# Glyph Seals from Magic Item Compendium



## Atavar (Mar 15, 2007)

Hello Everyone,

I wanted to run by you the use of magic items one of my players is asking me about to see if any of you can see a problem with it.

There are two magic items on p. 161 of the new Magic Item Compendium called "glyph seal" and "glyph seal, greater."  They appear to work like a portable, reusable glyph of warding device.  They duplicate the spell glyph function of the glyph of warding spell.  Here are some key differences from the spell, though:

1. They can store ANY spell, not just harmful spells.

2. They can store any arcane or divine spell, not just cleric spells.

3. The glyph seal can store any spell of 2nd level or lower, and the greater glyph seal can store any spell of 5th level or lower (the book actually says 5th level or higher, but I'm certain that's a misprint).

My player wants to use these things to give the other characters easy-to-use, rechargeable buff items.  He was thinking of the various cure spells, for example, but the one I wanted to ask about in particular is righteous might.  That is a pretty powerful cleric spell, and it normally has a target of "you" (i.e. the caster).  However, the glyph seals state specifically that you can place ANY arcane or divine spell within them (not just harmful spells).  There is no restriction written as to target, etc.

So, my player wants to key a greater glyph seal with the righteous might spell, attach the seal to a small container (thus putting the glyph upon the container), and have the glyph trigger when someone opens the container.  Then the party's warforged would carry this container on his belt and activate it when desired.

Once activated, someone would need to retrieve the seal from the container and charge it with another spell before it could be used again.  In effect, though, the item turns out to be much like a rechargeable potion that can store any spell of up to 5th level, and the party can use it over and over again.

Is there anything wrong from a rules perspective with any of the above?  Even if the above agrees with the RAW, what kind of potential abuse, if any, do you see in the power of these glyph seals?

Thanks,

Atavar


----------



## KerlanRayne (Mar 16, 2007)

Sounds like the ordinary Ring of Spell Storing to me. Try comparing it to that. 

KerlanRayne


----------



## hong (Mar 16, 2007)

Rings of spell storing are just cheese IMO. They nicely bypass the balancing factor built into range: personal spells, ie the assumption that you can't cast them on a character who can fully exploit them.


----------



## Atavar (Mar 16, 2007)

I looked up the rings of spell storing, and while there are several differences, the bottom line is that it costs a LOT more to get a ring of spell storing than it does to get a greater glyph seal.

For the righteous might example, that spell is 5th level, so it would require a greater glyph seal to store and use.  A greater glyph seal costs 4000 g.p., and in MIC terms is a 4th-level item, price-wise.

To store that 5th-level spell on one of the rings of spell storing we would need a regular ring (not the minor or major versions), which costs 50,000 g.p., and is an 18th-level item, price-wise.

Yes, the items are used differently in some ways, but in the most important ways they work very similarly.  Similarly enough that I would think they'd have somewhat similar prices.

One of my players e-mailed WotC about the glyph seals and his plans on how to use them.  I didn't read WotC's response personally, but my player told me that they essentially said, "Huh.  We never thought about that."

More and more I'm thinking that some sort of cost adjustment and/or limitation needs to be done with these glyph seals.

Later,

Atavar


----------



## Nail (Mar 16, 2007)

Does the glyph seal target the openner?  Always?  Even for spells that don't normally target something else?

Seems like a good balancing factor there: "Hey look, the glass vial is the subject of Righteous Might!"


----------



## Atavar (Mar 16, 2007)

Basically, here is how the glyph seal works:

1. Caster casts any arcane or divine spell (2nd level or lower for glyph seal, 5th level or lower for greater glyph seal) into the glyph seal.  This is called "keying" the seal.

2. Caster sticks the seal against any nonmagical, nonliving object.  This effectively places a glyph, like a glyph of warding, upon the object, triggered as the caster wishes.  The glyph seal itself also stays on the object, hidden, but easily found by the caster.  At this point the glyph seal is emptied of its spell (the spell/glyph itself is now on the touched object), but the glyph seal item can be recovered and filled with another spell later.

3. The glyph is triggered (e.g. by opening the object), releasing the stored spell upon the one who triggered the glyph, or centered upon him, just as with the glyph of warding spell.

