Artifacts...
qwert_44643
Member Posts: 311
Just wondering if theres any artifacts in bgee or are they in bg 2?
0
Comments
And yes, they're in Baldur's Gate 2, not in Baldur's Gate 1 or Enhanced Edition.
Mace of Stupifier comes close I think.
The mace of disruption would be, but it doesn't have the right abilities (+2 Mace, that strikes as +5, projects a 10 ft aura that causes undead and evil outsiders with less then 6 HD to flee as if turned if they fail a save vs spells at -2, deals double damage against undead and evil outsiders a Destroys lesser Undead on hit (Skeletons, zombies, ghouls, wights), and has a % chance per hit to destroy other types based on the creature type with no save (80% vs mummies, 50% vs vampires, 20% vs liches, 10% vs demi-liches, 5% vs any other evil outsiders, just to name a few), cannot be wielded by evil characters and deals 4d6 per round if one attempts to do so, and the wielder benefits from a constant protection from evil for as long as the mace is wielded), so the one in game is just a lesser copy.
And Carsomyr isn't an Artifact at all. It's actually only a moderate power magical item. 90% of Carsomyr's abilities are actually class features of Paladins when wielding a holy sword (and should apply to Purifier as well if it was implemented properly). Carsomyr's only actual power is that it's an +5 Avenger type holy sword, and deals extra damage equal to it's enhancement bonus vs chaotic evil opponents (and in the hands of a non-paladin is just a generic +2 weapon of it's type...if it was properly implemented, which as rogue rebalancing has proved with the short sword of backstabbing, is perfectly possible to set an item's abilities based on the class wielding it).
Generally, an Artifact is any item too powerful for a character to create within the game system's crafting mechanics. Mantles of Magic resistance require level 12 to make, and actually combining it with an amulet of protection is just a matter of paying the costs involved. (2nd edition is more ad hoc with that sort of thing then 3rd edition, but generally, a DM would probably allow it, as long as you didn't try using higher then a +3 protection bonus..and he's probably make you give up your necklace slot to wear it, since the clasp would be in roughly the same position as a necklace).
PnP doesn't really restrict to just using single magic items, it just only allows the best of a particular type to work at a time, so you could wear a bunch of protection items, but only the best one would actually apply in each case. Though if you had a helm that say, gave just +2 ac, and a ring that +1 ac/save, you'd get the +2 ac from the helm, and the +1 saves from the ring.
3rd edition just clearly defined each type, and what stacked with what.
in 2nd Edition, Armor is armor, and gear that provides other bonuses, only the best was used. Shields were their own separate thing and only applied to attacks from the front and to the side, towards the arm you were wielding you shield with, and could usually only apply to 1 attack per round. (Sword and Shield style allowed you to apply it an additional time per round per point, in addition to increasing AC by 1 and 2 each point. And 2 points allowed to you make an attack with your shield (1d4+ (+1 for buckers, +2 for small shields, +3 for large shields, tower shields though were too bulky to attack with) + str) once per round, but losing your AC bonus till your next round.)
It even stacks with ring of protection +2 ;-)
that's why this cloak + full plate + ring of protection +2 are so great :-)
As it stands, here you have an item that not only incorporates a Mantle of Magic resistance, but stacks with a Ring of Protection, meaning it itself is not one. If it's supposed to function as an Amulet of Magic Resistance does, then it would have a 5% chance of breaking every single time you even attempted to resist magic, it does not.
This compared to the shield, that does nothing beyond "Reflects Beholder Rays", "be +3" and carry a strength penalty? I know which one I'd say was the more potent.
It's a shield that makes you invulnerable to the most powerful Non-Demigod/Demon Prince/Archfiend level creatures in DnD, and is pretty powerful on defenses as well...that's pretty potent, and it's effect implies it's not hindered by an anti-magic field which normally suppresses non-Artifact item's powers and quality for up to 1 round after they're no longer in the field, which would make the Shield useless against Beholders as they'd have their Main eye active at the beginning of their turn, close it, and then obliterate the wearer of the shield with eye beams before shield's abilities re-activated on it's owner's next turn.
Many Artifacts were created with the help of Gods, for example. AFAIK, the Hammer of Thunderbolts is not an Artifact (as there are more than one). The Staff of the Magi is definitely not an Artifact (as there are more than one) and the Deck of Many Things is also not an Artifact (though certainly it is up there...).
Most Artifacts also have effects that are not so positive to the user/wielder, etc.
Are we playing with that sort of definition or the definition where the only item that fits is the "Holy Grail Amulet +9001 of WTFIDidn'tTurnGodModeOn!?!?!?!?"
On a forum for 2E Dnd where everyone and their mother has seen pictures of the forum's favourite dog it would be a valid comment, but on a video game forum for a game re-release that uses a ruleset ~12 years unofficial by now, you can't expect everyone to have a picture of your friendly dead dog.
EDIT: What I mean is for a topic like this to actually be helpful to anyone reading it a solid definition of artefact needs to be posted that isn't brief or incredibly ambiguous. Just listing items like "Flail of Ages +5" and "Crom Faeyr", one of which is regarded as being on the top shelf of the trophy cabinet while the other wallows with the rest of the generic magical items on the shelf below, doesn't help either when the reasons aren't followed by a typically random person who sees only random words flying around (i.e. me).
EDIT 2: While I'm posting stuff about definitions can someone tell me where to find this if it's such a great item: Having looked pretty much everywhere for it I'm convinced that it's either in the special bonus place at the end of Chapter 4 (which my disc conveniently is missing (grr)), or an item introduced in some mod.
The biggest way to tell is if they retain their abilities in an anti-magic field or resist targeted dispel magics or disjunctions. Only Artifacts are powerful enough to do that.
Also, what special bonus place are you talking about?
There are a couple of artifacts mentioned in the 1st edition P&P version which appear in BG2 - the Ring of Gaxx and Machine of Lum the Mad are the two that spring to mind. However the BG2 versions don't have any of the drawbacks from the P&P version.
So the BG2 items are really just very powerful magical items.