I was looking at Behind the Screen, and saw John07's comment about an illusionist who sword-fights, and that reminded me of a magic item I sketched out for d20.
The Magician's Sword
--Since wizard's can't use a sword, this was designed for them.
--The sword is actually only a hilt. The blade is the illusion.
--Skill/damage have an inverse relation with believability. If you say...tell the sword to make you fight as a +5th level fighter to the magic level you are, and as a +5 sword, then the sword will do so, but it will be very easily disbelieved. If on the other hand, you say 'act like a +1 level fighter, and a +1 magic sword' then you've got a much better chance of pulling it off.
Of course, after you 'kill' someone, they pass out, and wake up shortly thereafter.
I thought it was a nice idea, but I didn't get much of a chance to see it used.
That's a pretty neat idea. If I were an illusionist, I might invest in one. Especially if you were running in a home-brew world, and/or cutting out a LOT of published material. It's just that there are so many ways to really pimp out an illusionist already published that this becomes... awesome, but unnecessary. It is indeed awesome though, a weapon tied to your skill as an illusionist.
You're right. There are books and books and books of magic items for D20. It would work in a home-brew, or also, if you were like me, and did not have very many of the five thousand magic item books.
Unlike a certain other game, D20 is very heavily supported.
Unlike a certain other game, d20 is incomplete enough to need to be very heavily supported. Try as I may I can't think of anything to add to our little pastime here.
(This is why I consider my goal of writing a Compendium of the Divine to be basically discharged - not because it's impossible but because it's unnecessary. Unlike a D&D supplement, there are no new rules or suggestions to be added to MV. It would just be a book of mythological fluff. Go read some Edith Hamilton or Raymond Buckland and get just as keen a feel for the gods.)
Now the next question is: how would you describe your illusory sword in MV?
I would say that it is an active when worn/held device, M1@3 to use, which casts a M6@6 Cutter force. TF on such a device is instantaneous; the device is deemed active as soon as it is properly held, provided the first skill check works. (The player may choose to state that he is drawing and activating the device, in which case he gets a skill check to activate it based on BRA+SAL+2xbias, or he can choose to strike with it, in which case his chance to hit includes MSV-TV and the first attack also determines whether the device is working. IF the player does not specify, the referee can make that choice.)
The rest of the details--base RF of attacks, damage value--would have been determined by the one creating such a device. That creation would be a M15@8 skill, and the sit-mods against it would include -66 for the bias of the skill, -20 to convert from TF to RF instant activation. The base time for creation of the device is three hours, and in this case the hilt would be a material component. The baseline would also be RF1 on attacks, damaging damage. You would adjust both your chance of success in creating it and the bonuses built into the device by enhancing the creation ritual.
Note that the device will activate if you draw it or hold it under a curve of four or better, but requires a curve of at least twelve to operate properly, and thus on any curve of at least four but not at least twelve the device will automatically botch if handled by someone with the skill to use it.
I've been fortunate enough that no one has attempted to build real magic devices in my games (they are, after all, 15@ skills requiring massive investments of time and effort), so in most of my games I wouldn't really have to worry about how it was built, only what stats it actually has.
--M. J. Young
I would say that it is an active when worn/held device, M1@3 to use, which casts a M6@6 Cutter force. TF on such a device is instantaneous; the device is deemed active as soon as it is properly held, provided the first skill check works. (The player may choose to state that he is drawing and activating the device, in which case he gets a skill check to activate it based on BRA+SAL+2xbias, or he can choose to strike with it, in which case his chance to hit includes MSV-TV and the first attack also determines whether the device is working. IF the player does not specify, the referee can make that choice.)
The rest of the details--base RF of attacks, damage value--would have been determined by the one creating such a device. That creation would be a M15@8 skill, and the sit-mods against it would include -66 for the bias of the skill, -20 to convert from TF to RF instant activation. The base time for creation of the device is three hours, and in this case the hilt would be a material component. The baseline would also be RF1 on attacks, damaging damage. You would adjust both your chance of success in creating it and the bonuses built into the device by enhancing the creation ritual.
