Hopefully, my internet connection is now fixed. It’s been functioning perfectly since Friday when a technician attended the hardware connection – at least, I assume they did; I was notified that they were on their way, and then notified some time later that the call was completed, without ever seeing them or being informed about what work they had done. Such a state of ignorance does nothing to restore confidence, but so far, so good.

In the first half of this article, I showed how D&D and Pathfinder were hostages to the connection between the “Magic” level of an object and its “Magical Combat Plus”. Disconnecting the direct link between these concepts creates undreamed-of flexibility for the creation of unique magic items in a campaign.

In the final section of part one, I looked at a system for ‘fusing’ two magical objects of like kind together to create an item of greater capacity and capability. But there’s a better, simpler way – and, ironically, it depends on a partial restoration of the link between the “Magical Rating” and the “Magical Combat Plus”….

Unused Capacity, Revisited

Let us start with this: Every item needs to have at least one point of Magical Rating that is not assigned to a power, ability, activation, or whatever, in order for it to be capable of ‘fusing’ with another one, as stated in part one.

Things become a lot simpler if we simply assume that it is so, and turn this requirement around completely, to say “Every item can be fused to another of its kind, assuming their power levels are not too far removed, save those in which the magic has been fixed or locked..

Locking a magic item removes the capacity for further enhancement, or for the item to be used to enhance another, but it also makes the magic item just a smidgen more powerful or useful. The details vary, but the magic powers contained can be a little stronger, or a little easier to activate, or functional over a slightly greater range, or a little harder to resist – they are, in some particular fashion, slightly better.

It can be assumed that any ‘unlocked’ magic item therefore must have a Magical Rating that is one higher than the number required to contain the enchantments actually placed within the item, but this is not taken into account in determining the cost of the item; since one capability (further enhancement) is being replaced by another (slightly better enchantment), the locked item has exactly the same value as an unlocked item.

For all intents and purposes, the ‘extra’ point of Magical Capacity might as well not exist, it’s an unnecessary complication to take into account. Treat it as being a theoretical reality that can be ignored in all practical senses.

Once you do that, you can simplify and abstract the process of fusing magic items considerably by disconnecting the process from the Magical Rating and reconnecting with the magical combat plus!

Forging Of Magic Items

All items made by sentient hands or will have the potential to be enchanted, but not all such objects are created equal. Some materials are better suited to some forms of enchantment, some types of object and shapes of object are better suited to this particular form of enchantment or that, and the craftsmanship of the maker also has a big bearing on the innate capacity for enchantment of an object.

Magic items are, therefore, forged just like any other, at least initially. And that’s true of everything from sculpted bowls to sharpened blades.

There are three factors to any item, and they add up to the potential Enchantment Capacity:

  • Rarity / Purity / Perfection of materials
  • Skill Achieved / Craftsmanship
  • Suitability of shape and materials to Specific Enchantment

These values do not correlate directly with any other numeric variable – so a better skill roll result by the craftsman will yield an object with greater innate capacity for enchantment, but not by any specific numeric amount.

Using more expensive materials will also increase the enchantment potential, but doubling the value of materials will not add X to that potential, or double it from Y to 2×Y.

Enchanting An Object

To enchant an object, a mage or other spellcasting class must cast a spell into the item without incorporating the usual trigger phrase / word / gesture that would activate the spell. This embeds the magical power of the spell into the item. Each trigger that will activate the power must then be added to the ‘suspended’ magic within. In practical terms, this is the sum of:

  • Spell Level (as modified by any included Metamagics
  • Plus the base Spell Level (i.e. UNmodified by Metamagics
  • Plus the total level adjustments of all included Metamagics, regardless of whether they increase or decrease the effective Spell Level
  • Plus 3 for every Activation Point etc (refer part one of this article)
  • Plus one.

The total is the target of an appropriate skill roll – it could be Spellcraft, or whatever. This should be interpreted according to your system’s Game Mechanics – it’s either a DC, or the amount by which your roll needs to be below your skill level, or whatever.

This successful roll embeds the triggers into the item that allow it to complete the Spell effect that has been suspended within the item under construction.