The glyph of warding spell, however, specifically says that you can only put HARMFUL spells within a glyph of warding; the intent is for the glyph to always harm whoever triggers it.  The potential for abuse, then, with the glyph seal magic item is that it places no such restriction on the spells that can be stored within it; ANY arcane or divine spell can be stored, not just harmful ones.

I'm tempted to rule that you can only put harmful spells within a glyph seal, just as with the glyph of warding spell.  It still broadens the spells you can use, since the glyph of warding spell limits the spells even further to the spells known by the caster, and since glyph of warding is a Clr 3 spell, that means only cleric spells may be used with the glyph of warding spell, while ANY arcane or divine spell of appropriate level may be used with the glyph seal items.

Later,

Atavar


----------



## FatherTome (Mar 16, 2007)

I'm the player of Atavar's who brought this up, and there's a couple important notes on Glyph Seal (and the Greater) version.

The language is pretty specific - it states "any arcane or divine spell of 2nd level or lower". Second, it's activated just as the 'spell glyph' function as in Glyph of Warding.

This has some important points - first, the glyph is triggered when a creature enters the warded area (if warded over an area) or opens the warded object (if, for example, a ward or chest is opened). It can also be set to trigger when a creature passes the glyph, but this is similar enough to the area effect as to be functionally identical.

Second, the spell glyph function is very specific about targetting - the creature who triggers the glyph is the target of the spell, or if the spell affects an area, the spell is centered on the creature who triggered it. Similarily, if the spell is a Summon Monster or Summon Natures Ally or similar spell, the summoned creature appears as close to the triggering creature as possible and attacks.

That being said, Atavar told me I would have to run any spells I wanted to potentially place into the glyph seal by him beforehand, so I tossed out a few spells I would probably use on a regular basis for consumption. 

In that list I deliberately included two personal-range spells - Invisibility Purge and Righteous Might. Now, there is a magic item that mimics the effect of Invisibility Purge (the Lantern of Revealing, if I remember correctly) but it's short range, suffers the limitations of Invisibility Purge (which is really a combat-type spell, given the radius), and it's frankly expensive. Goggles of Continual See Invisibility cost much less according to the RAW, and pair that with a Wand of Glitterdust and you've got much the same effect as Invisibility Purge in a pinch with much less hassle, with much greater range.

Righteous Might's inclusion on that list has to do with my continued desire to find an acceptable substitute for Enlarge Person. EP is a pretty terrible spell when you compare it to Animal Growth, which not only gives the proper bonuses for increasing in size (which Enlarge Person does not) but also gives damage reduction (magic) and a natural armor bonus to boot. Even so, I would still use Enlarge Person on our fighter if he wasn't a Warforged and thus not a valid target for the spell.

Righteous Might, on the other hand, while still inferior to Animal Growth, gives enough of a bonus to make it more worthwhile to cast on a fighter - but being a personal range spell, it serves only to infuriate me since to get it on the fighter even once a day I would have to purchase the rather overpriced Ring of Spell Storing, or create a command-word item that functions once a day (which would cost 16,200 GP - not cheap for a party of 9th level characters).

Back on topic - there are plenty of spells that, under these circumstances, make sense to be allowable for use on a Glyph Seal. The question then becomes a matter of balance, which is why I'm running spells by Atavar beforehand.

As for a Ring of Spell Storing, I personally think that the item is frankly overpriced, but the increased cost can be at least partially attributed to the fact that you aren't restricted to a single spell,you can target the spell as appropriate, and it only takes a single standard action per use, meaning that you could use it offensively (dropping a Meteor Swarm into the ring for future use, for example). The Glyph Seal ordinarily does something different, and I saw a way that it could be exploited to do something similar (much like Fire Trap could be exploited to create Fire Trap arrows in 2nd edition).

I get the feeling that WotC is going to errata the cost, however.


- Tome


----------



## Salthorae (Mar 16, 2007)

I'm having trouble picturing the practicality of this item for use in Buffing other characters.  I don't have the MIC personally, but from what you've said you effectively store a spell in a Glyph of Warding and then "paste" it onto something else right? 