Note that the device will activate if you draw it or hold it under a curve of four or better, but requires a curve of at least twelve to operate properly, and thus on any curve of at least four but not at least twelve the device will automatically botch if handled by someone with the skill to use it.
I've been fortunate enough that no one has attempted to build real magic devices in my games (they are, after all, 15@ skills requiring massive investments of time and effort), so in most of my games I wouldn't really have to worry about how it was built, only what stats it actually has.
--M. J. Young
....
I've been fortunate enough that no one has attempted to build real magic devices in my games (they are, after all, 15@ skills requiring massive investments of time and effort), so in most of my games I wouldn't really have to worry about how it was built, only what stats it actually has....
I suspect that this statement by MJ makes the point that having a Book of Magic complete with a few dozen magic items a nice idea. Actually, I know MJ was thinking about making some sort of Book of Magic at one time.
And as to 'never', what am I...chopped spinach? I tried to make a vampire killing blade in Philly 2007...it didn't work, of course.
I forgot. I'm very sorry--it still doesn't ring any bells.
I know that Graeme has fooled around with making potions and such, but usually he shortcuts--making something as a spell component for which the final step in the spell destroys or discharges the component as it completes the spell.
Of course, what you describe would be a very difficult device to make, and you'd have to pack a lot of power into the creation skill to succeed; but your character probably would not have realized that.
And of course it demonstrates that I don't remember everything. But I already knew that.
--M. J. Young
Why not a M8@8 Illusory Attacks? The bias penalty on creation jumps to -88, but the baseline becomes RF3 Lethal, which simultaneously eliminates the -20 creation penalty for time factor (for a net change of -2 to the penalty) and enhances the effect (thus creating the illusion of skill, which is part of the third bullet point in the original concept post). The downside is that the victims receive intuition checks against the illusory blade (RS=simple/difficult/none), ignoring any damage if they succeed. Also, I imagine it couldn't be used to cut a rope or pry open a crate.
Alternatively, if you really want the item to be "usable only by illusionists" even when it has left its world of origin, you could build the item very differently. Rather than creating the effect itself, it instead enhances the illusionist's own abilities in a very limited arena: the effect would be a M1@4 Bonus Skill Checks restricted to bonuing only M8@8 Illusory Attacks (With Sword Component) skills. Since the baseline for a Bonus Skill Checks spell is "all magic skills," the specificity of the effect should be convertible into a very hefty sit-mod bonus on the user's illusory-sword-which-deals-damage spells.
In the end, you would have an enchanted sword-hilt which would do the ordinary man no good at all, but which would allow a user of illusion magic to design an otherwise-impractical sword illusion spell (possibly with the magic hilt as the only ritual component) and use it to great effect.
Yeah, but wouldn't you also have to have basic sword fighting ability? And that, I would think, would be penalized by the fact that you're only swinging a handle around. The weight of the blade isn't there. Same concept with a light saber. The blade is light, no weight, so that would mess up your ability. Thoughts?
John,
I think thats part of the 'see through the illusion'. You might be swinging your sword like a talented fighter, but your footwork is like a mook.
Wodium,
Definitely no crates. And I like having the downside of receiving an intutition check. This offers the magician a tactical dilemna...do I go for max effect and gamble, or for slow and steady? Which is safer?
MJ,
No biggie, really. I'm just yanking your chain.
I was visiting my doppleganger, and I had a diamond dust blade I'd made as a prequel to enchanting it as a Vampire Bane, and a pastor of an Alliance faith, and about that time a werewolf showed up who called me 'wizard' which surprised me cause I did not expect to be termed a wizard.
Actually, John, you would not need any ability at swordfighting at all. You would need skill at using this particular kind of device, an active when held device, and your skill ability level would have to specialize as you advanced.
