Magic Items

Sunnfire

Squire
I just don't want to see 'item guy' walking around with all his items strung out across his shield, or hanging from his belt because that way he can get to them without digging through pouches.

Most player made ones are hand held in some fashion, or easily wearable on the outside. So, they would not really be negatively affected anyway.

It would slow down the casting, for the most part. But I think you would start seeing every player made, or gobbied item being something that it worn, held or otherwise accessible in a fantastically easy fashion to circumvent the requirement. Which would make PC items which are already likely to be 'uber', and gobbied items have an advantage over whatever gets randomly sent out. Most of our stuff is some form of jewelry, so maybe not. Of course, only the gypsies would be cool with wearing it all visibly ;)

I think the other way is less 'invasive'. Go ahead and submit it to the ARC. I'm all for more ideas :)
 

Ezri

Knight
HQ Staff
True, but you also have to remember -which- item does what. Touch the wrong item and it's blown. And putting them out there makes them a target for theft, so I doubt everybody and their grandmother will be walking around with the Mr. T Starter Kit of magic items (thank you Erica).

We could also go further to the extreme and require the item to be hand-held...
 

Sunnfire

Squire
Ezri said:
walking around with the Mr. T Starter Kit of magic items (thank you Erica).
Do I even want to know what that means?

I think its a decent idea, just playing devils advocate.

At least I have not gone to stage 2 where I just post completely useless and inappropriate comments or attempt to anger as many people as possible by saying whatever offensive thing comes to mind. ;)

I frequently start at that stage on the CT boards.
 

Ezri

Knight
HQ Staff
Meh, every other proposal I've sent to the ARC has been shot down, what's one more? LOL

I really do think the hand-held thing would ultimately make them less convenient than a caster's memory, but that's just me. I might be just a weeee bit biased. Hell, even my primary (who is a scholar) would find that a pain in the ***.
 

Togashin

Scholar
Sunnfire said:
At least I have not gone to stage 2 where I just post completely useless and inappropriate comments or attempt to anger as many people as possible by saying whatever offensive thing comes to mind. ;)

I frequently start at that stage on the CT boards.

Just making the comment that you'd be willing to anger people is upsetting.
 

Tyson

Scholar
Gettysburg Staff
Michelle, I think that was me. (If there weren't others, too.)

And I said that even shoving a hand in your "pouch of magickables" while you activated one of the items in there would be fine. It's still something that makes the user devote some effort to using the item, instead of being so mind-numbingly automatic.
 

Mike Ventrella

Duke
Owner
Moderator
HQ Staff
I'm now coming back to this thread, which I had not been reading for a while, and wanted to correct something I think I am reading here...

Celebolwa said:
they can be used in situations I can't cast in (web, silence).
Magic items cannot be activated while silenced (read the Silence description on page 88)...
 

Mike Ventrella

Duke
Owner
Moderator
HQ Staff
Togashin said:
Wasn't the reason items were origonaly made to only have to say activate was so they were faster then reguler incants?
Well, how far back do you want to go? :D

I recall a very heated debate in the old NERO about this. It was probably around 1994-95 or so, and the Ashbury chapter had been around for a few years. We had a national symposium to try to standardize the rules a bit more.

In our Ashbury game (and I think in the original Ravenholt game as well), we had always played magic items such that you said the incant just like a caster -- but you didn't say "activate". You just said the verbal and the other person would not know whether you had a magic item or actually knew the spell from memory.

Other chapters wanted to change it to just plain "activate" and while the Ashbury group said no, we wanted the full incant (for many of the reasons listed here), we lost the vote.

The leader of the movement in favor of making it just "activate" was a powergamer I never liked who I was certain wanted activates so his character (a fighter) would be more powerful. Later in that same meeting, he advocated making the verbals for throwing gasses even longer (since, of course, he wasn't an alchemist). "Sure, good idea," I recall saying sarcastically. "How about 'activate sleep gas poison'"? His hypocricy bugged me, but we abided by the vote.

And you know what? Now, after all this time, I'd really like to correct the problem that I saw then when I lost the vote. I think a lot of the argument against this proposal are, at the root of it, not much different from what I heard way back then.