Enchantment Time Required

The process is time consuming.

  • 3 hours per spell level for the basic spell;
  • Plus one hour per Magical Plus used by Triggers, etc;
  • Minus ten minutes per rank of ability in the skill being used for the roll previously described;
  • Plus-or-minus 5 minutes for the actual roll (minus if low is good, plus if high is good, according to your game mechanics).

Only then will the caster learn whether or not the enchantment has been wholly successful, partially successful (spell suspended but activations failed, twisting the spell effect into a curse of some kind), or completely unsuccessful. On a critical failure, the entire object may be reduced to slag, i.e. destroyed.

Interrupting an Enchantment

It is possible to suspend the process temporarily – one day per caster level, minus 1/2 a day per effective spell level – and then resume it. It’s even possible to exceed this limit; simply increase the target difficulty by 1 and restart the clock.

It’s entirely possible to discover an object with a spell that was embedded within, centuries earlier, but then interrupted, with an accumulated penalty in the thousands, and attempt to complete it.

Most mages are unwilling to make such an attempt, however, because each such difficulty increase also does a point of damage to the mage making the attempt – and there aren’t many mages who can cope with 1000+ hit points worth of damage.

Liches and other high-level Undead often have great magical tools at their disposal because Necromancers are adept at palming this damage off to someone else (potentially several someone elses), sacrificing them to complete an object. Obsessive Cults can also sacrifice members (who go willingly) to achieve such enchantments as sane individuals would never dream.

Enhanced Spell Repertoire

Note that there are also magic spells that only function when cast into objects, and these account for any effects that may be found in magic items that do not correspond with the spells available to any particular character class. That’s how “Combat Pluses” get added to an item, for example. These are not usually listed as spells in any canonical list because they have only that one purpose. Simply regard the total combat plus (counting attack and damage separately) as one more than the spell level of the ‘spell equivalent” and away you go.

Similarly, every mage has a series of ‘unlisted spells’ to apply sensory triggers – basic sight is a 0th-level spell, +1 for every +3 ‘perception check’ increase. At 18 (3d6) or 21 (d20), there is no longer a need to roll a perception check for the item to ‘see’ an activation trigger, and it functions perfectly. Similarly, you can include hearing so that an object will be aware of a spoken Activation Word. This was mentioned in Part One as “Embedding a sense” into the object.

Enchantment Potential

Of course, it’s a little embarrassing if you spend fifty hours slaving over a +3/+3 Holy Avenger only to find that the unenchanted object doesn’t have sufficient capacity for the spell(s) required.

A simple ‘Detect Magic” – and a skilled interpretation of the results – is all it takes to estimate, within a point or two, the total Enchantment Capacity of an object. Some even suggest that this is the true purpose of the spell, and the fact that it makes already-enchanted objects detectable – the purpose for which it is commonly used – is merely a happy side-benefit.

Exceeding The Bounds

It’s even possible to enchant an object with more magic than can properly be bound into it (if you got your estimated Enchantment Potential wrong, for example) – the Enchantment Process will take whatever additional Potential it needs from the enchanter’s life force, permanently consuming their hit points.

Exceeding an estimate by just a point or two is painful but rarely debilitating. Deliberately exceeding an estimate by a hundred points or more is usually permanently lethal (at best, crippling) – but, fanatics….

The resulting magic item is inherently and permanently locked, obviously.

Reforging

Okay, so that’s the basic process. It’s also possible to reforge a non-locked magic item – changing the trigger mechanism or basic spell effect. This is known as Reforging the item.

You simply cast the spell that is already in the item, into the item, matching perfectly any Metamagics embedded within, while at the same time, casting the new spell and embedding the new trigger into the item.

Sounds easy enough, doesn’t it?

The difficulty comes with the casting check described earlier. Not only do you have to match the casting difficulty of the original spell and trigger, but also of your replacement spell and trigger, and any shortfall is experienced as hit point damage. Even if the spell trigger is to remain exactly the same, you still have to cover the original trigger and the new one; it doesn’t matter that they are both the same.