So how would your fighter be able to trigger his glyph of _Righteous Might_? Either he would have to come into the area with the glyph (so right after it was cast and the Fighter came in the room the spell would expend), or it would have to be put on something that can be "sealed" so a chest, maybe a book or something like that.

If the second is the way you were planning on using it, then the fighter would have to carry that object around with him. I just don't see a fighter pulling that chest with his _Righteous Might_ glyph on it to open the chest and trigger the spell in the middle of battle myself. 

If there was time to prepare...maybe, but most fights in D&D don't give a whole lot of prep time IMHO.

Please let me know if I'm missing something...


----------



## FatherTome (Mar 16, 2007)

You're not missing anything - the basic idea is that the glyph would be placed on a container, and then the fighter (assuming Righteous Might as the example) would pull out the container and then open it - two move actions. It doesn't have to be anything large or bulky, just something nonmagical with a hard flat surface to apply the glyph to.

So you're spending a round to use the item, but you're also spending a round to use that potion of resist energy or bull's strength or cure moderate wounds, given a move action to retrieve the item and then a standard action to drink it.

The average combat with this group lasts on the order of three or four rounds, making it impractical as a general use item, but we've had a couple combats that last longer and it would be handy to have around for the more challenging fights.

Also, a couple glyphs with Cure Moderate wounds passed around to the other party members fills the same purpose as a Potion of Cure Moderate, etc, that can be replenished during downtime (mid-dungeon crawl is inconvenient as those spell slots are generally needed as spontaneous cures if not actual spells.

The idea is that these would more or less duplicate the function of a potion, would be consumed during the adventure and aren't subject to quite the same limitations as a potion (such as the restriction on 3rd level spells or lower) and could be recharged between adventures.

For the cost of one Glyph Seal, you could purchase 3 Potions of Cure Moderate Wounds and 2 Potions of Cure Light, so frankly speaking they're only economically better over the long run.


----------



## Notmousse (Mar 16, 2007)

Consequently you could place the glyph on a potion vial, provided it's surface was flat enough.  The vial itself isn't magical, and opening it is part of the standard action you take to drink the potion anyway.  Bears Endurance and Bull's Strength anyone?


----------



## FatherTome (Mar 16, 2007)

Perhaps, but I'm inclined to doubt that a potion vial is large enough.


----------



## Twowolves (Mar 16, 2007)

I'm certain you could put the glyph on a belt pouch. Just open the pouch to activate, no need to retrieve anything.


----------



## MarkB (Mar 16, 2007)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> I'm certain you could put the glyph on a belt pouch. Just open the pouch to activate, no need to retrieve anything.



Likewise a haversack or scroll case.


----------



## FatherTome (Mar 17, 2007)

Haversacks and belt pouches are not solid surfaces. You could  tie a leather strap to a box and tie that to your belt, but you're still picking up an object/retrieving an object, which is a move action - just like drawing a sword.


----------



## Twowolves (Mar 17, 2007)

FatherTome said:
			
		

> Haversacks and belt pouches are not solid surfaces. You could  tie a leather strap to a box and tie that to your belt, but you're still picking up an object/retrieving an object, which is a move action - just like drawing a sword.




How are they not solid? They sure ain't liquid, gas or plasma.


----------



## Nail (Mar 17, 2007)

I would rule that:
Spells with Target: Personal can't be put into the glyph, as the glyph cannot target itself, and
 the seals have a market price that reflects their spell level.  For the Lesser Seal it would be (2000gp (Use activated) * 3 (Spl Lvl) * 5 (CL) =) 30,000 gp, for the Greater Seal it would be (2000gp (Use activated) * 6 (Spl Lvl) * 11 (CL) =) 132,000 gp.  These are extremely portable and adaptable; they do not deserve the "Magical Trap" price.


----------



## FatherTome (Mar 17, 2007)

Good thing you're not my DM. You and I wouldn't get along at all.

Have you even read the Magic Item Compendium? It's a good read and it would help you understand why a ruling like yours is in conflict with the ideas that spawned it.

