I agree with Wulf that cementing a magic item is not the same as getting an ability. If having a follower means that the follower can be sick, kidnapped, killed, etc, depriving the player character of those skills for a longer or shorter time (understanding that the follower can be replaced if permanently removed), then the same should be true with items -- they can be lost, stolen, broken, whatever -- if they are permanently lost, they should be replaceable with something of a similar power.
Beyond that, though, maybe the problem is how we are viewing magic items. Does it make much sense to have a magic sword with Close Combat (Sword) in it? Wouldn't the smith who crated it assume that the user would already have that ability? It seems to me that magic items should not contain non-magical abilities for the most part. They should should contain either a fixed bonus of some sort (sword with a ^8 edge or a +5 to close combat skill) or a magical ability that can generally be used to augment the user's abilities.
This would address Benedict's concern about the item's affect
on different characters -- a +5 TN sword (I'm having a D&D flashback,
but never mind) will not unbalance characters with low Close Combats
-- they will still have poor Close Combat score. If the sword
contains Swordsharp 5w2, that limits it even more -- the character
will have to take an action to get the augment.
Some items might have abilities that can be used on their own
-- Find Cow, for example. A character could either use the ability to
find a cow or augment an existing ability.
If an item has abilities like Close Combat, EWF Memories, or whatever, we are getting into the "sentient item" area where the ability is held by a "spirit" of some sort and transmitted to the user either by conversation (for knowledge) or possession (for physical abilities). This kind of item is probably better treated as a follower, anyway, or as some sort of integrated ability or heroforming.
Does this help at all?
Peter Larsen
--
Powered by hypermail