So it’s actually at least twice as difficult as enchanting an object from scratch. The time requirements are also stacked, so this is not something that can be done in the field.

And, reforging for a third time? Add the difficulty of all the previous spells to the difficulty of the new spell – at least tripling the original difficulty.

But, there is a simpler way…

Fusing of two magic items together

Merging one magic item (the base item) with one of equal or lesser enchantment (the donor item) undoes any magic in the donor item and transfers the resulting unused potential into the base item, as was explained in Part One.

This is relatively quick – where you might read ‘hours’ for Reforging an item, “Fusion” reads ‘minutes’ (but it’s still not something to be done in the field), where you might read ‘days’, read ‘hours’.

In most other respects, it’s the same as taking one magic item of the Potential of the end item and enchanting it. Same skill rolls required, same damage if you get it wrong, and so on.

The fusion of two magic items preserves the existing magic of the base item and adds the potential required for it to be enhanced at the same time, either adding a new magical power (with associated activation, etc) or improving the one that’s already there.

And, since one of the most common powers embedded into magic items is a Combat Plus, ‘improving the one that’s there’ is very often the whole point. And that’s why returning the ‘rules’ of Fusing objects together to the foundation of the Combat Plus or equivalent makes a lot of sense.

Degrees of similarity

Since the magic of the donor object is unraveled by the process, that doesn’t matter too much – a Speed item can become a Flametongue item, no problem. But the basic shape has to be similar (both longswords or chain mail or whatever).

So long as they have the same description in game mechanics disregarding any magical enhancement, they are similar enough for fusion. But if one is made of Mythril, or Shadowsteel, or Jade, or whatever, so must the other one be.

There is a side-effect of the fusion process that should be noted, however: the same basic equation (Materials + Craftsmanship + Suitability) remains as valid regarding the composite item as it was to the constituents. At least one of these, possibly more, will therefore have to improve markedly as a result of the fusion process. This can mean that exotic new decoration becomes etched onto a blade, or that the material the blade is made from is transformed into something else, or that the hilt changes color – but there is a visible consequence to the blending of two items.

With high magic as a status symbol, that would make the process doubly attractive to certain people.

But there others who like to fly beneath the radar. It is quite possible to embed a low-level illusion into a magic item that it is a worthless or poor representative of its kind – a wooden dagger of +1, for example. But when the command word is uttered, it becomes a +5 +5 Dancing Blade….

Degrees of Magical Similarity

The Enchantment Potentials must also be similar. They don’t have to be identical, though. The more closely matched they are, the more effective and efficient the fusion process.

This is summed up by two rules:
 

  1. Plus N and Plus N fuse to create an object of Plus N+2.
     
  2. Plus N-1 and Plus N fuse to create an object of Plus N+1.

 
…but it’s usually more convenient to rearrange the second one to read:
 

  1. Plus N and Plus N+1 fuse to create an object of Plus N+2.

 
– you just have to remember that it’s the magic of the higher-plus item that is preserved in the initial state of the fused item.

All you then have to do is determine the Enchantment Potential that corresponds with the new item, and you’re ready to enhance / further enchant it.

Surprising complexity

These two very simple rules combine to result in surprisingly complex behavior. When working to combine multiple objects together, there can be multiple pathways – some far more efficient than others.

Obviously, fusing two matching pairs is inherently the most efficient method – the higher value of a mismatched pair means that it costs relatively more (by some margin) than fusing matched pairs.

  • +1 and +1 make a +3 for a cost of two +1 items.
  • +1 and +2 make a +3 but the difference of costs between +2 and +1 are significant, and reduce the cost-effectiveness of the +3 item.

But things become more complicated when you are hunting down those items in the wild rather than simply commissioning them. It’s still worth fusing a +1 and +2 item together to make a +3 when you already have both the ingredient items.

I’ve spent a lot of time analyzing the resulting enhancement patterns in order to spell them out for you, the GM – but players should be told only the basic rules above, and let to deduce the smarter upgrade strategies for themselves.

Symbology

To make these patterns transparent to the reader, once again, I need to expand the nomenclature.

    +2 should be read as two items, each of +2.

