Magic items - pay for base item?

[The Souljourner]

Say you have platemail which is 8PD OIF, Independent (-2 1/2) for a total of 3.43 points (I know you're supposed to round, but for now, let's keep a little precision). In a heroic campaign, you don't pay points for the (non-magical) armor.

 

If someone wanted platemail of strength (+5 strength also OIF Independent -> 1.42 points) would you then make them pay 1.42 points, or 4.85 points?

 

I think I've answered my own question, since you could make an amulet of +5 strength for a mere 1.42 points, and wear it with the armor.... the obvious answer must be that you only pay points for the magical part.

 

Feel free to comment or disagree.

 

-Nate

[Manic Typist]

Re: Magic items - pay for base item?

 

You have chosen... wisely.

[Ternaugh]

Re: Magic items - pay for base item?

 

Well, the book-legal way for making an item is to charge points for all of the powers in the item. In your example, you would pay 3 points (rounded from the 3.42) + 1 point (rounded from the 1.42), for a total of 4 points. Primarily, this is considered a balancing issue (especially in other genres, like Supers). It also influences how easily it is to dispel the item. In the case of the amulet, any dispel which can achieve 5 points (typically, 2d6 of Dispel) of effect on the dice can completely destroy the item, while the armor you describe would require a slightly better result of 17 points of effect (typically, 5d6 of Dispel). Note that the character permanently loses the points spent through Independent. By the way, did you want your plate mail to be 8 PD or 8 DEF? It would be even more effective at repelling a Dispel, with 29 Active Points (typically, around 9d6 of Dispel). See p150 in 5ER for how Independent works with Dispel.

 

On a tangent, my campaigns are actually moving away from the Independent route for most player-purchased magic items. We tend to describe them as universal foci, so that they may be rebuilt or recovered if damaged or destroyed (which may be an adventure in itself).

 

JoeG

[The Souljourner]

Re: Magic items - pay for base item?

 

Dispel destroys independent powers? That doesn't seem right... it makes dispel way too powerful in games that use any significant amount of independent items.

 

As for balance, it sounds like the only reason to embed it in the armor is to protect against dispel, in which case, why not just buy the amulet with that much more strength (besides campaign limits etc)?

 

And yes, I specifically wanted my armor as 8PD only. Why should metal armor protect from fire or electricity or cold? Since most magic comes in the form of energy damage, it seemed like a perfect way to have magic bypass armor in a completely logical way. I play a lot of D&D, so I'm used to armor being useless against magic, and I like that Hero has a really simple way to achieve that.

 

Plus that makes it that much easier to make magical armor that works against those things... fire resistant armor: +8ED, only versus fire. Bam, magic armor that protects you from fire damage. Sweet.

 

-Nate

[Ternaugh]

Re: Magic items - pay for base item?

 

Yup. Independent is specifically a -2 limitation specifically because the item can be destroyed in a number of ways. If someone specifically targets the item, then it can also be destroyed. An amulet, as an OIF, could be removed from a captured person, and smashed. The points in the amulet would then be permanently lost. That's why I'd recommend that if you are charging points for items, that you consider not using Independent. By just using the focus, you allow the items to be rebuilt/recovered with suitable work on the part of the character.

Normally, Dispel isn't much of a problem in most games. Dispel requires an advantage to be able to work on a larger class of effects, and, even then is usually bought to dispel one effect at at time (though an item with multiple powers is treated as one effect for these purposes). So, most wizards won't be running around with the ability to "zap" everything on a person at one time.

 

On the subject of energy attacks and armor, it's generally assumed that there is padding on under a suit of full plate. And with proper design, a set of full plate would be extremely suitable as a defense against lightning and other electrical-based attacks. The character would, in effect, have the electricity travel harmlessly around him, to ground. But if you're trying to model a DnD style, then you are correct that plate mail generates "Lightning Bolt Attraction".

 

JoeG

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Magic items - pay for base item?

