PDA

View Full Version : [4e] Enchant Item Murphy's Rule



Mark Hall
2009-03-30, 02:14 PM
So, last night I was making a bard, as our old adventuring group split up and some of us were making new characters as different characters went on different quests. I'm making the "incredibly multi-talented bard"... a human with 5 different multiclass feats. However, this was my first up-leveled Ritualist, so this is the first time I noticed this:

When creating a character above 1st level, you get whatever standard adventuring gear you want. Standard Adventuring gear includes Reagents. If you bought the Ritual "Enchant Magic Item", you can, according to RAW (while merrily bending RAI over a barrel), begin with tons of reagents, enough to make whatever items you wanted (that are your level or less).

(And, for the record, Hzurr, I'm not actually doing this. Just noticed that, by the rules, it can be done.)

Tsotha-lanti
2009-03-30, 02:24 PM
That's pretty much why most RPGs involve a GM.

oxybe
2009-03-30, 03:03 PM
what's the problem? a 360 gp +1 magic sword requires 360 gp of reagents to make... this isn't 3rd ed where crafting is at half-cost.

NecroRebel
2009-03-30, 04:53 PM
The problem is this:

To make an item, you need alchemical reagents.
Alchemical reagents are mundane items.
When you begin above level 1, you can have as many mundane items as you wish.
So, when you begin above level 1, you can have as many alchemical reagents as you want.
So, by RAW you could have several hundred thousand million billion trillion gp in alchemical reagents when starting a level 2+ character.
So, you can then use that unreasonably large amount of alchemical reagents to create whatever items you could possibly want.

It's not a make-sell then buy game breaker as it was in 3E; rather it's an exploitation of the wording to get arbitrarily high starting wealth.

Jerthanis
2009-03-30, 04:58 PM
Yeah, it seems like in exchange for having one item of one level lower, one higher and one same level, you can choose anything of an equivalent gold value from any lower levels... so it sounds okay to me. You could have a +2 implement, +2 armor and a +2 neck item... or lack one of those three and have a bunch of boots and helms and stuff.

It only makes sense that you'd get to use rituals before the start of the game... but perhaps I just don't see how this is to be abused.

oxybe
2009-03-30, 05:14 PM
you're trying to "bag-o-rats fighter" with rituals, my friend.

the rituals state you need to pay the cost of the item to complete it. generic regeants are free, sure. but to make cast rituals? you gotta pay the price for the particulars.

Ninetail
2009-03-30, 06:51 PM
It's not really anything to do with reagents. It's just a case of deliberately twisting and taking advantage of the rule, which is clearly intended, though not outright stated, to apply to personal equipment.

According to RAW, you could also start your character out with 10 million suits of full plate, or 50 billion iron rations, or whatever, which you could then sell. But in reality, any GM you tried that on would either disallow it or cause Bad Things to happen to your character, depending on just how sadistic they were.

Common sense > rules.

RebelRogue
2009-03-30, 07:07 PM
Common sense > rules.
You're new around here, aren't you? :smallwink:

KillianHawkeye
2009-03-30, 07:58 PM
Ritual Components aren't free, they just don't have a set cost. You use an amount that costs whatever amount the ritual costs to cast.

Also, when starting a higher level character, you don't get infinite mundane wealth. You get your starting magic items, plus gp equal to a magic item of your Level - 1. So this doesn't work.

Ninetail
2009-03-30, 08:08 PM
Also, when starting a higher level character, you don't get infinite mundane wealth. You get your starting magic items, plus gp equal to a magic item of your Level - 1. So this doesn't work.

No, he's right, from a very semantic perspective. The section on starting at a higher level says you can have whatever nonmagical standard adventuring gear you want.

It does specify adventuring gear, though, so no castles or anything. :p

Ravens_cry
2009-03-30, 08:35 PM
No, he's right, from a very semantic perspective. The section on starting at a higher level says you can have whatever nonmagical standard adventuring gear you want.

It does specify adventuring gear, though, so no castles or anything. :p
Aw shucks, so no [best Mae West voice]'Is that a castle in your pocket or did you start at a higher level?'[/best Mae West voice] moments?

