I recently came across a system for magical weapons that both opens up availability of high-level magical bonuses while also restricting them. This enables a campaign setting to be quite low-magic while still providing an avenue for those who absolutely must have a +5 weapon or better.

I’m proposing, in this article, to adapt the basic concepts into a game system suitable for pathfinder or D&D, because those can then be readily adapted to work with other game systems.

The basic principles are easily stated:

  • N + [N-X] = N+2-X, -1 if both N and × are zero
  • T (hrs) = 5 × [N+1] × [N-X+1] × R^2
  • $/hr = (5 + N + [N-X] + R)^2
  • Like-for-like.

These are formulae for establishing the parameters for combining two magic items to create a single, more powerful magic item. Explaining them, and the concepts that underlie them, will take a bit more work.

Masterwork Quality

Let’s start at the very beginning. A craftsman creates an object of his craft which meets a simple criteria: the total of his roll to craft the item exceeds the difficulty by more than ten. The result is a Masterwork Quality object, a more perfect example of the object than most, and one that can be enchanted.

Actually using a Masterwork item for it’s intended purpose without enchanting it risks damaging it to the point that it loses that exceptional quality, and can no longer be enchanted.

Taking A Twenty or other such rules emphasize reliability of production over the risks and challenges of producing a work of exceptional quality – the results are never a masterwork item, no matter how skilled the craftsman and how low the target number is.

Because these are comparatively rare, they cost 10x as much as the conventional piece of equipment.

The Magical Artisan’s Toolkit

Fusing two such items together, with or without enchantments, is a task for which mages are trained. They have, in their spell-books, a number of ‘utility’ spells for the purpose; these aren’t generally listed as ‘available spells’ because they have no other application.

This includes the spells that imbue a magic item with a special capability, such as “Frostbrand” or “Vorpal” or whatever – one for each. The level of these spells is one higher than the plus of weapon required to accommodate them. This means that a mage must achieve a certain character level before they can work with a given enchantment.

Optional Rules The GM might choose to write up such spells explicitly, enabling the mage to add them to their spellcasting repertoire. This enables the mage to cast the spell at a higher caster level to temporarily imbue an enchantment to a weapon that can’t be permanently enchanted.

At the base caster level for the spell, the temporary enchantment lasts 1d6 rounds for every 2 character levels of the mage.

At one spell level higher, and appropriate caster level for that level of spell, the temporary enchantment lasts 1d6 minutes for every 3 character levels of the mage.

At two spell levels higher, and appropriate caster level for that level of spell, the temporary enchantment lasts 1d6 hours for every 4 character levels of the mage.

At three spell levels higher, and appropriate caster level for that level of spell, the temporary enchantment lasts 1d6 days for ever 5 character levels of the mage.

When the temporary enchantment ends, there is a risk that the weapon that was temporarily enchanted will be destroyed. The mage rolls a d6. At the base level of the enchantment spell, he must get 3 or higher for the weapon to survive. If he cast it as a spell one level higher, he must get 4 or higher, if two levels, he must get 5 or higher, and at three levels higher, he must roll a six.

Each time a weapon is temporarily enchanted, this target number is raised by 1.

Optional Rules If the GM chooses to permit the temporary enchantment of weapons described above, he may also permit the temporary addition of a magical enchantment effect to a weapon that is already enchanted. The risk is that the spells holding the existing enchantment may unravel as a result; add the plus of the weapon to the end-of-enchantment target. If the result is more than six, the character may roll a second d6-1 if, and only if, his first yields a six.

EG. adding a temporary enchantment to an existing +3 weapon can be done, and can get the party out of tight corners. But the risk is at the end of the enchantment. At the base level of the spell, the mage needs to roll 3+3=6 ‘or better’ on d6 for the weapon to survive.

At one level higher, he needs to roll a 7. That means he needs to roll a six on his first d6, and, if he succeeds, he can then roll an additional d6-1 and add it to the existing 6 in an attempt to reach the target. If he does so, the weapon survives.

At two levels higher, he needs to roll an 8. If his 1st d6 doesn’t come up with a six, the weapon is destroyed. If he rolls a six, he can add d6-1 in an effort to reach the 8 or more required – which gives him a 50-50 chance of the weapon surviving.

And so on.

Commentary on the optional rules: Some GMs may be shocked at the notion of arbitrarily destroying high-plus weapons in such a cavalier way. But it’s an inherent attitude adjustment that I contend would result from the capacity to replace them relatively easily – which is what this set of rules is all about.

And the risk of finding yourself in the middle of a dungeon suddenly bereft of your favorite weapon ensures that this is not done in a cavalier fashion, anyway.

Finally, this gives mages another weapon to employ in melee – they can cast some trivial enchantment on the enemy’s weapon or armor in hopes of destroying them, making the enemy more vulnerable. I’ll talk more about this in “unbinding”, later in the article.

Initial Enchantment

So, you have a masterwork item capable of being enchanted? Congratulations. All you need is a cooperative mage and a second such masterwork item, and you’re on your way!

    Result

    N + [N-X] = N+2-X, -1 if both N and × are zero.
    So, N = 0 for the first item (it currently has +0 in magical bonuses) and since the same is also true of the second, both N and × are zero.

    0 + 0 = 0 + 2 – 0, -1 because both N and × are zero. So the result is a +1 weapon.

    Time Required

    T (hrs) = 5 × [N+1] × [N-X+1] × R^2

    N is zero, we already know that. So is X. R is 1, we just determined that. So the time required to complete the process of enchanting the +1 weapon is 5 × [0+1] × [0-0+1] × 1 squared = 5 × 1 × 1 × 1 × 1, or 5 hours.

    Cost

    $/hr = (5 + N + [N-X] + R)^2.
    It’s now easy to fill in the values.
    (5 + 0 + [0-0] + 1)^2 = 6^2 = 36 gp per hour. Since 5 hours is the time, that means that 180gp is the cost of turning two masterwork +0 items into a single item with a magical +1.

    A note about the vocabulary: The general term ‘combining’ has been used through most of the text, but this is rather flavorless. I would encourage GMs to find their own, more evocative, term for the process. “Coalescing” for example, or “Consolidating” or “Blending” or “Melding” all come to mind – and there are several more options.

If a base sword costs 2gp, the value of a masterworked example would be 200gp. So the creation of a +1 weapon would cost 200gp + 200gp + 180 gp = 580 gp, plus whatever the mage demanded for his services – call it another 120gp, for a total bill of 700gp. (If the base cost is higher, it only amplifies the cost of the creation).

The expense alone ensures that the majority of people will be armed with +0 weapons. +1 weapons would be rarer than in most dungeons and modules. To reflect the reality, subtract 1 from every plus shown. So a +4 mace (according to the source material) should be treated as a +3 mace, and a +1 spear becomes a +0 spear – masterworked but unenchanted.

This creates a new imperative within combat – characters trying to preserve the weaponry being wielded by the other side because the weapon is what they need to get a +1 weapon forged.

This imperative will only grow stronger with higher-level items. If you already have a +3 weapon, an NPC with another one, or even a +4, offers the tantalizing possibility of merging the two to form a +6 item! But that won’t be easy, and it won’t be cheap…

Exotic Materials

Some exotic materials carry extra benefits that don’t count against an enchantment limit. Mythril blades are lighter and faster in many campaigns, for example (a tribute, no doubt, to the contributions of JRR Tolkien). Adamantine makes weapons heavier, slower, but tougher and possibly adds an extra plus to the weapon. Dragonscale of different breeds is often incorporated into armors and shields to add resistance to whatever said dragon is associated with, and so on.

There’s a couple of downsides.

First, these materials are notoriously difficult to work with, adding significantly to the target needed to forge an item incorporating them. That means that you need a more skilled artisan to work with them, and they charge a lot more.

Secondly, these materials are expensive or dangerous to obtain.

And thirdly, the last rule – like for like – poses a problem. I’ll come back to that, shortly – it’s so significant that I’ve given the subject it’s own section, below.