This enables the representation of the fusion process in a simpler, more abstract, manner that’s easier to comprehend.

For example, if I have:

  • +0, +0, +1, +2, +2, +3

items, all suited for fusion, this would be written

  • +0, +1, +2, +3.
Sequential Fusion

Putting a string of fusions together in the most efficient way possible can be quite complex. After a lot of study, I’ve found that it’s easiest to work the process out in steadily-progressing values of +N.

You may be tempted to leap ahead because the path seems so obvious, but it’s easy to make a mistake.

Fusion Sequence

Let’s take those items and see what can be made of them, because it permits me to demonstrate the way that I will depict the fusion process.

  1. Starting point: +0, +1, +2, +3.
  2. +0 & +0 make +0+2=+2, i.e.
    +0 = +2
  3. +1 and that +2 make +3
  4. The +2 that we already had make +4.
  5. The +3 that we made and the +3 that we already had fuse to make +3+2=+5.
  6. The +4 and the +5 combine to make ×+6.

So all of those together can be combined to make a single +6 item.

Which One’s The Base Item?

To determine the base item (and there may be multiple choices), we need to track back through the sequence, looking for the thread that binds the higher-plus items together.

  • +5 is higher than +4 so the +5 contains the base item of the +6..
  • That means that either the +3 that we already had, or the +3 that we made, are or contain the base item.
  • If it’s the +3 that we made, then ANY of the +2 items, including the one that we made, could be the base item.
  • If it’s the +2 that we made, then either of the +0 items could be the base item.

So the potential candidates are either the +0, either of the +2, or the +3 that we already had. The way that we configure the fusion chain and the choices of the artificer constructing that fusion chain determine which. Only the +1 can be definitely exceeded from the list.

Same items, an alternative fusion chain

As I said, multiple items lead to multiple ways they can be combined.

  1. Starting point: +0, +1, +2, +3.
  2. Set aside one of the +0 items.
  3. +0 & +1 make +2.

  4. With +2, one of them has to be set aside for a moment because we have nothing to pair it with. The other +2 make +4.
  5. Take the +2 that we set aside and combine it with the +3 that we already had to get +4.
  6. +4‘s combine to make the ×+6.
  7. And we still have that +0 left over!

Okay, so a +0 item isn’t going to be worth very much. But the same fusion chain applies if we add +2 to every plus shown:

  1. Starting point: +2, +3, +4, +5.
  2. Set aside one of the +2 items.
  3. +2 & +3 make +4.

  4. With +4, one of them has to be set aside for a moment because we have nothing to pair it with. The other +4 make +6.
  5. Take the +4 that we set aside and combine it with the +5 that we already had to get +6.
  6. +6‘s combine to make the final ×+8.
  7. And we still have the +2 left over.

While the cost of a +2 item would pale in significance next to that of a +6, it’s not insignificant.

This permits the definition of a useful general principle: If the outcome is the same size, the size of the leftovers defines greater efficiency of process.

Parity

When you first start exploring a fusion chain, your overwhelming focus is on the plus values and trying to create pairs, because they are clearly more efficient.

After a while, though, you may start to become aware of the effects of Parity.

  • Even # and Even # of +N and +N+1 are good.
  • Odd # and Odd # of +N and +N+1 are okay.
  • Mixed odds and evens are worst.

While this principles are not entirely incorrect (and hence are expanded upon below), they can also be misleading – but unless you pay very close attention, something you aren’t likely to do if you perceive the above to be the height of wisdom, you will not notice for a long time.

Evens and Evens

Having even numbers of both +N and +N+1 items yields a very simple strategy; both sets naturally break apart into perfectly matched pairs, fusing together in the most efficient process possible.

  • N = N+2
  • N+1 = N+3

As you can see, this forms a pair of natural progressions that alternate, with N → N+2 → N+4 → N+6, and so on, on one side of the ladder and N+1 → N+3 → N+5 → N+7, etc, on the other.

The temptation is to deal with each side of the ladder in sequence, ignoring the odd-valued +N‘s while working on the even ones, and vice-versa.

That’s a great way to reach a dead end.