KillianHawkeye
2009-03-30, 09:24 PM
No, he's right, from a very semantic perspective. The section on starting at a higher level says you can have whatever nonmagical standard adventuring gear you want.

It does specify adventuring gear, though, so no castles or anything. :p

*Double checks DMG* Okay, I guess it does say that. But abusing that to get magic items is dumb and clearly goes against the intent that that be used only on mundane equipment. I guess it's not a big deal, since the OP seems to recognize the fact that it doesn't make sense to actually do this.

Also, it has nothing to do with Murphy's Law.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-03-30, 09:34 PM
*Double checks DMG* Okay, I guess it does say that. But abusing that to get magic items is dumb and clearly goes against the intent that that be used only on mundane equipment. I guess it's not a big deal, since the OP seems to recognize the fact that it doesn't make sense to actually do this.

Also, it has nothing to do with Murphy's Law.

That's why it says "Murphy's Rule", as in the Murphy's Rules at the back of Dork Tower comics, or over here (http://archive.gamespy.com/comics/kovalic/Murphys/Murphys.html). It means nonsensical rules.

KillianHawkeye
2009-03-30, 09:37 PM
Ah, sorry. I don't read comics anymore. And I was mostly just into manga, anyways.

Kurald Galain
2009-03-31, 07:30 AM
Well spotted.

That ranks about as high as 3E's rule that you can still walk around while you're dead, because the "dead" condition doesn't specify otherwise.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-03-31, 09:24 AM
Well spotted.

That ranks about as high as 3E's rule that you can still walk around while you're dead, because the "dead" condition doesn't specify otherwise.That doesn't work at all. When dead, you're also unconcious (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#unconscious). Now, it may be possible to get around that(though simple immunity to nonlethal won't do it, since you still have 0 pts of nonlethal damage), but it is considerably harder than just walking around because the rules don't say you can't. :smallamused:

Kurald Galain
2009-03-31, 09:59 AM
That doesn't work at all. When dead, you're also unconcious (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#unconscious).

Funnily enough, you are only unconscious from "having current hit points between -1 and -9". So if your current hit points are -10...

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-03-31, 10:05 AM
Funnily enough, you are only unconscious from "having current hit points between -1 and -9". So if your current hit points are -10...Or from having nonlethal damage in excess of your current HP. 0 is greater than -10, so you are unconcious whenever you would be dead.

hewhosaysfish
2009-03-31, 10:15 AM
That doesn't work at all. When dead, you're also unconcious. Now, it may be possible to get around that(though simple immunity to nonlethal won't do it, since you still have 0 pts of nonlethal damage), but it is considerably harder than just walking around because the rules don't say you can't.

But being "unconscious" doesn't explicitly prevent you from taking actions any more than "dead" does.
It does make you helpless, though, which means you have an effective Dex of 0 which makes you paralyzed which prevents you from taking physical actions.
But being dead or unconscious does not stop you from taking purely mental actions. :smalltongue:

Dead Psion FTW! :smallwink:

Attack, my ninja rules-lawyers! Leave no shred of common sense left standing!

Kurald Galain
2009-03-31, 10:29 AM
Or from having nonlethal damage in excess of your current HP.

Yes, keyword being nonlethal. Obviously, if you die, it is from lethal damage.

NEO|Phyte
2009-03-31, 11:06 AM
Yes, keyword being nonlethal. Obviously, if you die, it is from lethal damage.
Assuming my math is accurate, 0 nonlethal damage > -10 HP.

Kurald Galain
2009-03-31, 11:14 AM
Assuming my math is accurate, 0 nonlethal damage > -10 HP.

Ok, good point. So that would mean that if you die from hit point loss, you can't take actions. Still, you can die from other means; I would expect those to set your hit point total to negative ten, but I can't find any rule that mandates that.

Tokiko Mima
2009-03-31, 12:18 PM
This reminds me of how you can use the Wealth DC system of d20 Modern to acquire infinite wealth right at level 1. Silly game developers! Never give players an infinite supply of *anything* (regardless of how "worthless" you might think it is,) because they will convert that infinite number to $$$ somehow. :smallamused: