Topic: Item levels versus spells?

[yammahoper]

An unenchanted Item always has Level 1.

+1

[Hurin]

An unenchanted Item always has Level 1.

So for example an iron sword is as easy to break as a high steel one? Or a staff made of pine (durability -30) is as easy to shatter as one made of Ironwood (durability +30)?

[jdale]

I would just add any strength bonus/penalty to the RR against breakage. That works equally well whether the item is laying on the ground (level 1) or in the hands of a character (RR at character's level).

[Hurin]

I would just add any strength bonus/penalty to the RR against breakage. That works equally well whether the item is laying on the ground (level 1) or in the hands of a character (RR at character's level).

Would that mean that a staff made of normal wood (+0 strength bonus/penalty) would be as easy to shatter as one made of iron (+0 strength bonus/penalty)?

[Warl]

Yes.

The Spell Doesn't differentiate between Materials, It shatters ANY inanimate Material.

And The Material ONLY gets an RR if it is on a Living person, OR if it is enchanted.

I think you are over complicating/Over thinking the spell Hurin.

The spell is Simple and Straight forward with no Ambiguity as to what it does.

The Amount of material it can shatter is very limited... so you can't really use it to destroy a wall very quickly, or similar things. And at 8 Spell points a cast, it isn't exactly cheap.

[jdale]

Some spells require the item to make a breakage check, e.g. Shattering Blow I on Mind Over Matter. The material strength would be relevant in that case. The strength bonus of the item would add for the breakage check, but there's no RR.

Other spells outright break the item with no breakage check, e.g. Shatter on Solid Alteration, but that example only works on non-metallic items. Likewise, Shatter on Solid Destruction only works on inorganics. So the spell determines whether the material matters. There is an RR. On further reflection, I don't know that any non-magical durability bonus should be relevant here.

[Malim]

Its 1 cubic feet of material.. that covers all weapons and armors i would say!
If the rules of how hard it is to make the weapon is used (highest spell used) then a +10 magic weapons is only lvl 8 afaik.
versus a lvl 8 spell with a base spell roll! Thats alot of weapons going bye bye if you encounter a evil magician or sorceror!

[Hurin]

Some spells require the item to make a breakage check, e.g. Shattering Blow I on Mind Over Matter. The material strength would be relevant in that case. The strength bonus of the item would add for the breakage check, but there's no RR.

Other spells outright break the item with no breakage check, e.g. Shatter on Solid Alteration, but that example only works on non-metallic items. Likewise, Shatter on Solid Destruction only works on inorganics. So the spell determines whether the material matters. There is an RR. On further reflection, I don't know that any non-magical durability bonus should be relevant here.

I guess I just like the simplicity of B Hanson's solution, which brings all shatter type effects under the same mechanic. I prefer the argument that a harder object is harder to break; that seems to me a bit easier to rationalize (I know we're talking about a fantasy game here, but still...) than the argument that a battle axe is harder to shatter when held by a higher level person than when it is held by a lower level one.

[Warl]

think of it the other way around.... The Spell is powerful enough to shatter the Hardest substance with ease and anything else less hard than that.

[jdale]

I guess I just like the simplicity of B Hanson's solution, which brings all shatter type effects under the same mechanic. I prefer the argument that a harder object is harder to break; that seems to me a bit easier to rationalize (I know we're talking about a fantasy game here, but still...) than the argument that a battle axe is harder to shatter when held by a higher level person than when it is held by a lower level one.

I see the appeal of a consistent mechanic, but on the other hand, if you say items are not protected by the wearer's aura, does that mean the wearer doesn't get an RR against Metalfires, Unseen, Long Door Item, etc cast on those items? Or does it mean that the wearer's item have an innately different resistance mechanic against breakage than against all other magical effects? Consistency cuts both ways.

You could use his RR option 2 (strength adds to RR) and still use the wearer's level and other RR mods; the consequence there is that breaking items becomes substantially more difficult.

[Hurin]

I guess I just like the simplicity of B Hanson's solution, which brings all shatter type effects under the same mechanic. I prefer the argument that a harder object is harder to break; that seems to me a bit easier to rationalize (I know we're talking about a fantasy game here, but still...) than the argument that a battle axe is harder to shatter when held by a higher level person than when it is held by a lower level one.

I see the appeal of a consistent mechanic, but on the other hand, if you say items are not protected by the wearer's aura, does that mean the wearer doesn't get an RR against Metalfires, Unseen, Long Door Item, etc cast on those items? Or does it mean that the wearer's item have an innately different resistance mechanic against breakage than against all other magical effects? Consistency cuts both ways.

You could use his RR option 2 (strength adds to RR) and still use the wearer's level and other RR mods; the consequence there is that breaking items becomes substantially more difficult.

I see what you're saying, and I agree with the concept behind the aura; I know it does some necessary mechanical work in the system.

Am I correct in assuming that an object that is not carried by a creature with an aura would not get any save vs. say the Solid Destruction version of Shatter? I was assuming that all objects would get an RR-- one of the reasons I liked the uniform procedure of using the strength/breakage factor. But now rereading the posts above I am thinking that you are meaning that unless the object is carried, it does not get an RR?

[Warl]

My understanding is that it gets No RR on it's Own, Unless it has an Enchanted nature.

[yammahoper]

An unenchanted Item always has Level 1.