It includes such items as a 3,000 GP item that 3x a day as a swift action allows you to make your next melee attack as a touch attack instead. The Design and Development articles specifically talk about how players will ignore items that are either not useful and cheap, or useful but ridiculously overpriced. So there are a lot of useful, cheap items that were deemed to be not unbalancing, and the majority of them are under 10,000 GP - a far cry from your 30,000 GP and 132,000 GP costs, which don't come close to being reasonable.

As far as your 'use-activated' cost goes, I could get a continuous Ring of Greater Invisibility for less and it would be far more unbalancing. Therefore you need to reevaluate your concept of cost.

Compare it to the closest similar item: Ring of Spell Storing. You have more than doubled the base price of the regular Ring of Spell Storing on a magic item which is much more limited in function. Does this make sense? No.


----------



## hong (Mar 18, 2007)

D00d, stop whinging, kthxb


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Mar 18, 2007)

FatherTome said:
			
		

> Have you even read the Magic Item Compendium? It's a good read and it would help you understand why a ruling like yours is in conflict with the ideas that spawned it.



 Perhaps then you could just paraphrase the sections where the book discusses why it's okay to allow Personal range spells in a rechargeable item? That's the problem that people are having with this item and if the book is such a good read, it must surely discuss this issue.


----------



## FatherTome (Mar 18, 2007)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Perhaps then you could just paraphrase the sections where the book discusses why it's okay to allow Personal range spells in a rechargeable item? That's the problem that people are having with this item and if the book is such a good read, it must surely discuss this issue.




Unnecessary. The book doesn't have to say it's okay to allow Personal range spells into a rechargeable item - it says 'any spell'. I'm pretty sure that Personal range spells fall under the category of 'any spell'.

If you want an example of a reusable spell storing item that doesn't allow Personal range spells, take a look at the Companion Spirit from (if I recall) DMGII. It specifically disallows casting Personal range spells into it, but it is the exception, as neither the Ring of Spell Storing nor the Glyph Seal have any restrictions on what kind of spell can be cast into it; merely what level of spell(s).


----------



## Mort (Mar 18, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> I would rule that:
> Spells with Target: Personal can't be put into the glyph, as the glyph cannot target itself, and
> the seals have a market price that reflects their spell level.  For the Lesser Seal it would be (2000gp (Use activated) * 3 (Spl Lvl) * 5 (CL) =) 30,000 gp, for the Greater Seal it would be (2000gp (Use activated) * 6 (Spl Lvl) * 11 (CL) =) 132,000 gp.  These are extremely portable and adaptable; they do not deserve the "Magical Trap" price.




As explored in this thread  which talks about this WOTC article, it seems one of the design goals was to make "non big 6" items more affordable so people would actually use them. 
The pricing you outlined, assuming the DM is even closely adhering to DMG suggested wealth levels; I don't think any one would bother with these, useful or not.


----------



## starwed (Mar 18, 2007)

> The book doesn't have to say it's okay to allow Personal range spells into a rechargeable item - it says 'any spell'. I'm pretty sure that Personal range spells fall under the category of 'any spell'.



The question isn't whether this glyph thing can _contain_ a personal spell, just whether or not it's useful for it to do so.

A ring of spell storing states that: 







> A minor ring of spell storing contains up to three levels of spells that the wearer can cast.



  Since the wearer is casting the spell, it's clear that a Target:You spell would target the wearer.  The same is true of most items which have only one, preset spell effect; it is specified that the user casts the spell from the item, gains the ability to use the spell X/day, or similiar language.  In all such cases, there's no conflict with the magic item containing a personal spell, because it's treated as if the activator had used the ability.

Because of the nature of a protective glyph, it's highly unlikely that it contains similar language.  Most likely, it refers to the item casting or activating the spell.

But if an item casts a Target:you spell at another creature, what exactly happens?  Well, to me this brings to mind the following rule:


> If you ever try to cast a spell in conditions where the characteristics of the spell cannot be made to conform, the casting fails and the spell is wasted.




Thus, depending on both the exact wording of the glyph, and any additional rules in the compendium, it's entirely possible that you can store a personal spell in the glyph, but that doing so is fairly pointless...