You are far more likely to put together a logical and efficient fusion sequence – one that doesn’t ignore the second rule describing the possible steps of such a sequence – of you do them in order of increasing plus.

Odds and Odds

You’ll find that as you do more of these, you will start to find notational shortcuts, and these are bound to slip into this presentation – so I’m not going to try and stop them. They are still saying the same things, just not being as formal about them.

Odds and Odds are almost as easy to work with as Evens and Evens, but it’s more easily explained with a quick demonstration. Simply pair up everything that matches, and then combine the leftovers; with both numbers of items being odd, it’s inevitable that you will have one of each in the sequence.

  • 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2 is formally written +1, +2,.
  • One pair of +1‘s becomes a +3, leaving one left over.
  • Two pairs of +2‘s becomes one pair of +4‘s, with one left over.
  • The leftover +1 and the leftover +2 combine to make an extra +3.
  • So the result of these two steps up the ladder are +3 and +4.
  • Another way of writing this process down might be by putting brackets around each pair: (1, 1), (1, 2), (2, 2), (2, 2).
Evens and Odds

Things get more interesting when you have an even number of +N items and an odd number of +N+1 items.

2, 2, 3 can be grouped in one of two ways: (2, 2), 3 or 2, (2, 3).

The first option produces (4), 3, while the second yields 2, (4).

+2 and +4 cannot fuse, they are too far apart; +3 and +4 can become +5.

It doesn’t matter what +N you use, the same principle will apply. Nor does it matter how many #&times you have so long as the one that describes the count of +N items is even and the one that describes the count of +N+1 items is odd.

Let’s look at a couple of more complex situations to prove the point:

2, 2, 3, 4, and then 2, 2, 3, 4, 4.

2, 2, 3, 4 first:

  • Option 1: (2, 2), 3, 4 → 3, 4, 4;
  • Option 2: 2, (2, 3), 4 → 2, 4, 4.
  • Our rule about the efficiency of remainders clearly states that having a +3 left over is better than having a +2 [which should be pretty obvious, anyway]. So option one, matching the pairs, is clearly the preferred answer.
  • Or is it? Option 1 produces two choices for the next step in the fusion chain, while Option 2 only permits one (because +2 + +4 is invalid):
    • Option 1A: (3, 4), 4 → 4, (5); (4, 5) → 6.
    • Option 1B: 3, (4, 4) → 3, (6).
    • Option 2: 2, (4, 4) → 2, (6).

    Hmm, so option 1A combines everything into a single +6, Option 1B combines everything into a +6 with a +3 left over, Option 2 combines everything into a +6 with a mere +2 remaining. Option 1A is clearly the least efficient, option 1B is the most efficient, and Option 2 is somewhere in between.

That confirms the principle of pair matching having priority, at least in this case. But if we have another +4 in the mix, is that still the case?

2, 2, 3, 4, 4:

  • Option 1: (2, 2), 3, 4, 4 → 3, (4), 4; 4
  • Option 2: 2, (2, 3), 4, 4 → 2, (4), 4, 4.
  • So we still have the same choice between a +3 left over or a +2 remainder.
  • Except that the +3 and (+4) can then combine to make a +5, and the two other +4‘s can make a +6, and +5 and +6 then make an +7. Option 2 ends with a , 2, 4, 6 – and +7 is clearly better than a +6. This is a clear example of the “Odds & Odds” rule given above.

So the rule for Evens and Odds is always to pair the Evens.

Odds and Evens

It’s so interesting that reversing the sequence does NOT yield the same result.

Anticlimax up front: After careful comparison of the alternatives, I have found that a useful rule of thumb is that it is always better in the long run to break apart a matched pair in order to form a better matched pair.

You may not have noticed it, but I’ve already demonstrated Odds and Evens – this is the difference between Option 1A and Option 1B in the 2, 2, 3, 4 example above. And it says to match the pairs and leave the unmatched odd N as a leftover.

Except that this doesn’t always work. Consider 3, 4, 4, 5;

  • Option 1: 3, (4, 4), 5 Rarrow; 3, 5, (6) Rarrow; 3, 7. Looks okay, doesn’t it?
  • Option 2: (3, 4), 4, 5 Rarrow; 4, (5), 5 Rarrow; 4, 7. What?

