Enchanted Items Patch - Important, holy crap!

[Korwin]

I think focusing on the size of the item and the plot impact of "People will WANT this" are healthier than that hard cap.

Would be nice to expand the size table in the book...

[luminos]

I think focusing on the size of the item and the plot impact of "People will WANT this" are healthier than that hard cap.

In addition to these, and just letting the GM say no to something that breaks the game, I'd also let the GM force the player to go through the full creation process of the item if it takes things too far. 
Player:  Alright, I use my 28 enchanted item slots to make a weapon: 30 that can be used 5 times a session
GM:  Sounds cool, let me make some quick notes.  Does a base complexity of 60 sound about right for that?
Player:  Ummm, what?
GM:  You know, the complexity of the enchanting process to make that monster
Player:  Well, I was just planning on, you know having it, and...
GM:  And which house are you using?
Player:  Excuse me?
GM:  Well, where are you getting the house that will be turned into your enchanted item?
Player:  This is starting to sound like too much trouble
GM:  Of course, it would be a real shame if the local bad guys shot up that house after you enchanted it.  It might degrade the items effectiveness
Player:  Look, can we just forget this?
GM:  Aww man, now I have to design a new plot that doesn't revolve around everyone trying to destroy/control your death star.

[Korwin]

To be honest, that sound to much like player harrasment to me.
If you dont want it, just say no.

[iago]

Would be nice to expand the size table in the book...

Ain't no room!

[iago]

The more I think about the 'no more than twice the lore' rule, the more I don't like it. It's not THAT high a limit; take an enchanter with Great lore; +4 from specialization and focus items isn't that hard, and you've already eliminated the option of burning an item slot. I think focusing on the size of the item and the plot impact of "People will WANT this" are healthier than that hard cap.

Is there any chance it could be rephrased into a 'If a GM doesn't like it, they could cap it this way' instead of a default 'it's just how it is' note? I mean, I know it's always possible for the GM to say that's not how it is here, but I think that trying to head off the problem this way doesn't get at the root of the problem, and will just get people thinking in ways that are just as potentially problematic(see the post that popped up while I was composing this one) but harder to solve cleanly with simple plot tools.

I'll consider softening the "It's a hard cap" statement if I can manage to fit softened language in about 20 letters and spaces.

[svb1972]

I'll consider softening the "It's a hard cap" statement if I can manage to fit softened language in about 20 letters and spaces.

You also end up with the opposite problem.
A GM gets rail-roaded by the rules-lawyer who says.. "Look it's not a hard-cap it's just a suggestion.. please can I have my munster-gouda item of super-awesomesauce?

[iago]

I'll consider softening the "It's a hard cap" statement if I can manage to fit softened language in about 20 letters and spaces.

Going for a rewrite like so: "Regardless, an item’s casting strength after all bonuses are totaled should never exceed two times the crafter’s Lore rating without a very good rationale­—and a ton of baggage."

And next to the chart:

HARRY: Hey, Billy, why does the chart stop here? What if someone wants to craft an item out of even more slots?

BILLY: Well, if you go beyond the end of the chart, you’re doubling or tripling the dimensions each step, so at best you’re talking about something which is vehicular, if not completely stationary. So what’s shown is what you can actually carry. And it seems to me that wizards do better when they can actually bring their items to where they need to use them.

HARRY: Good point. There’s no Little Chicago in my pocket.

[void]

That sounds PERFECT. It gives room for someone to make something that massive if it makes sense for character concept... and they'll probably have an Aspect tied to it for plot hookiness.

Thanks, Fred! <3

[Sigma77]

A suggestion my group came up with recently:

Open up refinement (or something similar?) to anyone for Enchanted Item slots. The idea is that someone can make an item that other people can use, even pure vanilla mortals for example, but in-game they have no way of using them without hanging onto the maker's slots. So maybe this way the Local Neighborhood Wizard makes friends with the Cop Dealing With the Hairy. He doesn't want his friend to get killed, so he borrows his vest/clothing/etc., enchants it to protect the Cop. With this idea, the Cop could sport the enchanted item under his own slots.

[flymolo]

With this idea, the Cop could sport the enchanted item under his own slots.

To them, I would call it an item of power that had refinement slots on it.

[JustinS]

and next to the chart:

HARRY: Hey, Billy, why does the chart stop here? What if someone wants to craft an item out of even more slots?

BILLY: Well, if you go beyond the end of the chart, you’re doubling or tripling the dimensions each step, so at best you’re talking about something which is vehicular, if not completely stationary. So what’s shown is what you can actually carry. And it seems to me that wizards do better when they can actually bring their items to where they need to use them.

HARRY: Good point. There’s no Little Chicago in my pocket.

But I want a pocket full of little Chicago!

(and it is really neat to see our discussions here help make the final version a leaner, meaner, even more kickass book then it already is.)

[Biff Dyskolos]

A suggestion my group came up with recently:

Open up refinement (or something similar?) to anyone for Enchanted Item slots.
...

I like this idea - especially in the context of a more fantasy oriented setting - but I think there is one big drawback. There was a post here(http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,17490.0.html) where the Sword of the Phoenix has enchanted item slots that are based on someone else's lore.

There would have to be some rule that limits the power of an enchanted item base upon the skills of the character it is attached to rather than the character that created it. Otherwise you will have guys with Mediocre Lore using item created by guys with Superb (or better!) Lore.

[SaintAndSinner]

I like this idea - especially in the context of a more fantasy oriented setting - but I think there is one big drawback. There was a post here(http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,17490.0.html) where the Sword of the Phoenix has enchanted item slots that are based on someone else's lore.

There would have to be some rule that limits the power of an enchanted item base upon the skills of the character it is attached to rather than the character that created it. Otherwise you will have guys with Mediocre Lore using item created by guys with Superb (or better!) Lore.

Maybe a Stunt that allows you to use items up to your Conviction or Discipline?

[Moriden]

There would have to be some rule that limits the power of an enchanted item base upon the skills of the character it is attached to rather than the character that created it. Otherwise you will have guys with Mediocre Lore using item created by guys with Superb (or better!) Lore.

you mean like wardens swords?

[iago]

My recommendation if you have someone "external" producing an adopted item:

Break out the debt calculators. Require one of the character's aspects to be devoted to *why* they've gotten hold of that item. And compel mercilessly.