Special Capabilities

Every +1 in a weapon or item creates an opportunity for it to contain a special capability. These can only be incorporated when two items are merged to create or increase an enchantment.

It should be noted that N + [N-2] = N+2-2 = N. That means that by sacrificing an item of two pluses less, the enchantments in an item can be replaced or reconfigured – or an untapped potential can be utilized.

Like For Like

This is the fourth principle listed, and it’s a whopper! It restricts combining two items in three ways – Structure, Exotic Materials, and Enchantments.

    Structure

    You can’t weld a spear to a longsword – they are structurally different. For that matter, a shortsword and a longsword would also be incompatible. You have to be able to use the same specific terminology to specify the structure of the items to be merged. A ‘wish’ spell or equivalent can be used to restructure a magic item into a compatible form.

    Exotic Materials

    If one item uses an exotic material, so must the other. If one doesn’t contain the exotic material, neither will the blended object.

    Optional Rules: The GM may decide to permit the recovery of the exotic material, in part or in whole, in this case. This should be a non-trivial process, but there are many ways of implementing that importance / difficulty. Perhaps the process of doing so is itself difficult, or perhaps the resulting ‘dross’ is contaminated and needs to be combined with another rare material to draw off that contamination.

    Implementing this rule, in other words, simply adds a minor quest to the party’s agenda.

    Enchantments

    If one weapon is a Frostblade, so must the other one be a Frostblade – and the resulting weapon will automatically also be a Frostblade.

    This can result in complex procedures in which a lower-level item is used to reconfigure the enchantments in one object so that they match those of a second, enabling them to be blended successfully.

    Some equipment has legendary status; this generally means that the item is unique. This automatically prohibits the blending of such items in general.

    Adventure idea: Which immediately suggests a plot based around “The One” (the movie). The PCs are sent into a parallel world to obtain their Spear Of Destiny so that it can be merged with the one Odin uses in the PCs world. Or you could work it in the other direction, and have a group of NPCs show up trying to steal the local Spear Of Destiny.

    Things get more complicated when there’s a threat big enough to warrant such an uber-legendary item being created. So, if the PCs do prevent the theft, it only sets them up to be dragooned into the last line of defense against this cosmic threat…

Binding Energies

Technically, each increase in plus increases the capacity for enchantments by three, but one of these three is reserved for the magical attack bonus, and one is used to bind the resulting object together in a stable configuration. Ultimately, magical weapons are inherently unnatural, and that makes them unstable. Failure to successfully merge two objects releases this binding energy in one or both objects, producing an explosion with the mage at ground zero.

We’re talking 3d6 times the square of the pluses, in concussive force.

so, two +4 items would be 3 × 4 × 4 = 48d6 – each.

Very few mages would survive. Heck, most towers and castles would struggle.

Optional Rules: The GM may rule that ‘temporary enchantments’ that result in the destruction of the temporarily-enchanted object result in a 3d6 explosion, just to make the end of the enchantment more dramatic – and traumatic. However, the ‘existing plus’ of any temporarily-enchanted weapon should not be taken into account as it can easily be an adventure-wrecker if not a campaign-wrecker.

Additional Capacity for Capabilities

Obviously, increasing the magical plus also increases the capacity for extra abilities as part of the enchantment.

Those abilities are usually thematically connected to any existing abilities – protection from cold for a Frostbrand weapon, for example, or +2 to a cold/snow/ice-related skill or two.

One option that rarely gets considered (but should be more common) is to enhance the primary ability. For example, in 3.x, a weapon with the Frost ability does an additional d6 of cold damage on a successful hit.

  • This could be increased one step by offering an additional dice on a critical hit.
  • It could be increased two steps by making that additional dice happen on any hit that succeeds by 5 or more.
  • It can be increased three steps by making that additional dice happen with every hit.
  • It can be increased four steps by doing 1d6 Cold Damage simply by being in melee with the wielder, no hit necessary – the weapon is literally radiating cold (to which the wielder is immune). In addition, it will still do the extra 1d6 cold damage on a successful hit.
  • Which means that additional increases can follow the exact same pattern described above, with the ‘radiating cold’ simply tacked on.