----------



## FatherTome (Mar 18, 2007)

I'm going to copy-paste the Spell Glyph section from Glyph of Warding off the hypertext d20 SRD here:



> Spell Glyph
> 
> You can store any harmful spell of 3rd level or lower that you know. All level-dependent features of the spell are based on your caster level at the time of casting the glyph. *If the spell has a target, it targets the intruder.* If the spell has an area or an amorphous effect the area or effect is centered on the intruder. If the spell summons creatures, they appear as close as possible to the intruder and attack. Saving throws and spell resistance operate as normal, except that the DC is based on the level of the spell stored in the glyph.




Glyph Seal stats that it converts any arcane or divine spell into a glyph similar to Glyph of Warding, and that it is triggered as the Spell Glyph function of Glyph of Warding.

Glyph Seal contradicts the Spell Glyph in a few ways: It allows divine spells (Glyph of Warding is normally an arcane spell and not a divine one), it allows ANY spell (explicitly stated), and the level of spell allowed is lower than Glyph of Warding normally permits.

Where Glyph Seal remains in line is that they are triggered the same way - either by an object (such as a door, or chest, or box, or drawer) being opened, or by a protected area being traversed (entering a warded area or passing a warded object) - and the targetting states that if the spell has a target, it targets the the intruder, or centers an area on the intruder, or summons a creature next to the intruder. Whatever the type of spell, the glyph affects the creature (singular) which triggered it as appropriate for the spell. However, Glyph Seal is only similar to Glyph of Warding, not identical. As noted earlier, WotC Customer Service stated that this was not something that they had considered with the item, and I either expect it to be errata'ed along with the myriad of typos and errors in the text, or for it to be ignored completely.

So far it seems the only real issue people have is the Personal range spells. Now, I can understand why certain spells would be out of the question, such as Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer, Read Magic, Speak With <Plural Noun> and Shapechange. Similarily, Alter Self and Disguise Self are no-brainers. But Overland Flight? False Life? Entropic Shield?

This is why my DM is approving spells on a case-by-case basis. If he thinks a spell is too unbalancing, he will simply disallow it.


----------



## Agamon (Mar 18, 2007)

I agree with Starwed.  Sure, you can put a spell with Target:You in the the glyph.  But if it doesn't target the caster when it goes off, it's not a viable target anymore.

Edit: good point about Spell Glyph.  You guys are going about it the right way.  Figure out what seems balanced and unbalanced and house rule it.  I personally wouldn't allow personal spells, they're personal and not touch for a reason, but YMMV.


----------



## Twowolves (Mar 18, 2007)

FatherTome said:
			
		

> Glyph Seal contradicts the Spell Glyph in a few ways: It allows divine spells (Glyph of Warding is normally an arcane spell and not a divine one), it allows ANY spell (explicitly stated), and the level of spell allowed is lower than Glyph of Warding normally permits.




I think you confused "arcane" and "divine" in your example here.

I think the spirit of the item would be preserved by retaining the "harmful only" requirement of the Glyph of Warding spell description.


----------



## hong (Mar 19, 2007)

I'm wondering how much to get an animated glyph seal. And maybe an awakened, animated glyph seal. I could teach it tricks. It would be my performing glyph seal.


----------



## boolean (Mar 19, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> I'm wondering how much to get an animated glyph seal. And maybe an awakened, animated glyph seal. I could teach it tricks. It would be my performing glyph seal.




But can it balance a beach ball on its nose?


----------



## Nail (Mar 19, 2007)

FatherTome said:
			
		

> So far it seems the only real issue people have is the Personal range spells.



No.

I have a real issue with magic items that are way too cheap for their use.  You have abundantly showed that this magic item is too powerful (any spell, divine or arcane, usable in combat, personal only spells, etc.).

The wealth guidelines and the magic item creation guidelines in the DMG have worked reasonably well for the games I've played or run.  I see no reason to make useful magic items cheaper.  YMMV.


----------



## Nail (Mar 19, 2007)

FatherTome said:
			
		

> It includes such items as a 3,000 GP item that 3x a day as a swift action allows you to make your next melee attack as a touch attack instead.



Wow.  Incredible.