So to answer your question: No, the original idea was the exact opposite.
 

Mike Ventrella

Duke
Owner
Moderator
HQ Staff
Sunnfire said:
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.
And it would be cooler.

Come on, what is cooler to hear in a live action roleplaying game? Someone saying "With mystic force I web you!" or someone saying "activate web" like they are playing a computer game and they just pushed the right button?
 

Saephis

Squire
Personalized casting to "standard" memorized spells, with guidelines on the incant's required length when you attain each level of casting, with the current required incant shifted to activated items that you must have in hand to cast from would seem a pretty apt fix, as well, if people are so hungry for extra spells without spending build on it.

It'd allow people that spent the build on the spell more freedom, more role play freedom at that, while requiring more action to properly activate ritually created magic items.

What sounds better than "Activate Web, With Mystic Force I Web You"? "From the depths of the ethereal caves, I summon a Web to Bind you" does, I'd wager, if they memorized it from a book. Where as, pulled from a bag, a spider encased in crystal is held in hand before the packet touches it and "With Mystic Force, I Web You" is called, and the packet thrown.

Win-Win situation, from my eyes.
 
I think this really has gone full circle but needles to say I have to mention again that I think personalized spell calls would make things crazy in the game. If only for the fact that you'd need to be listening so carefully to hear the actual name of the spell. I like the spell calls as they stand. There is enough variety but they are also not so complicated you can't at least remember one type on your first day.

<<Quote>>
Why are magic items better? Why are people complaining about pocket casters? 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? Why can magic items have L9 activate 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?
<<End Quote>>

For me it all comes back to, what does the game look like without items really at all? Like strip the game down to race/class, build point skills, costumes, basic weapons and packets. When you look at what you have there its a fairly balanced game.

Or at least more so than it is now with magic items off the walls. However it is not unfair that players would build up large and voluminous fortunes if they are adventuring for years. And of course the people that contribute tons to the game should be rewarded in some cool way as well. But I do think that all the magic items flying around portrays a real desire people have for more magic in the game. Partially because it is important, but also because it is cool. Perhaps battle magic and hence the scholar could be saved from its current under powering by making separate magic for items. However if the magic is kept the same here are the list of ideas from this thread that I think are really worth seriously considering to put magic items in their place.

Items take anywhere from a 5 count to a 10 count to "activate"
Lengthen the verbal to include the incant
Only allow players already with similar bp skills to use the magic items

Lastly but certainly not least important is the issue of making whatever changes are decided upon reasonable to implement. Obviously the Alliance might have a full scale riot if magic items were just wiped and re-done across the board so that can't be done. And with all of these issues Formal Magic is an intricately involved piece in fixing the trouble with magic items. Perhaps formal magic should not be able to simply duplicate battle magic (after all thats what more spell slots can do). We could still have rituals but make even these just for the event.

I'm just throwing out ideas and obviously most of them wouldn't really work but clearly its worth some thought on everyones part. =)
 

tieran

Duke
Gettysburg Staff
Marshal
What if we just removed Expanded Enchantment (i.e. per day activates) from the game entirely (along with some other changes, or not)

This ritual is the cause of much of the pocket scholar hullabaloo anyway.

Can the ritual, let people trade in their existing per day items for other magical effects based on the already existing PP values in the treasure policy.

Take out Damage Aura, replace it with Magic Aura (or something similar) with no damage modifiers, just gives a magic carrier (basically exactly duplicating elemental aura & earth/chaos aura). Compensate with magic PP based on dropping to a +0 DA.

Leave in Enchant (times ever items), make the duration of times ever items until used.

Leave in Spell Store, but force it to be incanted (with or without activate).

Remove Extend Enchantment (1 year duration ritual) and give most rituals a base duration of 1 year.

Change duration on Store Ability to until used (to bring even with Enchant).
 

Mike Ventrella

Duke
Owner
Moderator
HQ Staff
But a lot of magic items go out as treasure. Removing the ritual wouldn't change that.

If we don't put out items as treasure, then we need to put out more gold to compensate, and players are rich enough now! Besides, gold costs us real money!!!
 