To some extent, this is up to the wielder of the blade, especially if he is a PC. To some extent, it derives from the personality of the mage doing the enchantment, and is therefore subject to roleplayed negotiation with the first party. To some extent, it’s what the GM considers both fair and balanced.

When deciding such questions, it should be remembered that this system permits magical attack bonuses to proceed much farther than the limits offered in most of the rulebooks. The GM can place whatever cap he feels is appropriate, but the default assumption is that you can go as far as you want to go – or can afford to go.

Unbinding

An appropriate skill roll, with a difficulty of 10+the sum of all three magical pluses, plus one for each level of a special ability emplaced within the enchanted object, is needed to unify the two. Fail, and one or both objects is unbound, as described earlier.

This essentially means that the magic that has been holding the weapon together despite its natural tendency to explode gets momentarily disrupted – and on such moment is all it takes.

The power of spells like Mordenkainen’s Disjunction isn’t that it destroys magical equipment, it’s that it does so relatively safely.

A series of mini-quests

In essence, this transforms the search for a better magic item into a series of mini-quests, taking what was a handout reward and making it a source of adventure. This structure means that not even the power-gamer can complain about finding nothing but +1 and +2 weapons except on rare occasions, because those can be the pathway to enhancing their own equipment.

If the character has a +4 weapon already:

0 + 0 = +1
1 + 1 = +3
3 + 4 = +5

So 2 unenchanted weapons, and one +1 weapon, is enough to take a +4 weapon and enhance it to a +5.

or:

0 + 0 = +1
1 + 1 = +3
3 + 2 = +4
4 + 4 = +6

This adds a +2 weapon to the mix, and an additional blending step. Knowing that this was a possibility, would not a character start searching high and low for a doubly-enchanted weapon of the right structure.

Of course, each step up the ladder is more difficult and more expensive.

It is sometimes said that such arms don’t come with a label, but this mechanism translates the game mechanics of a +2 into something that’s meaningful in-game.

Of course, if you have to, you could make a +2 weapon for the purpose:

0 + 0 = +1
1 + 0 = +2

Commissioning three matching weapons from a skilled artisan becomes just the first step along the long road to better equipment.

Inverse Geometric Populations

If this is the only mechanism for the creation of higher-plus non-legendary magic items, a simple population model becomes possible to determine. Such a model then provides a simple way of measuring the probability of encountering an item with a given bonus.

  • It takes two +0 items to make a +1. So there should be two +0 items for every +1.
  • It takes a +0 and a +1 item to make a +2. So there should be a +0 item for every +1 in addition to the population above.
  • It takes a +1 and a +2 item to make a +3. So there should be additional +1 and +2 items equal to the number of +3 weapons.
  • You can also make a +3 with two +1 items. That increases the population of +1 items for every +3, but some of those +1 items will already be included in the previous entry, so the increase is by the number of +3 items.
  • It takes two +2 items to create a +4. So we should add double the population of +4 weapons to the number of +2 weapons.
  • You can also use a +2 and a +3 to make a +4 item.
  • Two +3 items make a +5.
  • You can also use a +3 and a +4.
  • Two +4 items make a +6.
  • You can also use a +4 and a +5.
  • Two +5 items make a +7.
  • You can also use a +5 and a +6.

And so on.

So, once you have the cap, you can make a determination as to how many examples of that cap you have in any given area, and work backwards to get populations of lesser items. When you get all the way down to +0, the population totals can be converted into a table.

All technically correct, but there’s a much faster way by ignoring the n+[n-1] options, with one exception: A +1 and +0 combination to make +2’s.

  • Two +0 items for every +1.
  • Two +1 items for every +3.
  • Two +2 items for every +4.
  • Two +3 items for every +5.
  • Two +4 items for every +6.
  • Two +5 items for every +7.
  • Two +6 items for every +8.
  • Two +7 items for every +9.
  • Two +8 items for every +10.

So, if there’s 1 item of +10, there will be 2 +8s, 4 +6’s, 8 +4’s, 16 +2’s, 16 +1’s and 16 +0’s.

