Rods are messed up

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Something bothers me about the rod magic item 'class'. It seems like a mix of
two different types.

Here's my proposed house rules:


I. The only Rodlike magic items that still count as Rods are the metamagic rods.
This makes Rods the magic-item equivalent of metamagic feats. I.E., wands are to
spells as rods are to metamagic feats. Namely:
A) Metamagic Rod, Empower, lesser
B) Metamagic Rod, Empower
C) Metamagic Rod, Empower, greater
D) Metamagic Rod, Enlarge, lesser
E) Metamagic Rod, Enlarge
F) Metamagic Rod, Enlarge, greater
G) Metamagic Rod, Extend, lesser
H) Metamagic Rod, Extend
I) Metamagic Rod, Extend, greater
J) Metamagic Rod, Maximize, lesser
K) Metamagic Rod, Maximize
L) Metamagic Rod, Maximize, greater
M) Metamagic Rod, Quicken, lesser
N) Metamagic Rod, Quicken
O) Metamagic Rod, Quicken, greater
P) Metamagic Rod, Silent, lesser
Q) Metamagic Rod, Silent
R) Metamagic Rod, Silent, greater


II. The following Rodlike magic items are reclassified as Wondrous Items with
the altered names:
A) Rod of Absorption -> "Cane of Absorption"
B) Rod of Cancellation -> "Cane of Cancellation"
C) Rod of Energy Detection -> "Baton of Energy Detection"
D) Rod of Flame Extinguishing -> "Cane of Flame Extinguishing"
E) Immovable Rod -> "Immovable Rung"
F) Rod of Lordly Might -> "Scepter of Lordly Might"
G) Rod of Metal and Mineral Detection -> "Baton of Metal and Mineral Detection"
H) Rod of Negation -> "Cane of Negation"
I) Rod of Rulership -> "Scepter of Rulership"
J) Rod of Security -> "Mace of Security"
K) Rod of Splendor -> "Scepter of Splendor"
L) Rod of Wonder -> "Baton of Wonder"

III. The following Rodlike magic items are reclassified as specific magical
weapons (and would belong in DMG table 7-16):
A) Rod of Alertness -> "Mace of Alertness"
B) Rod of Flailing -> "Dire Flail of Defense" [sorry, "Dire Flail of Flailing"
just sounds flurby]
C) Python Rod -> "Quarterstaff of the Python"
D) Rod of Thunder and Lightning -> "Mace of Thunder and Lightning"
E) Viper Rod -> "Mace of the Viper"
F) Rod of Withering -> "Mace of Withering"


--

Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

"Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
when they're out of their depth."
-Jeff Heikkinen
27 answers Last reply
More about rods messed
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Matthias" <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:fmdc3111c0dvs6b7ufuddejprovprsql7q@4ax.com...

    > F) Rod of Lordly Might -> "Scepter of Lordly Might"

    That's even worse, you realise.

    - David Prokopetz.
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 21:26:27 -0600, "David Prokopetz" <sirbob@penguinking.com>
    wrote:

    >"Matthias" <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >news:fmdc3111c0dvs6b7ufuddejprovprsql7q@4ax.com...
    >
    >> F) Rod of Lordly Might -> "Scepter of Lordly Might"
    >
    >That's even worse, you realise.

    English usually has no shortage of synonyms, but words meaning "stick" are
    fairly lacking.

    --

    Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

    "Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
    do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
    when they're out of their depth."
    -Jeff Heikkinen
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:52:38 GMT, Matthias <matthias_mls@yahoo.com>
    carved upon a tablet of ether:

    > On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 21:26:27 -0600, "David Prokopetz" <sirbob@penguinking.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >"Matthias" <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > >news:fmdc3111c0dvs6b7ufuddejprovprsql7q@4ax.com...
    > >
    > >> F) Rod of Lordly Might -> "Scepter of Lordly Might"
    > >
    > >That's even worse, you realise.
    >
    > English usually has no shortage of synonyms, but words meaning "stick" are
    > fairly lacking.

