D&D: embedding feat slots into magic items

[ed]

i've been thinking about item creation. you can imbed skill ranks and spells into magic items. why not feats?

now, to be sure, this is going to be extremely difficult, but given the relative paucity of feat slots, it makes no sense to me that spellcasters wouldn't make the effort.

and of course, not all feats are created the same: power attack, w/ its STR 13+ prereq, simply isn't as interesting as, say, greater cleave.

so making the costs a flat [x] gps makes no sense to me.

we know that generally, feats, esp the good ones, have de facto minimum character levels you have to be to take 'em due to prereqs (e.g., two-weapon fighting, imp two-weapon fighting, etc). that's why imp crit (prereq: BAB +8) is worth more to most people than, say, weapon focus (BAB +1).

i don't know what to call it, but here's my idea: minimum HD. that is to say, the creator must possess a certain minimum hit dice. in this respect, it's a lot like minimum CL.

just as minimum CL, for those feats that require one or more class features, assume that the creator is built such that he or she meets the prereqs at the minimum possible level. if there were a feat that required +3d6 sneak attack damage and divine grace, you know you're speaking of a character that's at least rogue 5/paladin 2, so minimum character HD 7.

i'm not sure how to handle ability minimums (e.g., combat expertise, INT 13+). i was inclined to assume a human using the average array and assume stat bumps every 4 levels, but when you speak of greater two-weapon fighting (DEX 19+ prereq), that becomes impossible, nevermind when you start talking about epic feats and their ability prereqs. i'm not sure if that is or isn't a good thing. perhaps adjusting for gear as per NPC wealth levels?

anyway: the idea would be that you square the minimum HD * 1000 gps (per feat) or thereabouts. i haven't run the numbers but the idea is to make it prohibitive to embed a whole feat tree (e.g., paired short swords that offer the two-weapon feat tree).

thoughts?

ed

[Mouser]

They already imbed metamagic feats into magic items.

[ed]

yes, but there's no formula, rhyme or reason to how they did those. i'm talking about devising a way to permit doing any feat.

ed

[Detritus]

I believe Dr. Mercury has mentioned an experimental feats-in-magic-items system in his homebrew version of D&D.

[Windhaven]

There are already Metamagic feat Rods, and blades with Mighty Cleaving. Sharpnness duplicates Improved Critical (or does Improved Critical duplicate Sharpness..?)

Such things normally bypass ability score minimums and feat prerequisites, and they probably should. I mean, having a Sword of Mighty Cleaving that also granted Power Attack would be gross.

Oddly, according to the Sage, a caster doesn't need to possess a Feat in order to include it in a magic item they create. I suppose I can see why, for items that call for Fighter type Feats, but it still seems strange. I'd be just as happy if such items were rare, but that shifts the power balance even more in favor of the spell casters.

[ed]

det: i shall have to ask the good doctor.

windhaven: er, isn't it keen that duplicates imp critical? your points re: bypassing ability score prereqs however are well-taken, though.

[sigh]

i suppose i should find a forum that's dedicated to variants rules.

so

[Mouser]

i suppose i should find a forum that's dedicated to variants rules.


Or, donate, make a forum dedicated to variant rules, and advertise, advertise, advertise!!!

[carmachu]

THere was a fairly recent Dragon Magazine article that had something vaguely similar: You could, as a mage, take a staff as a familar and as it "leveled up" it had some types of feats I think.

I'll have to dig it up.

[ed]

[blinks]

that sounds really cool, carmachu. thanks; if you could post a summary when you have the time, or hell, just a reference to which issue#, that would be great!

ed

[BattleNymph]

So, why do we need 'special rules' for embedding feats in items? Can't the DM just DO it? Or just rule that the players can?

[ed]

my intention here is to develop a reasonable mechanics whereby this could be done. yes, the GM always has that option, but b/c there are exceedingly few guidelines for any GM to use as markers, it's necessarily somewhat tricky.

plus, i thought it would be an interesting exercise.

heh...you've never seen my variant core classes, have you? :D

ed

[Mouser]

So, why do we need 'special rules' for embedding feats in items? Can't the DM just DO it? Or just rule that the players can?

This is third edition, where everything is codified.

Get your mind out of the 2nd Edition gutter, young lady!!

[BattleNymph]

ed: Nope, haven't seen your core classes variants yet. :)

Mouser: my mind is always in the gutter unfortunately and 3rd edition hasn't fixed that. :D

[ed]

o foolish, foolish mortal... :> will post them tomorrow: i don't want to stay here tonight any longer than strictly necessary.

ed

[Origen]

So, why do we need 'special rules' for embedding feats in items? Can't the DM just DO it? Or just rule that the players can?

