Cyrstal of Energy Assault - Greater, Electricity

[Leathros]

Am I insane or this is a 6k investment on a +1d6 Shock dmg PLUS DAZZLED NO SAVE?

[Galen]

Dazzled (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm) is a lot less exciting than you seem to think. You may have been thinking Dazed, which is not the same thing.

[Pluto!]

That is what it does. Well, 24k total after the +3 enhancement.

Anyway, Dazzled (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#dazzled)isn't a very powerful effect.
With your reaction, any chance you're confusing it with dazed (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#dazed)?

[Leathros]

You guys are right, Dazzled. My bad :(

[AnonymousPepper]

There are some Greater Crystals that are worth the +3. The Energy Assault crystals are not among them.

Fortunately, MIC item combination rules! :smallcool:

[Leathros]

So which ones do you recommend? I'm playing a Rogue/Scout/Spellthief - I was thinking on Truedeath Crystal!

Are there any other sources for Crystals? I find the ones in MiC in shortage!

[Blackhawk748]

Get a Truedeath Crystal, it is awesome.

[Andezzar]

There are some Greater Crystals that are worth the +3. The Energy Assault crystals are not among them.Well you can fulfil the +3 requirement with Greater Magic Weapon.

[AnonymousPepper]

Well you can fulfil the +3 requirement with Greater Magic Weapon.

That's slightly iffy.

Armor, however, can be resolved using Ferroplasm as the base material; ferroplasm heavy armor is automatically +3.

[AnonymousPepper]

So which ones do you recommend? I'm playing a Rogue/Scout/Spellthief - I was thinking on Truedeath Crystal!

Are there any other sources for Crystals? I find the ones in MiC in shortage!

For weapons, life-drinking is pretty good (it's basically +50HP/day as long as you can keep hitting), as is revelation, recall, and energy assault, in addition to the "allow crits vs X" ones (Truedeath and Destruction, iirc). If you can stack them all together using MIC.

For armor, almost all of them are useful. My artificer in one of my games is packing Adaptation, Arrow Deflection, Iron Ward Diamond, Lifekeeping, Mind Cloaking, Screening, and Stamina, because he can, and all of those are useful to some extent. Gets expensive though.

[Deophaun]

Arrow Deflection...
Just makes sure you take the lesser version, not the greater. The lesser gives you +5 AC versus ranged, while the greater only gives you +3 in exchange for the Deflect Arrows feat. It's terrible.

[Andezzar]

That's slightly iffy.Not at all. For the duration of the spell the targeted weapon is a +3 weapon (if the caster level is 12 or more).


Armor, however, can be resolved using Ferroplasm as the base material; ferroplasm heavy armor is automatically +3.Never heard of it. Where is it from?

Regarding the stacking, all of those are custom magic items and as such are subject to the appraisal and approval of the DM.

[Deophaun]

Regarding the stacking, all of those are custom magic items and as such are subject to the appraisal and approval of the DM.
No more than any other magic item. The sections regarding ability stacking are nowhere referred to as "guidelines," unlike table 7-33 in the DMG.

[Andezzar]

Stacked items are still custom magic items (contrary to the single effect crystals) and as such the DM decided whether such an item can exist and what its price and creation requirements are.

[Deophaun]

Stacked items are still custom magic items (contrary to the single effect crystals) and as such the DM decided whether such an item can exist and what its price and creation requirements are.
Just as the availability and price of a ring of invisibility is subject to DM discretion.

Waving around the "custom magic item" flag doesn't change anything, because, and I will repeat as you apparently missed it, the DMG has stacking rules, not stacking guidelines. By RAW, there is a bracer out there that has every conceivable arm-slot ability on it, and it has a set price, just as sure as a cloak of charisma +4. Why? Because the DMG doesn't say stacking is a guideline, unlike every thing else in regards to custom magic item creation. Go ahead. Look under creating magic items. You will see the word "guideline" repeated everywhere... except there.

Which is the dirty secret: there's no general rule about custom magic items. In fact, the term "custom magic item" doesn't exist anywhere in the DMG. It doesn't even exist in the MIC. When we talk about rules for custom magic items, we're talking about a Frankenstein's Monster of related rules that we have culled from official sources. And no where in those official rules does it specifically say stacking is at the DM's discretion or that the 1.5x pricing is a guideline. Instead, the wording for stacking is just as definite as the wording for making a charge attack. And yet we don't see people questioning as to whether you need a DM's permission to charge with a greatsword.

