Dweomer Shard Amulet - Sig Item Doctor Asterisk

[Dr. Asterisk]

OK this is a first attempt at a lot of different things so no guarantees:

EDITED: TW Dweomer Shard Amulet, Lesser (signature item)

The Dweomer Shards, of which only a few are known to exist, are pieces of a larger gemstone of unknown origin. Artificers and Magi in Dweomer are credited with discovery and all relevant information surrounding them, hence the name, but the shards’ actual origin eludes even the sages. Each shard possesses a slightly different hue in the blue/green/purple range of colors and correspondingly empowers the wielder with different abilities.

The size of the shard is inversely proportional to its perceived level of power. This shard is rather large and therefore considered to be one of the lesser shards, Dr. A has learned through his research. Other shards have been crafted into rings, lenses and tips for magical wands and staves.

The shard has been fashioned/housed into an amulet of silver/metal alloys so the shard does not have to be handled directly. Doctor Asterisk obtained this amulet from a pre-Apocalyptic archaeological dig and he has only recently unlocked its power and learned to use it. The Dweomer sages do not know of the existence of this shard and would be interested to know that the shards may have origin on Earth Pre-A. D.A.’s possession of this item might also be considered an anathema.

This shard amulet grants the wearer or wielder the following abilities:

Major:
Edge: Master of Magic,
Edge: Wizard,
+1D to Spellcasting

Minor:
+1 to Spellcasting trait rolls,
5 PPE in the device itself
Also, the wearer/wielder acts as if he had 1 point of Armor when hit by damage-causing arcane powers, and adds +1 to his Trait rolls when resisting opposed powers. Even friendly arcane powers must subtract this modifier to affect the resistant hero. This stacks with Arcane Resistance, Arcane Protection, and other such abilities.

This item costs 1PPE/hour to power it.

[Ndreare]

I like the item, but a few changes.
You may not really want "One With Magic (Novice)" in the item because you would be unable to improve it or take further levels of it. Which can be pretty cool at higher levels.

I have tried to make Amulets and Staves with +2 to Spellcasting rolls before and they are always shot down by the Game Masters. (Specifically Pender and Freemage have mentioned it being not so good.)

You will have to define what spells or powers the stone is used with that the +2 applies to for most GMs to accept this.

I really like the fact that you actually wrote it up. Which character is this for and which game?

[Dr. Asterisk]

It is for the 101st Trailblazers and this is my only character so far. And really, the only effect I am after for One with Magic is the Novice level. Not sure what you mean by which powers - I was going by the minor slots adding +1 to a trait roll so I used 2 of them for +2. If it is not allowed that's OK but that was my thought process. Thanks for the feedback.

EDIT: A better option instead of using two minors for +1 to Spellcasting (for +2) would be to use a major for 1D spellcasting plus one minor slot for a +1, and use another minor for 5 PPE in the item. Might have to change it to that.

EDIT 2: took advice on replacing the One with Magic edge but for a different reason.

[KahlessNestor]

What's the problem with an amulet having a spellcasting bonus?

[Ndreare]

What's the problem with an amulet having a spellcasting bonus?

Honestly I do not recall the argument. I personally think it is an iconic thing for a staff or amulet to amplify magic. But so far both time I have tried to build one I was shot down without mercy. To me it is no different than providing edges, fighting bonuses, or shooting bonuses.

Last time it was @Freemage who framed the argument and the other GM's end up having me change it. But it is not always Freemage. And I generally disagree with the argument.

[Pender Lumkiss]

I think it is this line: +1 to a specific Trait roll appropriate to the item. That causes such debate.

Perhaps +1 to spell casting when using the wizard edge (or maybe Master of magic edge)?

Also note savagerifts.com further explains in the item creation area:
+1 to a specific Trait roll appropriate to the item. ("Appropriate to the item" is subject to GM interpretation; as a general rule, the item should modify rolls that the item itself is used for. {Per FAQ, "You do not shoot someone with a scope, you shoot them with a gun, so a scope should not be enchanted to give a +1 to Shooting."}

[Dr. Asterisk]

Since theme (appropriate to the item) is in the eye of the beholder, this seems to be a discussion of the interpretation of balance in the word "specific." It certainly cannot be about RAW because on paper a trait roll is a trait roll and we have examples of both versatile bonuses and specific to a single type of use bonuses in items.

I would wonder how other items are rationalized then. "He gets a +2 to notice checks."

"All notice checks?"

"Yep."

not "specific" at all but every application of notice, passive or active

versus

"He gets a +2 to Spellcasting checks"

"All Spellcasting checks?"

"Yep."

also not specific, either opposed or raise-capped or just proficiency check

Don't get me wrong I think both are valid.