    Rod, wand, twig, pole, switch, branch, staff, stalk. "I pull out my
    Twig of Power!"


    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:08:55 +1300, Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    wrote:

    >On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:52:38 GMT, Matthias <matthias_mls@yahoo.com>
    >carved upon a tablet of ether:
    >
    >> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 21:26:27 -0600, "David Prokopetz" <sirbob@penguinking.com>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >"Matthias" <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >> >news:fmdc3111c0dvs6b7ufuddejprovprsql7q@4ax.com...
    >> >
    >> >> F) Rod of Lordly Might -> "Scepter of Lordly Might"
    >> >
    >> >That's even worse, you realise.
    >>
    >> English usually has no shortage of synonyms, but words meaning "stick" are
    >> fairly lacking.
    >
    >Rod, wand, twig, pole, switch, branch, staff, stalk. "I pull out my
    >Twig of Power!"

    Let me rephrase: "/manly/ words meaning 'stick' are fairly lacking." :)

    --

    Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

    "Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
    do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
    when they're out of their depth."
    -Jeff Heikkinen
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Matthias" <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:qo9f31dqqcs6g6cnenpvnl8adev7ghf1bb@4ax.com...
    > >> English usually has no shortage of synonyms, but words meaning "stick"
    are
    > >> fairly lacking.
    > >
    > >Rod, wand, twig, pole, switch, branch, staff, stalk. "I pull out my
    > >Twig of Power!"
    >
    > Let me rephrase: "/manly/ words meaning 'stick' are fairly lacking." :)

    Hang on here, who wouldn't want a Stalk of Stalking? ;)

    --
    Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
    It's not a god complex when you're always right
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Matthias wrote:
    > On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:08:55 +1300, Rupert Boleyn
    > <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:52:38 GMT, Matthias <matthias_mls@yahoo.com>
    >> carved upon a tablet of ether:
    >>
    >>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 21:26:27 -0600, "David Prokopetz"
    >>> <sirbob@penguinking.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Matthias" <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >>>> news:fmdc3111c0dvs6b7ufuddejprovprsql7q@4ax.com...
    >>>>
    >>>>> F) Rod of Lordly Might -> "Scepter of Lordly Might"
    >>>>
    >>>> That's even worse, you realise.
    >>>
    >>> English usually has no shortage of synonyms, but words meaning
    >>> "stick" are fairly lacking.
    >>
    >> Rod, wand, twig, pole, switch, branch, staff, stalk. "I pull out my
    >> Twig of Power!"
    >
    > Let me rephrase: "/manly/ words meaning 'stick' are fairly lacking."
    > :)

    Shaft of Lordly Might?

    <Hopes his players never see that one>

    --
    Mark.
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 03:17:09 GMT, Matthias <matthias_mls@yahoo.com>
    carved upon a tablet of ether:

    > On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:08:55 +1300, Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:52:38 GMT, Matthias <matthias_mls@yahoo.com>
    > >carved upon a tablet of ether:
    > >
    > >> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 21:26:27 -0600, "David Prokopetz" <sirbob@penguinking.com>
    > >> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >"Matthias" <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > >> >news:fmdc3111c0dvs6b7ufuddejprovprsql7q@4ax.com...
    > >> >
    > >> >> F) Rod of Lordly Might -> "Scepter of Lordly Might"
    > >> >
    > >> >That's even worse, you realise.
    > >>
    > >> English usually has no shortage of synonyms, but words meaning "stick" are
    > >> fairly lacking.
    > >
    > >Rod, wand, twig, pole, switch, branch, staff, stalk. "I pull out my
    > >Twig of Power!"
    >
    > Let me rephrase: "/manly/ words meaning 'stick' are fairly lacking." :)

    I'm surprised Hong hasn't raised his head yet.