 

The question doesn't seem to be phrased in a way my head can connect to it. You're asking should the PC pay for the Power, or the Power + Base Item? Er, the answer for me is neither.

 

It's a matter of the total value of the piece; in other words, an Amulet of Strength (OIF +5, or IIF +5, depending) may not be worth as much as say, Platemail of STR +5. So for me, this is as much a factor of genre (how easy is it to enchant a suit of plate? How easy is it to enchant anything? Are amulets of STR +5 easily found, are they rare?) I just see more questions here than the one asked originally.

[Curufea]

Re: Magic items - pay for base item?

 

Dispel destroys items in general. However - if you class an item as "magical" then the suggested rules variant is that magical items count as having APx5 for the purposes of dispel. And the largest power is dispelled first, the item only destroyed if all powers are dispelled.

 

Mind you, to dispel an item - the dispel actually has to be relevant. A "magic dispell" wouldn't effect a normal item.

 

It is assumed, like most heroic-level genres for Hero - that it will be an equipment-heavy game where equipment is bought with money, rather than character points.

 

If you aren't doing that in your game, you probably should modify the way dispel works.

[Outsider]

Re: Magic items - pay for base item?

 

In your specific example, I wouldnt be averse to just paying character points for the magical effect that was added to the otherwise standard plate armor.

 

I would, however, require that a character pay for the entire item if the magical effect increases the base function of the otherwise normal equipment. So buying a 3D6 HKA(P) Great Sword would cost 45/disadvantages (all 3D6), rather than 15/disadvantages (the base 2D6 being 'free' and only paying for the added magical 1D6)

[The Souljourner]

Re: Magic items - pay for base item?

 

Curufea - sure you pay money for items, but you're supposed to pay points for magic items - otherwise it's no fair to the wizard who paid 4 character points for a fly spell when you walk into a store and buy boots of flight.

 

As for dispel... I don't know that it should destroy items in general. Turn them off, sure. But destroy? I don't see it. It doesn't destroy powers of people, so why should it destroy powers of objects, let alone the objects themselves? That sounds like an area for transform.

 

I know Independent is -2 because the power can be lost, in most cases from the focus it's in being destroyed... I just never heard of dispel being able to do it. I forgot to look up the rules on dispel last night, so I don't know what they say, but I thought dispel was only supposed to turn powers off, not destroy anything.

 

Outsider - that's a good point, and one I had been thinking about. I'd probably do it that way... but I think I'll add a little more to the "wholly magical" items, like never needing maintenance, glowing, or whatever... something to make the player feel like they're not getting screwed compared to the guy who got his armor enchanted for cheap.

 

-Nate

[Markdoc]

Re: Magic items - pay for base item?

 

I simply don't allow items to be enchanted for "free". You're opening yourself up for a world of regret otherwise.

 

Sure, the guy can have a +5 STR amulet over (or even under, if it's IIF) his armour, but it's a seperate item and can be stolen, loaned or targetted with having any effect on the armour. In that regard, it's mechanistically different (and more vulnerable) than an armour that gives +5 STR.

 

It's mechanistically different from an amulet that gives +5 STR and 8DEF armour as well, so it *should* have an different cost.

 

Most importantly, however, the player who makes a fighter will grit his teeth in anger when he routinely gets beaten senseless, while the mage who enhanced his suit of plate with another +8 DEF armour (thus getting double effect from his spell for free) is a combat monster, essentially unkillable by normal weapons - and paid a whole 3 points for that ability, using your guideline.

 

You can always disallow adding extra DEF to armour and HKA to ordinary weapons, but then your players will likely add extra STR to the armour (to let them max out their weapons) and extra DEF to user when wielding the sword. The effect ends up being the same.

 

A simple and very, very valuable rule for FH GM's is "Free stuff is mundane. Magical stuff is not mundane, and therefore not free".