You would need sword skill if you created a magic sword by taking a sword and enhancing it with magical bonuses. In that case, you're looking at ordinary damage for the sword based on your sword skill plus bonuses for the magic based on your skill at using the magic device.
But if you're actually using a force blade or an illusory attack, what matters is your skill with this device, and whether you can fool the opponent into thinking it's a sword. I note, too, that nothing has been said as to whether the blade is visible. I don't think it matters that much--an invisible blade is harder to parry, but also harder to wield, the latter because the user can't see where it is.
Here's an even better trick: cast a slicing force skill as an invisible blade whose attacks are controlled by your eyes, and wield a hilt as if it were an invisible sword. You can easily outmaneuver parries which will be based on the opponent's best guess on the position of a blade coming from that hilt, and score some surprising hits from unexpected positions.
--M. J. Young
Actually, John, you would not need any ability at swordfighting at all. You would need skill at using this particular kind of device, an active when held device, and your skill ability level would have to specialize as you advanced.
This might seem really stupid, but I've got that "active when worn" invisibility cloak. Is that the same kind of concept? If I get to 3@10 with the invisibility cloak, that would count for all "active when worn" devices? I'm still trying to get the hang of this.
(Doing Therapy)
I doubt it. That would be tremendously unbalanced. It's likely per item. Plus, remember specialization-at 3@, it would almost definitely be when using that magic invisibility cloak.
Something like:
1@ use magical cloaking device
2@ use magical cloaking device in shape of cloak
3@ use this magical cloaking device
Well, whilst we are talking about a magical device, does it necessarily have to be a sword handle? Couldn't it have started its existence as a flashlight? Through the design ritual, you set it up so that if the flashlight is turned on, the magic blade is out? That would be cool.
It wouldn't necessarily have to have batteries either. Just as long as the switch is in the ON position, the "sword" is active. Or perhaps it has bonuses if the flashlight does in fact have batteries in it? Just throwing out some ideas here.
LIghtsaber!!!!!
John: specialization.
I would probably allow that your skill with the cloak gives you level 1 skill with just about anything worn on the body, including other cloaks which did different things, armor, coats, shirts, maybe vestments. I would be less likely to do the same for rings or other jewelry, or hats, or pants or shoes, although I might consider it. At level 2, though, it would narrow--I haven't yet decided whether it would narrow to "cloaks" (which is likely) or "invisibility cloaks" (which is also possible), but at level 3 it would either be "invisibility cloaks" or "this invisibility cloak".
I would be disinclined to allow the 1@ skill in wearing cloaks apply to objects active when held, although I could do that; but the skill would shut down pretty fast when you reached 2@1, because using a magic sword and using a magic cloak are rather different even if both are activated simply by holding or wearing them.
Probably the primary reason why I'm not as concerned to distinguish active when worn/held devices from each other at level one is because the skill to activate them is a game technicality--the user performs no ritual, but simple grabs or dons the object appropriately, and it works. The skill check exists because of bias, that a roll must be made to determine whether some device which (in its own world) "always works" works in this world under these circumstances. One thing with active when worn/held devices is you want them to work for everyone who wears or holds them--except those who disbelieve in magic, for whom they can never work.
And you're absolutely right that you could use a flashlight as the primary component for your magic sword. There would be a bonus if the flashlight has to work (because you would then have to succeed in your T9@0 operate flashlight skill, which might be challenging in low tech worlds), but then the spell would not work if the flashlight did not. I would be reluctant to create a bonus/penalty situation based on whether or not there are batteries in the light--that is, that putting batteries in the light would bonus it, but the spell would work without them--but that's mostly because I don't like spells whose probability of success is altered by too many factors from one casting to the next, so I'd rather have it be stated whether the batteries are necessary or irrelevant. I would consider giving a bonus to using the device as an attack if the flashlight is also operational--I can see the notion that if the beam of light is pointed at the target and the hilt thrust forward, you've got what is effectively laser sighting for a sword thrust, although it would not apply to slashing attacks or most other uses.
So yes, lightsaber.
--M. J. Young