    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:03:09 +1300, Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    wrote:

    >On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 03:17:09 GMT, Matthias <matthias_mls@yahoo.com>
    >carved upon a tablet of ether:
    >
    >> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:08:55 +1300, Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:52:38 GMT, Matthias <matthias_mls@yahoo.com>
    >> >carved upon a tablet of ether:
    >> >
    >> >> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 21:26:27 -0600, "David Prokopetz" <sirbob@penguinking.com>
    >> >> wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> >"Matthias" <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >> >> >news:fmdc3111c0dvs6b7ufuddejprovprsql7q@4ax.com...
    >> >> >
    >> >> >> F) Rod of Lordly Might -> "Scepter of Lordly Might"
    >> >> >
    >> >> >That's even worse, you realise.
    >> >>
    >> >> English usually has no shortage of synonyms, but words meaning "stick" are
    >> >> fairly lacking.
    >> >
    >> >Rod, wand, twig, pole, switch, branch, staff, stalk. "I pull out my
    >> >Twig of Power!"
    >>
    >> Let me rephrase: "/manly/ words meaning 'stick' are fairly lacking." :)
    >
    >I'm surprised Hong hasn't raised his head yet.

    We don't need anyone raising their head here, this is a family board after all
    --

    Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

    "Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
    do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
    when they're out of their depth."
    -Jeff Heikkinen
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Matthias <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> writes:


    >Huh. I was not aware any balance among the magic item categories even existed.
    >Potions & Oils versus Staves, anyone?

    Oil vs Rod.

    ISAGN, IYKWIM, AITYD.
    --
    Chimes peal joy. Bah. Joseph Michael Bay
    Icy colon barge Cancer Biology
    Frosty divine Saturn Stanford University
    www.stanford.edu/~jmbay/ got my mojo properly adjusted
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 02:41:45 GMT, Matthias <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> scribed
    into the ether:

    >On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:45:58 -0800, "Malachias Invictus"
    ><capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Matthias" <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >>news:tgoh31pft1k0dpkjbghnvmfgje0vmnjad6@4ax.com...

    >>> and if dropping some of those rods into the category could possibly
    >>> unbalance
    >>> the Craft Wondrous Item feat to any noticeable degree.
    >>
    >>No. Craft Wondrous Item is already very powerful, and does not need a boost
    >>at the expense of a feat that is already fairly limited in scope.
    >
    >I have to BS on this whole "magic item balance" thing.
    >
    >Brew Potion is minimum caster level 3.
    >Craft Wondrous item is minimum caster level 3.
    >
    >Where is the balance there?

    The fact that a level 3 spellcaster is not going to have the resources to
    make even a tiny portion of the Wondrous items which are available. You can
    start pumping out potions with 1st and 2nd level spells on them to your
    heart's content, but if you need a bowl of water elemental summoning, level
    3 just isn't going to cut it.
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:04:39 GMT, Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com>
    wrote:

    >On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 02:41:45 GMT, Matthias <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> scribed
    >into the ether:
    >
    >>On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:45:58 -0800, "Malachias Invictus"
    >><capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"Matthias" <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >>>news:tgoh31pft1k0dpkjbghnvmfgje0vmnjad6@4ax.com...
    >
    >>>> and if dropping some of those rods into the category could possibly
    >>>> unbalance
    >>>> the Craft Wondrous Item feat to any noticeable degree.
    >>>
    >>>No. Craft Wondrous Item is already very powerful, and does not need a boost
    >>>at the expense of a feat that is already fairly limited in scope.
    >>
    >>I have to BS on this whole "magic item balance" thing.
    >>
    >>Brew Potion is minimum caster level 3.
    >>Craft Wondrous item is minimum caster level 3.
    >>
    >>Where is the balance there?
    >
    >The fact that a level 3 spellcaster is not going to have the resources to
    >make even a tiny portion of the Wondrous items which are available. You can
    >start pumping out potions with 1st and 2nd level spells on them to your
    >heart's content, but if you need a bowl of water elemental summoning, level
    >3 just isn't going to cut it.

    While true, it doesn't help the case that Wondrous Items is supposed to be this
    great all-powerful magic item category that cannot stand even one additional
    item to be added to it (in spite of the fact that a great majority of items that
    might be invented, are more likely to end up in the Wondrous Item category than
    any other, by virtue of its "catch all" nature).