 

cheers, Mark

[SCUBA Hero]

Re: Magic items - pay for base item?

 

Dispel destroys independent powers? That doesn't seem right... it makes dispel way too powerful in games that use any significant amount of independent items.

Dispel destroys Independent powers in an object or item, but must exceed the total Active Points of all Powers within the item. 5ER, page 150.

[SCUBA Hero]

Re: Magic items - pay for base item?

 

In a heroic campaign, you don't pay points for the (non-magical) armor.

 

If someone wanted platemail of strength (+5 strength also OIF Independent -> 1.42 points) would you then make them pay 1.42 points, or 4.85 points?

 

I think I've answered my own question, since you could make an amulet of +5 strength for a mere 1.42 points, and wear it with the armor.... the obvious answer must be that you only pay points for the magical part.

 

Feel free to comment or disagree.

 

-Nate

Fantasy Hero, page 278: "If a character creates a magic item which is an enhanced, improved, or otherwise altered version of a mundane item which has a calculated Character Point cost (such as a weapon or a suit of armor), then the character must pay the cost of both the mundane item and the enchangtment, even if he ordinarily could buy the mundane item with money alone. The character can't just pay for the "magical addition"; he has to pay for the whole thing."

 

(Italics in original.)

 

********************

 

That being said, in one of our Dark Champions campaigns (where mundane items were bought with money) we insituted a house rule that super powers only cost the difference between what could be bought with money instead of Character Points. For example, a character could buy a 2d6 RKA OAF gun with money (15 Real Points) so a character that could shoot laser beams from his eyes (2d6 RKA, 30 Real Points) could buy the Power for 30 - 15 = 15 Character Points. It was the only way we found to make super powers competitive (otherwise the players with free BFGs and their points in Skill levels and such completely overshadowed the true supers). And we didn't want to go to charging Character Points for mundane items.

[Curufea]

Re: Magic items - pay for base item?

 

Curufea - sure you pay money for items' date=' but you're supposed to pay points for magic items - otherwise it's no fair to the wizard who paid 4 character points for a fly spell when you walk into a store and buy boots of flight.[/quote']

 

Depends on the setting - I run a high fantasy campaign. There are alchemist shops where players can buy potions, minor magic items, or could engage their services for a custom job.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Magic items - pay for base item?

 

As for dispel... I don't know that it should destroy items in general. Turn them off' date=' sure. But destroy? I don't see it. It doesn't destroy powers of people, so why should it destroy powers of objects, let alone the objects themselves? That sounds like an area for transform.[/quote']

 

 

Dispel Running doesn't completely depower the Flash because he didn't buy his extra inches of Running with the Independent Limitation. It's solely because of the Independent limitation that this works.

 

The Dispel also may not destroy the item itself. I agree, it doesn't make sense that a Dispel Magic would destroy a magic amulet, but I could certainly see it completely stripping away its powers, rendering it essentially useless except for adornment.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Magic items - pay for base item?

 

Dispel destroys independent powers? That doesn't seem right... it makes dispel way too powerful in games that use any significant amount of independent items.

 

Independent is a -2 limitation. That should have some pretty serious down sides, shouldn't it?

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Magic items - pay for base item?

 

Specifically, when something Independent is busted, it is gone. Gone forever, unless your GM is astoundingly lenient. One of my PCs took his power armor as Independent. I let him do it (maybe I shouldn't have) but it's a once-in-a-lifetime item, and in part a plot device. A fair trade.

[Cantriped]

Re: Magic items - pay for base item?

 

Personally This is why I like the Dark Champions Resource Point rules. It allows you to make them pay for their crap yet at the same time still allowing them to recover from losing a piece of equipment.

I don't like the Independant limitation on principle, if the character is paying points, the measure and essense of his being and abilities, for an item. That thing better darn well fly to his hand on command jedi style and remake itself if destroyed. Otherwise I just think of it as another peice of equipment. irregardless of how said equipment is defined.