[Andezzar]

I leave you this to read:
Many factors must be considered when determining the price of magic items you invent. The easiest way to come up with a price is to match the new item to an item priced in this chapter and use its price as a guide. Otherwise, use the guidelines summarized on Table 7–33: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values.A stacked crystal is an invented magic item, contrary to one crystal with one property and another with a different property.
Furthermore:
You’ll notice, however, that not all the items presented here adhere to these formulas directly. The reasons for this are several. First and foremost, these few formulas aren’t enough to truly gauge the exact differences between, say, a ring of fire resistance and boots of speed—two very dissimilar items. Each of the magic items presented here was examined and modified based on its actual worth. The formulas only provide a starting point. The pricing of scrolls assumes that, whenever possible, a wizard or cleric created it. Potions and wands follow the formulas exactly. Staffs follow the formulas closely, and other items require at least some DM judgment calls. Use good sense when assigning prices, using the items in this book as examples.So there is no reason for the DM to adhere slavishly to the stacking "rules".

Lastly it is a DM's judgement call whether the several properties desired in a crystal are similar or dissimilar abilities. This decision affects which stacking "rules" are supposed to be used as starting point.

[Deophaun]

I leave you this to read:
Did you actually read that? Did you read table 7-33? The stacking rules are not on it.

Besides, there's no invention involved here. You're taking existing abilities and stacking them per the rules. You have invented nothing because the combination already exists by RAW. Compare this to making a magical lighter for a pipe.

Lastly it is a DM's judgement call whether the several properties desired in a crystal are similar or dissimilar abilities.
So? This may come as a shock to you, but everything in the game is a DM's judgement call. Some things just demonstrate better judgement than others.

Furthermore:

You can add new magical abilities to a magic item with virtually no restrictions.
It does not say "subject to DM approval." Additionally...

This book intentionally does not present any detailed rules on pricing new magic items that you create.
It says this on the page where it gives detailed pricing rules for adding additional abilities to existing magic items. Hence, when the game talks about the creation of new magic items, it is not talking about combining abilities.

[Andezzar]

Did you actually read that? Did you read table 7-33? The stacking rules are not on it.I never claimed they were in that table. They are in the same box that I quoted from. Or are you talking about different stacking rules?


Besides, there's no invention involved here. You're taking existing abilities and stacking them per the rules. You have invented nothing because the combination already exists by RAW. Compare this to making a magical lighter for a pipe.I disagree. Even though each ability an item has already exists, an item with that specific combination does not exist unless it is published somewhere. Putting that specific combination of abilities on an item is an invention of a new item that is different from all previously existing items. The rules are for inventing items not inventing abilities. Inventing new abilities is a whole other can of worms.


So? This may come as a shock to you, but everything in the game is a DM's judgement call. Some things just demonstrate better judgement than others.However making a judgement call that an existing item costs more or less than the listed amount is a different sort of judgement call than pricing a new item. The former is similar to saying that all kobolds get +4 to attack while the latter is like giving the encounter with a band of kobolds a higher EL because they are on higher ground behind cover and have ranged weapons whereas the PCs don't. One deviates from the RAW while the other only uses the rules as written (which explicitly give the DM leeway).


It does not say "subject to DM approval."It does however say virtually (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/virtually). With the first definition of that word the sentence does indeed pose restrictions. It says that the abilities can be added almost entirely without restriction.


It says this on the page where it gives detailed pricing rules for adding additional abilities to existing magic items. Hence, when the game talks about the creation of new magic items, it is not talking about combining abilities.If you continued to read that section you would see that pricing is very much a guideline and not a bunch of hard and fast rules. The MIC simply does not add new ones.
The Dungeon Master’s Guide provides various methods of estimating (and don’t underestimate the importance of that word in this task) gold piece values for simple magic items you design, but the very nature of magic item design in D&D doesn’t lend itself to hard-and-fast rules for setting these prices. Any two items that replicate different spells can, and probably should, vary dramatically in price, even if the spell level and caster level are identical. (If that seems hard to believe, compare the value of a ring of invisibility with an item that allowed you to cast make whole at will.)The quoted example does not include any new abilities (at will Make Whole (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/makeWhole.htm)) but it is called out as an item whose price needs to be estimated, probably vastly differently from a ring of invisibilty, even though both are based on 2nd level spells.