As I said in my anticlimax, it’s always better to break a matched pair (in this case, the pair of +4‘s) to achieve a better matched pair (in this case, the pair of +5‘s). And +4 is clearly a better remainder than +3.

But this only works because the number of existing N+2‘s is odd (one +5, and we are making it even (+5‘s)..

If we add another +5 to mix, the results are completely different:

3, 4, 4, 5, 5:

  • Option 1: 3, (4, 4), (5, 5) Rarrow; 3, (6), (7) Rarrow; 3, ((8));
  • Option 2: (3, 4), 4, 5, 5 Rarrow; 4, (5), 5, 5; then (4, 5), (5, 5) Rarrow; (6), (7) Rarrow; (8);

Both paths lead to a +8 item, but the path that was wrong without that extra +5 also leaves a +3 unused – which can be sold off, or kept to become part of another upgrade chain to improve that +8.

In other words, +3 is clearly better than nothing!

So the rule is that the right thing to do is to Make the better matching pair, even if you have to break a matched pair to do it.

That 3, 4, 4, 5 pattern is so common that it was recognized even before the general analysis of odds and evens, and initially considered an exception to the general rule that I was then using

Even now, I sometimes need to work through an entire fusion chain to verify the right answers.

A complex example

1, 2, 2, 3, 4

Path one:

  • (1+2) Rarrow; 3;
  • 2 + (3) Rarrow; 4;
  • 3 + (4) Rarrow; 5;
  • 4 + (5) Rarrow; 6.
  • End result: +6, nothing remaining.

Path two – Ignore the +1:

  • (2+2) Rarrow; 4;
  • Ignore the +3;
  • (4+4) Rarrow; 6.
  • End result: +6, with +1 and +3 remaining.

Path three – Ignore one of the +2‘s:

  • (1+2) Rarrow; 3;
  • (3+3) Rarrow; 5.
  • (4+5) Rarrow; 6.
  • End result: +6, with +2 remaining.

Path four – Ignore the +3:

  • (1+2) Rarrow; 3;
  • (2+(3)) Rarrow; 4.
  • (4+4) Rarrow; 6.
  • End result: +6, with +3 remaining.

Path five – Ignore the +4:

  • (1+2) Rarrow; 3;
  • Ignore the other +2;
  • (3+(3)) Rarrow; 5.
  • End result: +5, with +2 and +4 remaining.

Path 2 is clearly the best path, followed by Path 4. Path 5 is clearly the worst, followed by Path 1.

Analysis, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4:
  • 1, 2, 2 = odd & even, so the right choice depends on the count of +3‘s. In this case, there’s 1, so it is worth breaking the +2 matched pair to create a matched pair of +3‘s, yielding a +5.
  • OR IS IT? Not breaking them creates a matched pair of +4‘s, yielding a +6.
  • Because the +4’s are the better pair, that controls the pathway. Ignore the +1 and the +3, they are red herrings.
An even more complex example

I was thinking about tossing 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 8 at you, but decided not to. Hint: Ignore the +3, pair the +5‘s into a +7 and join the +6 to that to create a +8; those are the leftovers. Everything else makes a +10.

Scope For Nuance

Over the course of this two-part article, it has yielded
 

  • 3 scales of magic;
  • 3 ways of pricing;
  • Multiple activation choices;
  • Multiple enhancement capacities;
  • Multiple variations on the same basic item;
  • Greater flexibility by creating extra space as combat plus increases;
  • and two systems for fusing weaker magic objects together to enhance one of them.

But it’s not quite finished yet!

I thought that I would throw one more curve-ball at you: the person implanting the (suspended) spell and the one creating the trigger do not have to be of the same character class, using the same kind of ‘magic’. It’s perfectly acceptable to mix and match – clerical magic with Druidic magic with ranger magic, or whatever you want. You can even have one spell that modifies the output of another, as though you had two different spell-casters co-operating with each other.


Discover more from Campaign Mastery

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.