    If a character can't afford all Wondrous Items at 3rd caster level, oh well ...
    :) It's a good thing he can't make staves either, and for the same reasons.
    Magic item category has nothing to do with it; it's only the power of an
    individual magic item that matters.

    --

    Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

    "Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
    do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
    when they're out of their depth."
    -Jeff Heikkinen
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Matthias wrote:
    > While true, it doesn't help the case that Wondrous Items is supposed
    > to be this great all-powerful magic item category that cannot stand
    > even one additional item to be added to it ....

    Quit yer bitchin' already. You posted yet another stupid idea. Get over it.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 00:46:35 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com>
    wrote:

    >Matthias wrote:
    >> While true, it doesn't help the case that Wondrous Items is supposed
    >> to be this great all-powerful magic item category that cannot stand
    >> even one additional item to be added to it ....
    >
    >Quit yer bitchin' already. You posted yet another stupid idea. Get over it.

    Sorry, but you're wrong. I can do only so much to explain things to you. If you
    wish to close up your ears and repeat that kind of mantra to yourself, then
    sorry, I can't help you.

    --

    Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

    "Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
    do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
    when they're out of their depth."
    -Jeff Heikkinen
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Matthias" <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:5ohn319ajerr6e2h7cgqamo1nsegbfqk86@4ax.com...
    > On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 00:46:35 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
    > <bradd+news@szonye.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Matthias wrote:
    >>> While true, it doesn't help the case that Wondrous Items is supposed
    >>> to be this great all-powerful magic item category that cannot stand
    >>> even one additional item to be added to it ....
    >>
    >>Quit yer bitchin' already. You posted yet another stupid idea. Get over
    >>it.
    >
    > Sorry, but you're wrong.

    Nah, he's right. Craft Wondrous Items does not need to boost, and Craft Rod
    *certainly* does not need the nerf. If one of my players suggested it, I
    would figure that he wanted to be able to make one of the rods, but did not
    want to burn an extra feat, and was trying some bullshit rationale to get me
    to houserule it.

    --
    ^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

    It matters not how strait the gate,
    How charged with punishment the scroll,
    I am the Master of my fate:
    I am the Captain of my soul.

    from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Malachias Invictus wrote:
    > Matthias wrote:
    > > Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    > > > Matthias wrote:
    > > > > While true, it doesn't help the case that Wondrous
    > > > > Items is supposed to be this great all-powerful
    > > > > magic item category that cannot stand even one
    > > > > additional item to be added to it ....
    > > >
    > > > Quit yer bitchin' already. You posted yet another
    > > > stupid idea. Get over it.
    > >
    > > Sorry, but you're wrong.
    >
    > Nah, he's right. Craft Wondrous Items does not need
    > to boost, and Craft Rod *certainly* does not need the
    > nerf. If one of my players suggested it, I would
    > figure that he wanted to be able to make one of the
    > rods, but did not want to burn an extra feat, and was
    > trying some bullshit rationale to get me to houserule
    > it.

    That said, I'm considering adopting a modified version of Matthias'
    idea, but it wouldn't work for most campaigns. I've got the advantage
    that none of my players are powergamers, and I'd like them to have a
    few more options per choice... So I'm going to separate them like
    Matthias suggested initially, but fold the now nearly-useless Craft
    Rod (metamagic rods only, at this point) into the wand feat, and just
    call it "Craft Wand and Rod".

    My reasoning is solely that Rods have always seemed like a superfluous
    magic item category to me, and I have little worry about the effects
    the powerup of CWI would have on anyone else's game... But I'm aware
    of those effects, and acknowledge them. :D

    --
    Nik
    - remove vermin from email address to reply.
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 00:19:42 -0800, "Malachias Invictus"
    <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >
    >"Matthias" <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >news:5ohn319ajerr6e2h7cgqamo1nsegbfqk86@4ax.com...
    >> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 00:46:35 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
    >> <bradd+news@szonye.com>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Matthias wrote:
    >>>> While true, it doesn't help the case that Wondrous Items is supposed
    >>>> to be this great all-powerful magic item category that cannot stand
    >>>> even one additional item to be added to it ....
    >>>
    >>>Quit yer bitchin' already. You posted yet another stupid idea. Get over
    >>>it.
    >>
    >> Sorry, but you're wrong.
    >
    >Nah, he's right. Craft Wondrous Items does not need to boost, and Craft Rod
    >*certainly* does not need the nerf. If one of my players suggested it, I
    >would figure that he wanted to be able to make one of the rods, but did not
    >want to burn an extra feat, and was trying some bullshit rationale to get me
    >to houserule it.