Not all feats are equal, as the metamagic rods clearly acknowledge. The ability to cast two spells a round is clearly more powerful than merely extending a spell's range a bit. Power Attack is more valuable for a fighter than Toughness.

The reason no system exists is because each feat has to be weighed by itself, and there is no clear-cut way of devising a system for such enchantments.

Of course the DM can "just do it." That's rule 0, and neither 3rd Edition has changed that.

I did, however, laugh out loud at the suggestion that codification started in 3rd Edition.

2nd Edition didn't quite invent the term "rules creep" but it certainly put the phrase in bold, italics, all caps and underlined.

[ed]

how dare you?!

ahem...sorry, couldn't help myself there...

ed

[Origen]

You forgot the bold and italics, and all caps.

This is a tradition, now, after all.

[ed]

true, but i just can't bring myself to use all caps. and i forgot about the bold & italics.

gah.

ed

[Detritus]

true, but i just can't bring myself to use all caps. and i forgot about the bold & italics.

gah.

ed
-1, boy-o.

[carmachu]

[blinks]

that sounds really cool, carmachu. thanks; if you could post a summary when you have the time, or hell, just a reference to which issue#, that would be great!

ed

Your better off just reading the article and gaining what you want out of it.

Its issue 338, dece 2005, page 55, titled "Staffs of the Magi, imbuing your wizards staffs"

Basically, it allows a caster to ibue a staff as a familar, rather than take a familar. You can ibue things like defense(as a feat) to add your wisdom bonus to your armor class and other type items. As the staff lvl's up, it gains abilities.

I dont see why you couldnt apply it other items, ibue the items with a feat....

[Origen]

Your better off just reading the article and gaining what you want out of it.

Its issue 338, dece 2005, page 55, titled "Staffs of the Magi, imbuing your wizards staffs"

Basically, it allows a caster to ibue a staff as a familar, rather than take a familar. You can ibue things like defense(as a feat) to add your wisdom bonus to your armor class and other type items. As the staff lvl's up, it gains abilities.

I dont see why you couldnt apply it other items, ibue the items with a feat....

Oh, we had those in the Thanksgiving game last year. Item familiars! All the benefits of a cohort, without any of the vulnerabilities.

I don't recommend those.

[carmachu]

Why is that?

[Origen]

If you allow it to have class levels, especially, everyone just has a pocket cleric to heal them in real time without risking casting or retreating. A pocket wizard or a pocket cleric can buff.

[carmachu]

If you allow it to have class levels, especially, everyone just has a pocket cleric to heal them in real time without risking casting or retreating. A pocket wizard or a pocket cleric can buff.

Oh no no no, that article does NOT gain class levels at all. It gains levels that grants abilties and durability and hardness and HP......but no such thing as class level.

For example:

AS you gain levels, it does:

1-3rd the staff has a hardness of 5, 15HP and can shed light, 3 times a day, and hold cantrips, and can deliver touch spells.

At much higher levels, it will return to your hand asa standard weapon, +3 weapon and gains a mighty weapon ability(bane, flaming, shocking, merciful....)

Thats not including imbuing it....

[Dr. Mercury]

anyway: the idea would be that you square the minimum HD * 1000 gps (per feat) or thereabouts. i haven't run the numbers but the idea is to make it prohibitive to embed a whole feat tree (e.g., paired short swords that offer the two-weapon feat tree).

thoughts?

ed
As Det pointed out, I'm experimenting with a house rule for embedding feats into magic items. I used the ring of evasion as a basis, since I wanted to make feats rare and expensive at certain levels. Otherwise, everyone would carry around a 217-feat artifact (epic swiss army knife of prescience, anyone?).

Non-epic feats: 20,000 plus 20,000 per prerequisite feat.
Epic feats: 200,000 plus 100,000 per prerequisite feat (epic or not).
Caveat: You must qualify for at least one prerequisite feat.

[ed]

doc: so the costs for embedding two-weapon fighting vs. greater two-weapon fighting would be...?

ed

[Whimsical]

The Arms & Equiptment book has some guidelines. 10,000 gp base, and +5,000 gp for every prerequisite. I don't have the book handy, so if someone can verify this, that would be cool.

[Dr. Mercury]

doc: so the costs for embedding two-weapon fighting vs. greater two-weapon fighting would be...?
Assuming you have DEX 15+, it's 20K for Two-Weapon Fighting under my experimental house rules, 40K for Improved, 60K for Greater.

Whimsical IMO correctly cites what I remember from the Arms & Equipment book. (It might be 15K plus 5K per prerequisite, or 10K plus 10K. It's been awhile.) When I saw that price compared to a ring of evasion, I thought that was too much of a bargain and too tempting for abuse in Monty Haul games like mine.