I think the word "specific" must then mean avoiding bonuses like "+2 to Smarts-based trait rolls."

And +2 to fighting or +2 to parry or dodge is almost if not just as versatile as Spellcasting. Or armor or toughness. Etc. They should all get qualifiers to make them "specific" or they all shouldn't. And seems to be cat<--------------bag on that one.

Spellcasting rolls are to activate an effect not the effect itself. Not every power activation is an opposed roll and that is where the balance issue might arise IMO because raises are capped. And also why I didn't go +3D/+2 trait rolls and PPE. Or Professional Expert Master Edges and +2 on rolls/PPE.

Even in the scope example, one can easily buy a +1 scope for a weapon, which is also enhancing an activation of an effect (whether or not the effect is successful). Sure, cheaper which is why one is needed for each weapon but IMO that is a valid cost comparison. An enchanted item, which is not only exponentially more expensive but also normally has a chance for failure in creation (reflected in that cost). The "scope owner" can then stack that bonus with the bonus or mitigation from a helmet or goggles.

They need a crit fail to miss barring cover, concealment or distance. A pimped out spellcaster needs a crit fail to "miss" barring a smug neg-psy or even greater arcane res/arcane prot user. Or cover, concealment or distance.

So why is a scope listed specifically as an item to not enchant? I'll bet to avoid further stacking of mundane and magical. However, a PC can't buy or make a mundane, manufactured spellcasting "scope" or any other item that offers such a bonus, IIRC, though I have not read every source. Enchanted is pretty much it.

So why would spellcasting be treated differently than any other versatile traits?

A little rambling but it's been a long day.

[Ndreare]

Honestly I think it is because Spellcasting is a combat skill.

As I said I am of the opinion that is should be allowed and have even tried to make a staff that amplified spells cast through it.
Heck the book even has a staff you can roll that affects all spells cast through it. But I figured I would let you know it is how some could rule.

[Dr. Asterisk]

I know that my last post needed some weeding but I agree.

[Pender Lumkiss]

I am all for the bonus to spell casting when you are using the amulet. It seems like you would be using the amulet when accessing the edges within it.

[Koshnek]

Well, looks like no one has any problems with it so I won't rock the boat. I will say that magic items and tw items come with a free trapping that I guess I'm the only one who likes to use. Maybe it gives off a subtle light in the dark, or it vibrates in the presence of magic items, or maybe it's just extra sparkly....or not. Free stuff...*mutters about no one liking free stuff*

[Dr. Asterisk]

So since this is the first such endeavor for me, what is needed for final approval?

[Ndreare]

So since this is the first such endeavor for me, what is needed for final approval?

All it needs is your GM to come in and make a ruling.

Arguments have been made for or against whatever, so then it goes to the GM I think. I believe @KahlessNestor is the Game Master on this one.

[Pender Lumkiss]

As it stands I would not approve the item as it grants a bonus to spell casting at any time regardless if the use is appropriate to the item. But I am not the gm.

[Pender Lumkiss]

Well, looks like no one has any problems with it so I won't rock the boat. I will say that magic items and tw items come with a free trapping that I guess I'm the only one who likes to use. Maybe it gives off a subtle light in the dark, or it vibrates in the presence of magic items, or maybe it's just extra sparkly....or not. Free stuff...*mutters about no one liking free stuff*

The item has a suitable arcane trapping.

[Dr. Asterisk]

@Pender Lumkiss I'm trying to figure out what is meant by "at any time," since Spellcasting as a trait can have very few passive uses, like opposed Dispel or Puppet. And in the latter case, the spell is being cast by the wearer so even that isn't really passive use i.e. the wearer is taking an action (using the amulet) to do it. Someone trying to Dispel an effect the owner has created would be an "at any time," type of use but almost every situation I can think of for Spellcasting involves the wearer using an action. Are you thinking of some other advantage I need to address/mitigate in the item text?

[KahlessNestor]

Yeah, I guess I am confused as to the objection. It's a magical focus item. That seems appropriate. Those are common in RPGs. In D&D they are required to be able to even cast a spell. And I don't understand the "can't give a scope +1 shooting because you don't shoot with it." There is LITERALLY A THING YOU CAN BUY CALLED A SCOPE THAT GIVES YOU +1 SHOOTING!

Anyway, esoteric rules interpretations aside, consider it approved for my game. If he goes elsewhere, someone else can take issue with it.

[Ndreare]

I feel like the scopes I add to my rifles give me a bonus to shooting also.

[Dr. Asterisk]

Thanks everyone -

Speaking of scopes I hope the one I ordered today helps with my shooting too