So for example an iron sword is as easy to break as a high steel one? Or a staff made of pine (durability -30) is as easy to shatter as one made of Ironwood (durability +30)?

 Items have strength to determine how difficult they are to break. Wood, stone or metal, each resist magic equally unless it has special properties .

[jdale]

Am I correct in assuming that an object that is not carried by a creature with an aura would not get any save vs. say the Solid Destruction version of Shatter? I was assuming that all objects would get an RR-- one of the reasons I liked the uniform procedure of using the strength/breakage factor. But now rereading the posts above I am thinking that you are meaning that unless the object is carried, it does not get an RR?

In RMSS, the description of type F spells (which are the spells that require RRs), it says "If the spell has a target capable of resisting" which suggests that normal objects are not. Could be more clear though, I'm not seeing a specific rule about it. Certainly we don't roll resistance when using a spell like Undoor or Shape Stone.

RMU has a rule in Spell Law (pg 46):
Note that non-magical objects generally will not get RRs in any case, unless within the aura of a
creature. If the GM decides an RR is needed for an ordinary object or normal plant, use a target level of
1. If an item is being worn or carried by a living animal or magical entity (such as a demon, elemental,
undead monster, etc.), including sapient races, the item will resist at its own level, or that of the being
wearing/carrying it, whichever is higher. For magical items, the level of the item is normally the level of
the highest level spell used to make the item. Items do not normally benefit (or suffer from) any bonus
(or penalty) to RRs possessed by the person wearing/carrying it, unless it is due to a magical effect (i.e.,
an item will benefit from a protective spell covering its bearer).

[Hurin]

In RMSS, the description of type F spells (which are the spells that require RRs), it says "If the spell has a target capable of resisting" which suggests that normal objects are not. Could be more clear though, I'm not seeing a specific rule about it. Certainly we don't roll resistance when using a spell like Undoor or Shape Stone.

RMU has a rule in Spell Law (pg 46):
Note that non-magical objects generally will not get RRs in any case, unless within the aura of a
creature. If the GM decides an RR is needed for an ordinary object or normal plant, use a target level of
1. If an item is being worn or carried by a living animal or magical entity (such as a demon, elemental,
undead monster, etc.), including sapient races, the item will resist at its own level, or that of the being
wearing/carrying it, whichever is higher. For magical items, the level of the item is normally the level of
the highest level spell used to make the item. Items do not normally benefit (or suffer from) any bonus
(or penalty) to RRs possessed by the person wearing/carrying it, unless it is due to a magical effect (i.e.,
an item will benefit from a protective spell covering its bearer).

Ah, ok. Well, that makes sense then.

[Spectre771]

This is an interesting topic and I've read NEARLY every single post so here's my 2cents because there were plenty of instances where non-magical items needed a RR in our campaigns.

My understanding was that the item level was the same as the "creator's level."

A level 5 blacksmith makes a non-magical sword = level 5 sword.  Could he make a really crappy level 1 sword?  Sure, but why would he?  It's not good for business.  "Don't go Dingledong the Smithy.  All of his swords break after a week of use."  Can a level 5 blacksmith make a level 10 sword?  No.  How could he possibly?

Higher quality requires higher skill, higher skills (should) inherently impart higher quality.  As a default, we always gave our non-magical items level 5 for RR.  Any Average-Joe adventurer could afford the base level (level 5) equipment and a decent apprentice with a smithy should be outputting at least decent grade items.  The Smith's reputation in on the line again.  If the item had +5, +10, etc for quality, not magical, we gave the +5, +10 bonus to the item's roll for Breakage Factor when needed.

Elemental material items (from Elemental Companion - RM2) gave base level elemental forges required to manipulate elemental material, the base skills required, and those items had inherently higher final product levels; Level 10+ due to the amount of skill needed just to manipulate/use the stuff (Mithril, Eog, Laen, Cotoetine, etc.).  As the material was already magical, it automatically received RRs.

Items that were later imbued with magical properties AFTER creation still defaulted to the item quality.  However, I think* there were minimum requirements on the item in order for the imbuing process to work.  Ex.: Level 9 spell property, needs at least level 9 item to accept the property and the spell caster/alchemist had to be at least level 9 in order to cast that spell, etc.  So that too, gave an inherent RR = level 9.  Why would someone waste time/effort/money/resources to put a level 9 spell into a level 1 item?

All of that being said, I (and the other players/GMs from my group) agree with Warl:

"My understanding is that it gets No RR on it's Own, Unless it has an Enchanted nature."

It seemed to work out OK for because by the time they ran into an evil-doer who could cast those spells, the PCs were already stronger, smarter, and better equipped with hopefully magical items.  If they are fighting a level 8 spell caster, casting a level 8 spell, they have 3 rounds to try to disrupt his spell.  It all balanced out.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

"My understanding is that it gets No RR on its Own, Unless it has an Enchanted nature."

I think a main reason to do so is that, otherwise, any man-made item should then be allowed a RR. After all, if a blacksmith making a sword grants said sword a RR, why wouldn't a door made by a doormaker be granted one as well? Then, all spells affecting items would generate RRs rolls, even when such items aren't being equiped by someone. Jam the door? Sorry, the door has a RR. Heat the boiler? RR for the boiler. Etc.
So, yeah, I think "only magical anything and living beings get RRs" is the easiest and efficient enough rule.