Have the designers read the optimization threads on their own message boards?


----------



## hong (Mar 19, 2007)

Mmmm.... swift-action touch attack + diamond nightmare blade + Power Attack....


----------



## cwhs01 (Mar 19, 2007)

The powergap between highly optimized characters (ala CO board builds) and, well, non-optimized characters make pricing of magic items an artform and kinda subjective. A 3000 gp touchattack item, to one character may be a bargain, a steal or possibly beyound omg broken, while the same item to the less optimized build may be just reasonable. Likewise with the glyph thingie. 

This is one of the reasons i dislike the item creation feats, and am woried about the Ye Olde Magicshoppe phenomena of 3.x edition.


----------



## seans23 (Mar 19, 2007)

FatherTome said:
			
		

> Have you even read the Magic Item Compendium? It's a good read and it would help you understand why a ruling like yours is in conflict with the ideas that spawned it.




I looked for it at Games of Berkeley this weekend, but I failed my search check. Hopefully it'll be there next week.


----------



## hong (Mar 20, 2007)

Okay, re the touch-attack item: just got the MIC, and it's not quite that bad. The one I saw is a +1 weapon enchantment, so (for example) if you go from +7 to +8, that's 30000 gp. That's a bit more reasonable than 3000 gp.


----------



## FatherTome (Mar 20, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Okay, re the touch-attack item: just got the MIC, and it's not quite that bad. The one I saw is a +1 weapon enchantment, so (for example) if you go from +7 to +8, that's 30000 gp. That's a bit more reasonable than 3000 gp.




Check the worn items. I forget what it's called and I don't have the book handy, but it's a belt-slot item and it is 3000 gp. The +1 enchantment is for piercing weapons only and has a minimum price of 3000 GP (going from +1 to +2).


----------



## hong (Mar 20, 2007)

FatherTome said:
			
		

> Check the worn items. I forget what it's called and I don't have the book handy, but it's a belt-slot item and it is 3000 gp.




Nope, no such belt.

On the other hand! Belt of battle: +2 init, 3 charges/day, spend 1 charge to gain a move action, 2 charges to gain a std action, 3 charges to gain a full-round action. Mmmm. Diamond nightmare blade + greater insightful strike....


----------



## FatherTome (Mar 20, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Nope, no such belt.
> 
> On the other hand! Belt of battle: +2 init, 3 charges/day, spend 1 charge to gain a move action, 2 charges to gain a std action, 3 charges to gain a full-round action. Mmmm. Diamond nightmare blade + greater insightful strike....




I'll get the exact item name for you tomorrow. It does exist.


----------



## hong (Mar 20, 2007)

Ah, here we go! Heartseeking amulet: 3/day as swift action, next attack is touch attack.

Mmmm. I love the smell of cheddar in the morning!


----------



## Notmousse (Mar 20, 2007)

Does it smell like... victory?


----------



## Nail (Mar 20, 2007)

I'm sure the PCs will think so, after being attacked by a bunch of low-level mooks with these cheapo amulets.  

Heck, let's just make this a potion, so the bad guys have touch attacks, but the PCs don't get the loot.  Even better.  Gotta love Wraithstrike.....


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Mar 21, 2007)

FatherTome said:
			
		

> Unnecessary. The book doesn't have to say it's okay to allow Personal range spells into a rechargeable item - it says 'any spell'. I'm pretty sure that Personal range spells fall under the category of 'any spell'.



 Of course it has to say it.  If it doesn't then the book is not such a good read and certainly doesn't conflict with Nail's position; and then your rebuttal missed by a wide margin.



			
				FatherTome said:
			
		

> ...as neither the Ring of Spell Storing nor the Glyph Seal have any restrictions on what kind of spell can be cast into it; merely what level of spell(s).



 Not surprisingly, no one's arguing that.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Mar 21, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> I'm sure the PCs will think so, after being attacked by a bunch of low-level mooks with these cheapo amulets.
> 
> Heck, let's just make this a potion, so the bad guys have touch attacks, but the PCs don't get the loot.  Even better.  Gotta love Wraithstrike.....



Remember, you can't make potions out of Touch spells.