16+1’s also means that there will be 32 additional +0’s.

16 +1’s means 8 +3’s, 4 +5’s, 2 +7’s, and one +9.

Add all these up, and we’re talking about 110 weapons. That’s close enough that we can use a simple percentile table.

But the results are counter-intuitive, and hard to actually relate to – as many +5 weapons as there are +6’s? It’s only when you realize that this is a minimum population that it starts to make sense.

You don’t usually create a +1 item with the intent that it will eventually become a +2 or +3. You create a +1 because you happen to have two +0s that are compatible.

It therefore makes sense to increase each descending generation by a geometric ratio. The minimum populations get respected if you use 1.414m or the square root of two – but up to 1/3 of each population would exist for its own sake, in addition.

So each generation, going from +10 or +12 or whatever the cap value chosen by the GM is, increases in number x1.414 x1.3333, or 1.884862. Call it 1.885 for convenience.

For the benefit of sight-impaired readers, rather than a pretty table like the one above, here are the results in text form:

  1. Table 1:
    • 01-48: +0
    • 49-73: +1
    • 74-86: +2
    • 87-93: +3
    • 94-97: +4
    • 98-99: +5
    • 00: roll on table 2
  2. Table 2:
    • 01-50: +6
    • 51-75: +7
    • 76-90: +8
    • 91-97: +9
    • 98-00: +10

That’s with a cap of +10. If the cap is +12, the cool thing about this approach is that Table 1 doesn’t have to change; the relative population of lower-plus weapons remains fixed relative to the number of higher-plus weapons.

  1. Table 2 for a cap of +12:
    • 01-48: +6
    • 49-72: +7
    • 73-86: +8
    • 87-93: +9
    • 94-97: +10
    • 98-99: +11
    • 00: +12

These results become interesting when viewed through a sociological prism. You have to bear in mind the expense of creating these higher-plus weapons and the arcane skill requirements; if a population can’t sustain either of these, they can’t create the higher-plus item.