    I know I'm strongly tempted to split Craft Wondrous Item into two
    feats - probably "Craft Lesser Wondrous Item" and "Craft Greater
    Wondrous Item" based on the items minimum caster level or prerequisite
    spell, or some such.

    --
    Erol K. Bayburt
    ErolB1@aol.com
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    > My reasoning is solely that Rods have always seemed like a
    superfluous
    > magic item category to me, and I have little worry about the effects
    > the powerup of CWI would have on anyone else's game... But I'm aware
    > of those effects, and acknowledge them. :D

    The great thing about rods was, an animal had to save vs rods to
    resist a friendly ranger. I like how it made no sense.
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Time to step up the meds; I could have sworn Nikolas Landauer just
    said...
    > Malachias Invictus wrote:
    > > Matthias wrote:
    > > > Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    > > > > Matthias wrote:
    > > > > > While true, it doesn't help the case that Wondrous
    > > > > > Items is supposed to be this great all-powerful
    > > > > > magic item category that cannot stand even one
    > > > > > additional item to be added to it ....
    > > > >
    > > > > Quit yer bitchin' already. You posted yet another
    > > > > stupid idea. Get over it.
    > > >
    > > > Sorry, but you're wrong.
    > >
    > > Nah, he's right. Craft Wondrous Items does not need
    > > to boost, and Craft Rod *certainly* does not need the
    > > nerf. If one of my players suggested it, I would
    > > figure that he wanted to be able to make one of the
    > > rods, but did not want to burn an extra feat, and was
    > > trying some bullshit rationale to get me to houserule
    > > it.
    >
    > That said, I'm considering adopting a modified version of Matthias'
    > idea, but it wouldn't work for most campaigns. I've got the advantage
    > that none of my players are powergamers, and I'd like them to have a
    > few more options per choice... So I'm going to separate them like
    > Matthias suggested initially, but fold the now nearly-useless Craft
    > Rod (metamagic rods only, at this point) into the wand feat, and just
    > call it "Craft Wand and Rod".

    Just go with the AU split. Craft One-Use Item, Craft Spell Completion
    Item, Craft Charged Item, Craft Constant Item, Craft Magical Arms and
    Armour. Maybe split Craft Constant Item into two feats, one a
    prerequisite for the other, based on the GP value of the final result.
    Done.
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Jeff Heikkinen" <no.way@jose.org> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1ca642b32019a2a298a0e3@news.easynews.com...
    > Time to step up the meds; I could have sworn Nikolas Landauer just
    > said...
    >> Malachias Invictus wrote:
    >> > Matthias wrote:
    >> > > Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    >> > > > Matthias wrote:
    >> > > > > While true, it doesn't help the case that Wondrous
    >> > > > > Items is supposed to be this great all-powerful
    >> > > > > magic item category that cannot stand even one
    >> > > > > additional item to be added to it ....
    >> > > >
    >> > > > Quit yer bitchin' already. You posted yet another
    >> > > > stupid idea. Get over it.
    >> > >
    >> > > Sorry, but you're wrong.
    >> >
    >> > Nah, he's right. Craft Wondrous Items does not need
    >> > to boost, and Craft Rod *certainly* does not need the
    >> > nerf. If one of my players suggested it, I would
    >> > figure that he wanted to be able to make one of the
    >> > rods, but did not want to burn an extra feat, and was
    >> > trying some bullshit rationale to get me to houserule
    >> > it.
    >>
    >> That said, I'm considering adopting a modified version of Matthias'
    >> idea, but it wouldn't work for most campaigns. I've got the advantage
    >> that none of my players are powergamers, and I'd like them to have a
    >> few more options per choice... So I'm going to separate them like
    >> Matthias suggested initially, but fold the now nearly-useless Craft
    >> Rod (metamagic rods only, at this point) into the wand feat, and just
    >> call it "Craft Wand and Rod".
    >
    > Just go with the AU split. Craft One-Use Item, Craft Spell Completion
    > Item, Craft Charged Item, Craft Constant Item, Craft Magical Arms and
    > Armour. Maybe split Craft Constant Item into two feats, one a
    > prerequisite for the other, based on the GP value of the final result.
    > Done.

