the skills of the other in items. The fighter duel would be relatively even, and the Mage duel would go to the fighter every time.

If you honestly do not think that the speed of items is a problem, then we are going to have to agree to disagree on that fact.
I understand where you're going with that Jesse.

I liked the longer incant idea but I think another possibility (and I know somebody else said this but for the life of me I can't recall who) would be to force the item to be held or at least touched to be used. Just make it a characteristic of a magic item. The same way scrolls have rules (must be able to read it, touch the packet etc). Change the rule so that in order to activate a magic item you have to touch the packet to the item before throwing or using. Nobody loses their hard-earned items, but now you have to get the damn thing out to use it, instead of somehow miraculously activating the right item out of the pouch hanging off your back.

If you want me to write that up formally and send to the ARC I'll gladly do so.

You're right, it's the ease of use that's the problem - but not just the incant - 99% of the time you don't even have to be able to SEE the damn thing to use it. THAT is crazy. Having to fumble through a pouch to find something will take a hell of a lot longer than just a longer incant, and blammo, caster is now more powerful because all he/she needs to do is literally say the words.

Now here's what this would not affect: player made items.

Most often (at least on the EC) when a PC ritualist makes an item, it's a weapon, or a golem, or a bottle. Well, a bottle already has to be in contact with the body for you to be lifed. Nothing changing there. You obviously can't use a weapon without holding it, so any activates built into a weapon are already taken care of. And I'm ok with PC-made items not being affected by the change, because a ritualist SPENT BUILD to be able to make this thing. Whether they choose to make it for themselves or somebody else is another matter. Are there any PC ritual item thingies that I'm missing in this?
 
Top