  • Two +10 items to make a +12.
  • Two +8 items to make each +10.
  • Two +6 items to make each +8.
  • Two +4 items to make each +6.
  • Two +2 items to make each +4.
  • A +1 and a +0 item to make each +2.
  • Two +0 items to make each +1.
  • Base cost of a longsword in Pathfinder 2.0 is 1gp. So the base cost of a +0 item is 10x this, or 10gp.
  • So 20gp in +0 swords is the starting point for fusing them into a +1.
  • The time required to do so is 5 × [0+1] × [0-0+1] × 1^2 = 5 hrs.
  • The cost of the process is (5 + 0 + [0-0] + 1)^(1+1) gp per hour = 6^2 = 36 gp / hr. 36 × 5 = 180gp. So the gp subtotal is 200gp.
  • A +1 and a +0 is required to make a +2. The base cost of these are 200 and 10gp, respectively.
  • The time required is 5 × [1+1] × [1-1+1] × 2^2 = 5 × 2 × 1 × 4 = 40 hrs. So the cumulative time required is 45 hrs.
  • The cost is (5 + 1 + [1-1] + 2)^2 = 8^2 = 64 gp/hr, x40 hrs = 2560gp. Add the 200 and the 10, and we get a total cost of each +2 of 2,770 gp.
  • Two of them are needed to make each +4. So that’s another 2,770gp and another 45 hours to get the second one, for a total of 90 hrs and 5540gp.
  • The time required to fuse these two +2 items into a +4 is 5 × [2+1] × [2-0+1] × 4^2 = 5 × 3 × 3 × 16 = 720 hours (90 days at 8 hours a day – more if you take Sundays off).
  • The cost per hour is (5 + 2 + [2-0] + 4)^2 = 13^2 = 169 gp per hour. × 720 hours, we get 121,680 gp for the process.
  • The total time to get a +4 item is therefore 720+90×2=900 hours. The total cost is 121,680 + 5540 × 2 = 132,760 gp.
  • To make a +6 item requires two +4’s, so that’s another 900 hrs and 132,700gp, for a new subtotal set of 265,520 gp and 1800 hrs.
  • The time required for this fusion is 5 × [4+1] × [4-0+1] × 6^2 = 5 × 5 × 5 × 36 = 4500 hrs (93.75 6-day weeks of 8-hour days). More than 18 months, less than 2 years.
  • The cost per hour is (5 + 4 + [4-0] + 6)^2 = 19^2 = 361 gp/hr. Multiply that by 4500 hours and you get 1,624,500 gp.
  • Again, we’re going to need two of these to make a +8. So the subtotals are 1800+4500×2 = 10,800 hrs, at a cost of 1,624,500×2 + 265,520 = 3,514,520 gp.
  • The time required to fuse two +6’s into a +8 is 5 × [6+1] × [6-0+1] × 8^2 = 5 × 7 × 7 × 64 = 15,680 hrs. That’s a serious time commitment, probably too much for one mage. 5 mages working 10 hour days, 7 days a week, gets you 44.8 weeks – a little less than a year.
  • The cost per hour is (5 + 6 + [6-0] + 8)^2 = 25^2 = 125 gp / hour. For 15,680 hrs – a total of 1,960,000 gp.
  • Adding these results to the time already involved gets us to 10,800 + 15,680 = 26,480 hrs and 1960000 + 3514520 = 5,474,520 gp.
  • We need two of them to create our ultimate weapon, a +10. So that’s 52,960 hrs and 10,949,040 gp.
  • The time required to fuse two +8’s into a +10 is 5 × [8+1] × [8-0+1] × 10^2 = 5 × 9 × 9 × 100 = 40,500 hours.
  • The cost per hour is (5 + 8 + [8-0] + 10)^2 = 31^2 = 961 gp/hr. Multiplied by 40,500 hours, we get a cost of 38,920,500 gp.
  • So the total cost of a +10 weapon (from scratch) is 49,869,540 gp. Call it 50 million. Construction will take 93,460 hours. Five mages, 10 hour days, 6 days a week, 50 weeks in a year – that’s about 6 1/4 years.
  • 50 million gp / (93460/5/10) = 26749.4 gp a day – call it 26,750 gp. A prosperous kingdom might be able to afford that – if this were the only drain on the public purse. An Empire is more likely to have that amount of capital to invest.
  • Weapon, Armor, Shield and Helm – that’s a 25 year commitment, unless you do them simultaniously – something that any decent-sized Empire should be able to manage.
  • Take a moment to appreciate how great a shortcut it can be to obtain (through spoils of war or other means) an existing item that already embodies a lot of the effort required. Now appreciate the diminishing scale of those savings as the plus of the looted item reduces. Obtaining a ‘free’ +8 item is worth a multi-year campaign. Obtaining a ‘free’ +6 or two is worth several months of effort.

In conclusion:

The great thing about this approach is that everything scales geometrically – the effort required, the expense, and the campaign significance.

Think about it from a campaign perspective.

  • Getting a +8 = 4 adventures, a mini-campaign. Maybe more.
  • Getting a +6 = 2 adventures or one large adventure. You need two of them.
  • Getting two +4’s might be done in one adventure or two. And you need to allow for the possibility of failure, so let’s add an extra adventure for that.
  • Getting eight +2’s might take two to four adventures.
  • Getting +1’s is relatively quick and easy – but a little on the expensive side. And you need 16 of them. Two adventures, maybe four.
  • Adding these up: 4+1-2+1-2+1-2+1+2-4+2-4 = 12-19 adventures.
  • The campaign probably won’t focus on the one character; it’s usually a team thing. But this is about what that one character gets to take out of their adventures.
  • Double-digit million gp. You might get that from a large Dragon Hoard. Maybe. But your share of such a hoard will be considerably less.

The difficulty and expense involved means that this system looks unbalanced, looks like the perfect game mechanic to satisfy the power-gamer in your midst – but the system is actually very well balanced. Cults cam spend decades creating a terror item, a +10 weapon, while training one of their number to be the wielder – but campaigns are largely low-magic in nature.


Discover more from Campaign Mastery

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.