Enchanted Weapons

[Licheking]

The Greatsword with Baleful and 2 Keen would be 2d10+2, not 4d8+2.

I'm sorry but in my rulebook the greatsword base damage is 2d8. Therefore Baleful, which doubles the damage dice of a weapon would make it 4d8.

 

[gamesmeister]

The Greatsword with Baleful and 2 Keen would be 2d10+2, not 4d8+2.

I'm sorry but in my rulebook the greatsword base damage is 2d8. Therefore Baleful, which doubles the damage dice of a weapon would make it 4d8.

No, Baleful increments the weapon damage die by one level, so 2D8 become 2D10. With the 2 Keen the weapon will be 2D10+2 as per Rurik's post.

 

[Rurik]

Related to my above post and also to the ease of enchanting I think it may be worthwile to say that an enchantment attempt 'uses up' an items potential for enchantment. If you fail enchanting an item you cannot just attempt to enchant it again.

The logic behind this is that a major part of the enchanting process is the preparation of the item in question, including inscribing all the correct runes and such. If you fail you can't just cross out your bad inscriptions and start over. Boy would that sword it took ten attempts to create look like a mess.

Another thought would be to require the correct craft skill as well for the item being enchanted. How exactly to you inscribe the correct inscriptiona on a blade without knowing anything about swordsmithing? Grease pencil? So maybe you have to roll uner both enchanting and craft skill or ruin the item. This would limit the ease of enchanting items and specifically enchanting superior items.

A variant on this approach would be to only enable enchanting of objects while they are being made, with the enchanter needing to also be the crafter. The enchantment is an intrinsic part of the being of the item, and can't be added on top afterwards.

I like this Idea. I would consider allowing re-forging a weapon to save time on the actual weaponmaking part of the process. One could take a sword and for one half or one quarter the time prepare it for enchantment. Of course if it were a superior weapon he would suffer the same penalty to reforge it.

It certainly cuts down on the ability of even a lay enchanter to churn out enchanted weapons. Being a weapon enchanter, or an armor enchanter, etc become a specialised profession.

 

[Rurik]

But then my group is all about Role-playing not power gaming and number crunching.

In which case, I'm surprised you're using any version of RQ!

I would have to say that back in the day I really learned to actually role-play from RQ.

In D&D I learned to kill things and take their stuff. Life was good. And to this day I still enjoy a good dungeon crawl.

But with RQ there was so much motivation built into the game that all of a sudden there were goals outside of murder, theft, and burglery. You weren't a Cleric, but an initiate of Orlanth, or Yelmalio, or Kyger Litor, and so on. That is how in the early days of role playing I learned to have clearly defined goals and ideals that drive a character other than kill the monsters and loot them.

 

[gamesmeister]

A variant on this approach would be to only enable enchanting of objects while they are being made, with the enchanter needing to also be the crafter. The enchantment is an intrinsic part of the being of the item, and can't be added on top afterwards.

I like this Idea. I would consider allowing re-forging a weapon to save time on the actual weaponmaking part of the process. One could take a sword and for one half or one quarter the time prepare it for enchantment. Of course if it were a superior weapon he would suffer the same penalty to reforge it.

It certainly cuts down on the ability of even a lay enchanter to churn out enchanted weapons. Being a weapon enchanter, or an armor enchanter, etc become a specialised profession.

Not sure it does really. It would cut down the availability of enchanted weapons for sure, but any weaponsmith with basic enchanting skills could still churn out magic weapons with little overhead (other than the POW).

I prefer your idea of 'one enchant attempt per item'. Replacing your Greatsword with another to attempt another enchantment will cost 300SP, equivalent to a month's food and lodgings for a typical adventurer.

I'd still like to see a 5% penalty to the enchant roll per point of POW invested above the first. I can't believe that an enchantment that requires 10 points of POW is no more difficult to produce than one that requires 1 point.

 

[Rurik]

A variant on this approach would be to only enable enchanting of objects while they are being made, with the enchanter needing to also be the crafter. The enchantment is an intrinsic part of the being of the item, and can't be added on top afterwards.

I like this Idea. I would consider allowing re-forging a weapon to save time on the actual weaponmaking part of the process. One could take a sword and for one half or one quarter the time prepare it for enchantment. Of course if it were a superior weapon he would suffer the same penalty to reforge it.

It certainly cuts down on the ability of even a lay enchanter to churn out enchanted weapons. Being a weapon enchanter, or an armor enchanter, etc become a specialised profession.

Not sure it does really. It would cut down the availability of enchanted weapons for sure, but any weaponsmith with basic enchanting skills could still churn out magic weapons with little overhead (other than the POW).

I prefer your idea of 'one enchant attempt per item'. Replacing your Greatsword with another to attempt another enchantment will cost 300SP, equivalent to a month's food and lodgings for a typical adventurer.

I'd still like to see a 5% penalty to the enchant roll per point of POW invested above the first. I can't believe that an enchantment that requires 10 points of POW is no more difficult to produce than one that requires 1 point.

The idea was that you still get one enchant per item. You would need to make two rolls, a smith roll and an enchant roll. If either fails it is back to sqare one, but maybe less time because you have a sword made, just not an enchanted one. Each attempt now takes much longer than just the enchantment and requires making two rolls, so with a 25% enchant and a 25% weaponsmith skill you will likely be reforging the weapon a few times. Maybe an increased chance of losing POW on a failure is also in order. It would also make enchanting superior items much harder and that much more time consuming.

I also like the idea of a penalty, I'd considered even 10% per POW over first. I have also considered adapting the sorcery magnitude scale to limit how much POW can be invested in an item. Skill 01-10% can only make POW 1 items, 11-20% can only make up to POW 2 items, etc.

Just thoughts so far. Clearly something needs to be done, the more ideas out there the better.

 

[CharlieMonster]

I also like the idea of a penalty, I'd considered even 10% per POW over first. I have also considered adapting the sorcery magnitude scale to limit how much POW can be invested in an item. Skill 01-10% can only make POW 1 items, 11-20% can only make up to POW 2 items, etc.

That Idea definitely makes sense. I would stick with 5% per addtional pt of POW penalty, but increase the Fumble range by 1% per additional point of POW, making more powerful enchantments a more risky proposition.

E.G:
POW 1 enchantment is at base chance with the usual Fumble range of 00%
POW 4 enchantment is at -20% with a Fumble range of 96-00
POW 10 enchantment is at -50% with a Fumble range of 91-00

Nothing like a 1 in 10 chance of junking POW to sort the men from the boys!!!