Multi Purpose Enchanted Items

[GryMor]

Is there anything detailing what the requirements for creating multi purpose enchanted items (as exemplified by the warden swords) are? That is, 2 slots, lore 5 and a crafting power specialty, gets you to the power 6 effects and 3 uses per session. The weapon rating 3 is probably just the base for these, master crafted, swords. But what lets you put select able effects using one pool of charges? You could get a similar result by raw by adding in a crafting uses foci +2, but then you would have 3 uses of each of the two effects. Did the rules change between the writeup of the swords and final publishing or am I missing something still in the books?

[Haru]

I think the important part is the size of the item. There is a table in the Book on page 281. Other than that, if your math is correct, you should be able to put them on. Even multiple effects on one item should be ok, though I would probably hold a player to common sense, since some effects seem too diametrically opposite, that they should not be put on one item. Then again, if you can convince me, that they should, go right ahead.

Warden swords are a bit different, because they are not made by the wizard, but by Lucio, so its math might not be the best thing to base your own items on, since she's probably got some bonuses we don't know about.

[Mr. Death]

Yeah, the Warden Swords are kind of a special case. An exception, rather than a rule.

[Sanctaphrax]

You can only get one effect per enchanted item slot. The Warden sword's two effects are not actually legal by the Enchanted Item rules, as far as I can tell.

But putting two slots into an item to make it have two unrelated effects seems reasonable to me.

[Haru]

Sanctaphrax, the warden sword takes up 2 enchanted item slots, so that's actually fine.

[Mr. Death]

The thing that makes the Warden Swords illegal seems to be that it shares the 3-uses between the counterspell and the Weapon rating boost. Funnily, though, it's not only illegal, but worse than it could have been done legally.

If Luccio has an effective Lore of 6 for item crafting, she might have a focus item or other specialization that gives a +2 to frequency (I don't recall if her OW write-up includes such), meaning she could make a 6-shift enchanted item with three uses on only one enchanted item slot. If she made the Warden Swords that way, you would have 3 uses of each effect, rather than both.

Of course, this presumes that we're not getting mixed up on vague wording. I'll have to check the text of the item later.

[Sanctaphrax]

The thing that makes the Warden Swords illegal seems to be that it shares the 3-uses between the counterspell and the Weapon rating boost.

This is true. If the swords had two effects that were each usable once, that would work just fine.

Funnily, though, it's not only illegal, but worse than it could have been done legally.

Not necessarily. There are no real rules for item lending, as far as I know.

A Submerged Crafter can, in theory, spend one Enchanted Item slot to make a 10-shift item with 8 uses. Can he then lend them out so that everyone who can spare half a focus slot is rocking an 8-use 10-shift magical shield?

I'm honestly not sure.

[Mr. Death]

Not necessarily. There are no real rules for item lending, as far as I know.

You can devote one shift of effect to letting anyone use the item. But if you mean the "adoption" of an item (where the adopter is the only one who can use the item), then you're right, I don't recall seeing anything for that. Possibly it's a Thaumaturgic ritual of some kind conferring ownership from one to the other. Maybe some part of the item crafting process includes the adopter's participation.

[Viatos]

If a player wants a "pooled" magic item, I let them spend shifts to add default-strength effects that share the use pool. So if they have Lore 5, they could make an enchanted item with a Weapon:4 and a Block:4 effect that has one use pool. You end up with less uses and less power then if you just made separate items, but spending shifts instead of slots gets you much better versatility. I also houserule Warden Swords to work on this system, using the character's Lore rather then being a default package - in other words, if you want a Sword, you make it yourself.

[GryMor]

Mr. Death is correct. This is precisely what I was wondering about. The way it's written, either she used the extra slot for +2 frequency or the extra slot gives the second effect, but either way you don't get what is in the write up.

As for other people making enchanted items that you then sustain, the Warden sword is the definitive example of that. The item needs to be legal for the crafter to produce at the time of production, there is no requirement that the one providing the slot to sustain it is the crafter.

[Sanctaphrax]

Mr. Death is correct. This is precisely what I was wondering about. The way it's written, either she used the extra slot for +2 frequency or the extra slot gives the second effect, but either way you don't get what is in the write up.

As for other people making enchanted items that you then sustain, the Warden sword is the definitive example of that. The item needs to be legal for the crafter to produce at the time of production, there is no requirement that the one providing the slot to sustain it is the crafter.

That's a reasonable extrapolation, but I'd be careful about extrapolating rules from an item that doesn't actually follow the rules we know.

A Senior Council Crafter could make a 14-shift item with 12 uses using a single item slot. By your rules interpretation, he could then give it to another wizard who could then sustain it. Which means that he could outfit an unlimited number of characters with said items, given a little time. Which leads to obvious problems.

So be careful.

[Mr. Death]

Maybe it's something that isn't normally possible--as pointed out, if it was, why don't we see it a heck of a lot more? The swords are, basically, 6-shift enchanted items. As has been pointed out, that in and of itself is not difficult to make.

But, Luccio appears to be the only one capable of making them, and can't do so in her new body. Maybe that's the talent she lost in the body-switch--not the ability to make the swords, but the ability to make swords that someone else can use as their own.

[Sanctaphrax]

Remember those Superior X Self-Sponsored Magics?

Maybe we should make a Crafting one for Luccio.

[GryMor]

 

A Senior Council Crafter could make a 14-shift item with 12 uses using a single item slot. By your rules interpretation, he could then give it to another wizard who could then sustain it. Which means that he could outfit an unlimited number of characters with said items, given a little time. Which leads to obvious problems.

First of all, this is not a simulation and actual production is hand waved by the system, so letting a PC that is deeply invested in crafting make enchanted items for the other PCs over the course of months or years, bound by the normal milestone restrictions, isn't the same as enabling instant mass production by the senior council.

Second, there is a hard cap of double lore on enchanted item power, so your scenario would require lore 7, all base foci, specializations and 7 refresh of refinement dedicated to boosting crafting foci/specializations (Spec +1 foci cap, +2 power, +3 frequency; Foci +5 power, +8 frequency) leaving them with no enchanted item slots of their own...

[Sanctaphrax]

First of all, this is not a simulation

Says you.

If you want to treat it as a simulation, it actually works pretty well. I see no reason to ruin that.

Anyway, the Senior Council thing is an intentionally extreme example of a problem that I'd expect to see a lot if anyone with any interest in optimization caught sight of that lending rule.

Basically, the problem is this: it's not fair to be able to spend enchanted item slots on items that are vastly more powerful than your traits say they should be.

The Senior Council probably has about 30 Refresh per member, so the cost of becoming the Best Crafter Ever is quite affordable for one of them. Which is of course exactly the way it should be.