    That is a pretty good way of doing it. I am likely to change my item
    creation feats to those.

    --
    ^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

    It matters not how strait the gate,
    How charged with punishment the scroll,
    I am the Master of my fate:
    I am the Captain of my soul.

    from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "John H" <mongloid2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:1111263785.814602.318310@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
    >> My reasoning is solely that Rods have always seemed like a
    > superfluous
    >> magic item category to me, and I have little worry about the effects
    >> the powerup of CWI would have on anyone else's game... But I'm aware
    >> of those effects, and acknowledge them. :D
    >
    > The great thing about rods was, an animal had to save vs rods to
    > resist a friendly ranger. I like how it made no sense.

    You are misinterpreting their meaning of "friendly," IYKWIM, AITYD.

    --
    ^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

    It matters not how strait the gate,
    How charged with punishment the scroll,
    I am the Master of my fate:
    I am the Captain of my soul.

    from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    capt_malachias@hotmail.com wrote:

    > Craft Wondrous Items does not need to boost, and Craft Rod
    > *certainly* does not need the nerf. If one of my players suggested it, I
    > would figure that he wanted to be able to make one of the rods, but did not
    > want to burn an extra feat, and was trying some bullshit rationale to get me
    > to houserule it.

    Going on a tangent, is there anything in the letter of the rules
    stopping this theoretical player from simply making a Wondrous Item with
    the effect he wants? How about the spirit?

    Is it possible to make a metamagic breatsplate, a sword of witherin, a
    hat of wonder...?


    --
    Jasin Zujovic
    jzujovic@inet.hr
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jeff Heikkinen wrote:
    > Time to step up the meds; I could have sworn Nikolas
    > Landauer just said...
    > >
    > > So I'm going to separate [metamagic feats] like
    > > Matthias suggested initially, but fold the now
    > > nearly-useless Craft Rod (metamagic rods only, at
    > > this point) into the wand feat, and just call it
    > > "Craft Wand and Rod".
    >
    > Just go with the AU split. Craft One-Use Item, Craft
    > Spell Completion Item, Craft Charged Item, Craft
    > Constant Item, Craft Magical Arms and Armour. Maybe
    > split Craft Constant Item into two feats, one a
    > prerequisite for the other, based on the GP value of
    > the final result. Done.

    Actually, that wouldn't work as well for my group. They have a
    tendency to oppose change, so the smallest change that has a useful
    effect is often the better choice for my games.

    While I prefer AU's magic item system, it does require a bit more
    attention paid to the various multipliers spells should have.

    --
    Nik
    - remove vermin from email address to reply.
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 00:19:42 -0800, "Malachias Invictus"
    <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >Nah, he's right. Craft Wondrous Items does not need to boost, and Craft Rod
    >*certainly* does not need the nerf. If one of my players suggested it, I
    >would figure that he wanted to be able to make one of the rods, but did not
    >want to burn an extra feat, and was trying some bullshit rationale to get me
    >to houserule it.

    What does it matter if the feats are a little more uneven?

    Feat uselessness /should/ be avoided. This much is true.

    If someone wants a metamagic rod, they'll get the feat. Does the non-metmagic
    rods make up the bulk of the Craft Rod feat's usefulness? I doubt it.