----------



## Atavar (Mar 21, 2007)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Remember, you can't make potions out of Touch spells.




What's with the smarmy attitude?

Unless I am missing something, per the DMG the only restrictions on spells in a potion are spell level (3rd level or less) and casting time (less than one minute).  I don't see any restrictions on target.

Or were you just kidding?

Later,

Atavar


----------



## boolean (Mar 21, 2007)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Remember, you can't make potions out of Touch spells.



You can't make potions of Cure Light Wounds?

I think you mean that you cannot make potions of Personal range spells (such as Wraithstrike).
(To Atavar: It's on page 286, under the "Creating Potions" heading.


----------



## starwed (Mar 21, 2007)

Ah, the exact wording indicates that putting a spell like Righteous Might in a glyph is pointless.  The glyph attempts to target whatever creature triggered it, but that creature  is out of range... (Rangeersonal, remember?) so the spell fails.

I guess if you cast animate object on the item, and had it trigger itself, the spell could go off... ^_^


----------



## Nail (Mar 21, 2007)

starwed said:
			
		

> Ah, the exact wording indicates that putting a spell like Righteous Might in a glyph is pointless.  The glyph attempts to target whatever creature triggered it, but that creature  is out of range... (Rangeersonal, remember?) so the spell fails.



That would be my reading too.

And again: the price is too low.


----------



## FatherTome (Mar 21, 2007)

I myself am a bit leery about the possible consequences of Righteous Might, but I justified it to myself by looking at Animal Growth, which affects multiple creatures and gives dramatically greater bonuses while being the same level of spell.

One of my fellow adventurer's mounts, if Animal Growth-ed, could wipe out the front-line party members in a prolonged fight or take out the casters in one round of combat.

Honestly, I just want to drop Enlarge Person (or some similar effect that increases size) on the warforged from time to time but short of designing a new spell to do it (which is a hassle to the player and the DM), this was the only reasonably cheap way I could find.


----------



## Nail (Mar 21, 2007)

...there's a reason it's expensive.......


----------



## FatherTome (Mar 24, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> ...there's a reason it's expensive.......




To make an item that casts Enlarge Person 3x a day on command would be 1,080 gp. 1x a day is a piddling 380 gp.  To make an item that Enlarges the wearer continually would be 4,000 gp.

To make an item that casts Righteous Might 1x a day on command would be 16,200 gp.

Let's compare the spells here:

Enlarge Person (1st level, duration 1 min/lvl)
Total Bonuses: Size increase, +2 size to strength, -2 size to dexterity.

Righteous Might (5th level, personal, duration 1 rd/lvl)
Total Bonuses: Size increase, +4 size to str, +2 size to con, +2 enhancement to natural armor, DR 3/evil (or 3/good) which goes up with level (6 at 12, 9 at 15)

Sure, righteous might is better. But Enlarge Person grants you a net -2 to AC, a net +0 to attack rolls, and an additional +1 on damage due to strength in exchange for an increased size. RM on the other hand gets you a net +1 to attack, +2 to damage, +1 modifier on con, and a net +1 armor plus minimal DR (although any DR is helpful if you have none).

Let's look at Animal Growth real quick and total up the bonuses (to multiple creatures): +8 size to str, +4 size to con, -2 size to dex +2 enhancement to natural armor, DR 10/magic, and +4 resistance on saves. 

Given how not really great Enlarge Person and Righteous Might really are, I find it kind of amazing that RM is personal. Again, all I want is a spell (one that frankly isn't any more powerful than Enlarge Person) that will affect the Warforged in our party and increase his size for combat purposes, but paying 16,500 for one use a day (at those limited bonuses) is most certainly not worth it - at that cost you could purchase a +2 equivalent weapon, +2 armor, and a +2 shield.

There's a magic item in MIC that enlarges the wearer, but it's as enlarge person and so useless for this situation. It's really kind of frustrating because usually, I can say, "Okay, I need to do XX" and I can figure out a way to get it done; in this case, however, I have been thoroughly stymied.