Saephis

Squire
tieran said:
What if we just removed Expanded Enchantment (i.e. per day activates) from the game entirely (along with some other changes, or not)

This ritual is the cause of much of the pocket scholar hullabaloo anyway.

Can the ritual, let people trade in their existing per day items for other magical effects based on the already existing PP values in the treasure policy.

Take out Damage Aura, replace it with Magic Aura (or something similar) with no damage modifiers, just gives a magic carrier (basically exactly duplicating elemental aura & earth/chaos aura). Compensate with magic PP based on dropping to a +0 DA.

Leave in Enchant (times ever items), make the duration of times ever items until used.

Leave in Spell Store, but force it to be incanted (with or without activate).

Remove Extend Enchantment (1 year duration ritual) and give most rituals a base duration of 1 year.

Change duration on Store Ability to until used (to bring even with Enchant).
I'm in favor of pulling the ritual all together, leave everything else the way it is (I don't think scholars are going to replace fighters any time soon just because they can swing an extra three damage). As stated earlier, it'd put a bigger emphasis on the more creative-use rituals and give magic items some flavor, rather than just loading up a pocket scholar and blasting away.

Remove the "This activates faster than you incant, probably" factor, likely gives Celestial casters a better boost, and makes Healers worth it a bit more. You want to duplicate a Celestial/Earth Spell? I hear there's potions and scrolls for that. Production's a great thing, and, in the long run, will likely cost less gold than trying to buy a #/day magic item specifically for what you want, if you were to buy it from another PC.

No, I don't think it's going to happen, because too many people with say-so on the matter love pocket scholars I imagine. Probably why it wasn't suggested before this.
 

Mike Ventrella

Duke
Owner
Moderator
HQ Staff
Saephis said:
No, I don't think it's going to happen, because too many people with say-so on the matter love pocket scholars I imagine. Probably why it wasn't suggested before this.
Well, it only lost by one vote among the owners, where a 75% vote is required to pass a new rule. So all we have to do is convince one owner to change his mind.... ;)
 

Saephis

Squire
Fearless Leader said:
Saephis said:
No, I don't think it's going to happen, because too many people with say-so on the matter love pocket scholars I imagine. Probably why it wasn't suggested before this.
Well, it only lost by one vote among the owners, where a 75% vote is required to pass a new rule. So all we have to do is convince one owner to change his mind.... ;)
I was referring to getting rid of the Activate <spell> #/day ritual all together. Not changing how/if the incant went.
 

TrentD

Newbie
Fearless Leader said:
But a lot of magic items go out as treasure. Removing the ritual wouldn't change that.

If we don't put out items as treasure, then we need to put out more gold to compensate, and players are rich enough now! Besides, gold costs us real money!!!
<hardcore delurk>

Well, it's just the spells-per-day items that would be going away with his idea...not times-evers or scrolls or potions or rit comps or alchemy or anything else. I've always been under the impression that times-per-day were the smallest part of the treasure bucket anyway...though maybe not in terms of value. Admittedly it's been some time since I've seen what's in a treasure bucket (let alone played at all), so maybe things have changed...

Trent
 

Hoyce

Artisan
Sunnfire said:
At least I have not gone to stage 2 where I just post completely useless and inappropriate comments or attempt to anger as many people as possible by saying whatever offensive thing comes to mind. ;)

I frequently start at that stage on the CT boards.
Are you stealing my shtick?

Having to touch an item would be an improvement, IMHO. Yes it'll still lead to some chump putting a string of them on the back of his shield, and someone may have a belt of necklaces, but both of these things are not without risk (loss, identification as a magic item, theft, etc...) as opposed to just knowing that somone has an item on them...somewhere and that isn't all that succeptable to loss or theft.

Also, it is hoped, that this would encourage people to actually wear their magical rings, necklaces, etc...

Someone commented that you'd find a lot of people making magic hats and bracers and clothes and such instead but I have no problem with that. At least it's a little bit flavor to the game and makes it a little less convienent to duplicate another classes build (just like potions and scrolls are less convienent ways of doing so.)

It's not as preferable as the "Hoyce is King of Nero" solution (which I detailed earlier in this or one of the other Magic Item/Ritual Use threads) but it's not bad either.

-Hoyce
 
Top