    Similarly, would the switchover of some of these rods to Wondrous Items by
    themselves, cause the feat to break the "would everyone take this feat" rule? If
    /all/ the Rods were folded into Wondrous Items, would it fail that rule even
    then? Can you imagine everyone picking up that feat whenever possible? If not,
    then the feat and the magic item class should be able to take the strain of a
    few extra options.


    --

    Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

    "Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
    do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
    when they're out of their depth."
    -Jeff Heikkinen
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Time to step up the meds; I could have sworn Nikolas Landauer just
    said...
    > Jeff Heikkinen wrote:
    > > Time to step up the meds; I could have sworn Nikolas
    > > Landauer just said...
    > > >
    > > > So I'm going to separate [metamagic feats] like
    > > > Matthias suggested initially, but fold the now
    > > > nearly-useless Craft Rod (metamagic rods only, at
    > > > this point) into the wand feat, and just call it
    > > > "Craft Wand and Rod".
    > >
    > > Just go with the AU split. Craft One-Use Item, Craft
    > > Spell Completion Item, Craft Charged Item, Craft
    > > Constant Item, Craft Magical Arms and Armour. Maybe
    > > split Craft Constant Item into two feats, one a
    > > prerequisite for the other, based on the GP value of
    > > the final result. Done.
    >
    > Actually, that wouldn't work as well for my group. They have a
    > tendency to oppose change, so the smallest change that has a useful
    > effect is often the better choice for my games.
    >
    > While I prefer AU's magic item system, it does require a bit more
    > attention paid to the various multipliers spells should have.

    There's nothing that says you absolutely *must* use the multipliers just
    because you use that way of splitting up the feats, and neither depends
    on the AU magic system in the sense of having diminished/enhanced
    spells, weaving etc. All three are good ideas, but they seem entirely
    independent of one another.
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jasin Zujovic wrote:
    > capt_malachias@hotmail.com wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Craft Wondrous Items does not need to boost, and Craft Rod
    >>*certainly* does not need the nerf. If one of my players suggested it, I
    >>would figure that he wanted to be able to make one of the rods, but did not
    >>want to burn an extra feat, and was trying some bullshit rationale to get me
    >>to houserule it.
    >
    > Going on a tangent, is there anything in the letter of the rules
    > stopping this theoretical player from simply making a Wondrous Item with
    > the effect he wants? How about the spirit?

    No. Kinda.

    > Is it possible to make a metamagic breatsplate, a sword of witherin, a
    > hat of wonder...?

    Yes to all.

    Effects cost 50% more (plus the cost of stacking with whatever's
    already there) when they're in the wrong type of item, so while not alot
    of people would want to build those things, they /are/ possible.
    Of course, all item creation is at the DMs discretion, given that
    the DM shouldn't screw the players, and the players shouldn't mess up
    the game-world.

    --
    tussock

    Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Malachias Invictus wrote:
    >> Craft Wondrous Items does not need to boost, and Craft Rod
    >> *certainly* does not need the nerf. If one of my players suggested
    >> it, I would figure that he wanted to be able to make one of the rods,
    >> but did not want to burn an extra feat, and was trying some bullshit
    >> rationale to get me to houserule it.

    Jasin Zujovic wrote:
    > Going on a tangent, is there anything in the letter of the rules
    > stopping this theoretical player from simply making a Wondrous Item
    > with the effect he wants? How about the spirit?

    Sort of.

    "Wondrous Items: This is a catch-all category for anything that doesn't
    fall into the other groups" (DMG p. 246). So if it fits into another
    category, it's not a wondrous item. Unfortunately, rods are also a kind
    of catch-all item: "Rods are scepterlike devices that have unique
    magical powers and do not usually have charges."

    Note that rings are also very similar to wondrous items, with one two
    key exceptions: They permit use of the ring slots, and they never have a
    slot affinity cost. Rods offer a similar benefit; they permit use of the
    "handheld" slots. However, you don't /need/ the rod feat for handheld
    items; there are many handheld wondrous items.