It appears that a researched spell ("Enlarge Warforged") is the only way to go but I've been kind of a pain in the ass to my DM lately, what with the Glyph Seal thing and then him having to invoke Rule Zero on Shield Other. So I figured I'd come here for suggestions on balancing a spell so I can have it nice and shiny before I present it to him.


So let's start off: 

Enlarge Warforged
Clr 5, Sor/Wiz 4
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft + 5 ft/2 levels)
Target: One warforged (maybe 'Living Construct'?)
Duration: 1 round/level (D)
Saving Throw: Fortitude Negates
Spell Resistance: Yes

_Uttering a brief prayer to the Book, the cleric releases his magic. The enemy's eyes widen as the warforged glowers impassively, dwarfing them with his new height. A hollow voice rings out, "The only thing better than a Shaft is a bigger Shaft" as the warforged strikes without mercy._

The target grows, doubling its height and multiplying its weight by 8, changing the creatures size category to the next larger one. The target gains a +4 size bonus to Strength, a +2 size bonus to Constitution, a -2 size penalty to Dexterity, and a -1 penalty on AC and attack rolls due to size.

In addition, the target gains a +2 enhancement bonus to natural armor and damage reduction 3/adamantine. If the target already has damage reduction from the Adamantine Body feat, this damage reduction improves by 3 instead.

All equipment worn or carried by the creature is similarily enlarged by this spell. Melee and projectile weapons affected by this spell deal more damage. Other magical properties are not affected by this spell. Any enlarged item that leaves an enlarged creature’s possession (including a projectile or thrown weapon) instantly returns to its normal size. This means that thrown weapons deal their normal damage, and projectiles deal damage based on the size of the weapon that fired them. Magical properties of enlarged items are not increased by this spell.

Multiple magical effects that increase size do not stack.


Thoughts?


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Mar 24, 2007)

Atavar said:
			
		

> What's with the smarmy attitude?



 Absolutely no smarmy attitude and I did mean Personal spells.  Sorry about the mistake.   

Thanks, boolean.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Mar 24, 2007)

Well, with a big book of collected stuff, I expect there'll be a few terribly broken things.

This sounds like one of them.  I, myself, wouldn't allow a 4,000gp item to be a Ring Of Spell Storing ... that's basically what the player here is asking to do, and that's just out of the range of things I'd allow.

No real argument, just a ruling that would happen and then things would move on.  

And, I would note, that Animal Growth works on Animals of which most all PCs are not.  Thus why it grants more bonuses since the intent was not to let the already- broken Warforged become better blessed than thou, but to enlarge a few regular animals into combat creatures.  

Righteous Might is a very powerful spell, just slapping it on the character best suited to make total use of its bonuses isn't a 4,000gp item.

--fje


----------



## James McMurray (Mar 24, 2007)

I'd definitely rule that it holds harmful spells only. It seems to fit the intent of the item, and it's obvious from the paraphrased WotC reply that it wasn't balanced with the idea of storing buffs factored in.

Regarding how incredibly cheap items are in the MIC, you also have to look at the Item Level. I don't have the book handy to check out the touch attack item mentioned, but while it may be incredibly cheap, it also might say that it's not appropriate for people lower than 12th level. Sending lots of low level mooks with these at someone would be a valid tactic, but would also be ignoring a new wealth guideline being explored in the book that introduced the item.

Enlarge Person vs. Animal Growth: you're really complaining about the disparity? One's 1st level and the other 5th. If they wereanywhere near equivilent I'd be the one doing the complaining. Animal Growth is beefy because it 1) somehow missed the nerf that hit Righteous Might and 2) can only target animals.

I won't even go into the idea of creating miscellaneous magic items based solely on the formulas given. At least no farther than to say that the DMG and now the MIC says those are guidelines, and that DMs should look at every item on a case-by-case basis,


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Mar 24, 2007)

FatherTome said:
			
		

> To make an item that Enlarges the wearer continually would be 4,000 gp.




I think you need to re-read all those comments by WotC game designers that warn against trying to cost magic items by rote calculation. There are other game-balance factors that need to be involved and this example would be one of them. It would only cost 4,000 gp if your DM approved it to cost 4,000 gp. Otherwise it would cost whatever he thinks it should cost, if he allows it at all.


----------