    The item creation feats might be better balanced thus:

    1st level
    Scrolls and power stones - spell completion items
    Power-storage items - pearls of power, cognizance crystals,
    spell-storing items, and counterspelling items

    3rd level
    Potions and psionic tattoos - single-use spell effects up to 3rd level
    Magic/psionic garments - miscellaneous effects in "garment" slots only

    5th level
    Arms and armor - enhancements and effects in arms & armor slots
    Wands and dorjes - handheld spell-trigger items

    9th level
    Multiple-use items - handheld and slotless miscellaneous items

    12th level
    Rings - miscellaneous effects in ring slots only
    Staves and psicrowns - handheld spell-trigger items with no multiple-
    effect surcharge and no built-in caster level

    This merges the magic item and psionic item creation feats. The level
    restriction on wands is lifted (as it is for dorjes). Wondrous/universal
    items become "magic/psionic garments"; the rules are the same, except
    that you can't create slotless or handheld items. For that, you need the
    9th-level feat.

    Rings and handheld items have the advantage that there's no premium for
    slot affinity; in other words, rings and handheld items are appropriate
    for any miscellaneous effect. Staves permit any number of effects with
    no 50% surcharge, and they have no inherent caster level. While the
    staff feat doesn't permit miscellaneous effects on its own, you can
    combine it with the 9th-level feat to create an uber-item (i.e., all of
    your spell-trigger and miscellaneous effects in one item, with no
    multiple-effect surcharges).

    > Is it possible to make a metamagic breatsplate, a sword of witherin, a
    > hat of wonder...?

    Yes. D&D rules have dealt with this two different ways. If it's a purely
    cosmetic change (i.e., making a scroll in the shape of a clay tablet),
    there's no additional game cost. If the item "abuses" the usual slot
    rules, you generally need all relevant feats and may need to pay extra.
    For example, a metamagic breastplate uses the armor slot, so you need
    Craft Magic Arms & Armor in addition to Craft Rod.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> typed:

    snip
    >The item creation feats might be better balanced thus:
    >
    >1st level
    >Scrolls and power stones - spell completion items
    >Power-storage items - pearls of power, cognizance crystals,
    > spell-storing items, and counterspelling items
    >
    >3rd level
    >Potions and psionic tattoos - single-use spell effects up to 3rd level
    >Magic/psionic garments - miscellaneous effects in "garment" slots only
    >
    >5th level
    >Arms and armor - enhancements and effects in arms & armor slots
    >Wands and dorjes - handheld spell-trigger items
    >
    >9th level
    >Multiple-use items - handheld and slotless miscellaneous items
    >
    >12th level
    >Rings - miscellaneous effects in ring slots only
    >Staves and psicrowns - handheld spell-trigger items with no multiple-
    > effect surcharge and no built-in caster level

    Not bad, but it changes rather a lot of the existing rules (for better
    or worse). One thing that bugs me about the existing system is that
    there's no hint of a need for prerequisite feats. So I'm looking at:

    Scribe Scroll: CL 1
    As now

    Brew Potion: CL 3, Craft(Alchemy) 1 rank
    As now

    Brew Elixir: CL 9, Brew Potion, Craft(Alchemy) 5 ranks
    As Brew Potion, but can hold spells of any level, and Personal spells
    at double cost

    Craft Arms and Armour: CL 5
    As now

    Craft Wand: CL 5
    As now

    Craft Staff: CL 10, Craft Wand
    As Craft Staff and Craft Metamagic Rod

    Craft Minor Item: CL 3
    As Craft Wondrous Item, max spell level=2, max Stat Bonus=+2

    Craft Lesser Item : CL 7, Craft Minor Item
    As Craft Wondrous Item and Craft Rod (except Metamagic), max spell
    level=5, max Stat Bonus=+4

    Craft Greater Item: CL 12, Craft Lesser Item
    As Craft Wondrous Item and Forge Ring

    Craft Construct: CL5, Craft Arms & Armour, Craft Minor Item
    As now

    I don't have the psi book so I have no idea where that lot would fit
    in.


    --
    Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim

    D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org
Ask a new question

Read More

Video Games