PEARLS OF POWER

Over the years I've played in quite a few games where characters have enjoyed the use of Pearls of Power, or very similar magic items. For my own world, I preferred a kind of naturally occurring magic pearl (made by magic oysters and not manufactured by spell casters) but that was for a 2e game. Even there, standard pearls of power (or POPs) could be made by magic users or clerics, or they could also make other similar items, even if they worked slightly differently than the more naturally occurring items we normally used. To see the naturally occurring pearls, follow the link below:

THE ROYAL OYSTERS OF ORLANTIA

My point is, I've seen the effect of these and similar items, and I was concerned by a recent discourse I had with a fellow GM - whom we shall call Pete - and what Pete claimed was happening in what he called a "Living Greyhawk" game environment.

I've no personal experience with this style of prefab gaming, where qualified and approved GMs apparently run a series of approved prefabricated modules for various players and their PCs, and one can play with lots of different players and characters as they work their way through these modules. I'm not even sure how they prevent players from looking over these prefabs before playing them, but I'm fairly confident they must have a way to do this. Perhaps qualified GMs - who have access to all the modules - are also not allowed to be players. I dunno. No matter.

I don't particularly like what I feel are, in general, limited prefab environments since they both constrain GMs to a limited script, of sorts, and also tend to limit the players' responses to only what the authors had intended or thought of and planned for, which is usually a very narrow number of possibilities for a static prefab. Compared to a GM running a world of his own creation, the direction players may go is so channeled down one path one might wonder if their characters had much free will at all. In such an environment, without the freedom to improvise as the unforeseen occurs or is suggested by clever players, GMs are forced to follow the approved script, lest it fall outside the bounds of the environment. They probably aren't as badly limited as computer games, or computer roleplaying games, when it comes to roleplaying, and I'm sure many love playing them. They are probably even better than Pete made them sound to me. I might even play them if they were my only choice and they were handy. I just don't think they'll ever approach the potential of a whole-cloth campaign both made and run by a single GM. But I digress.

My concern about Pearls of Power, or POPs, first arose when Pete told me they had altered the prerequisites for making POPs. According to the book, it normally takes a 17th level spell caster (not a 17th level character, mind you, but a bona fide 17th level spell caster) to even make such an item. I felt that was about right, given my experience with such items.

I will say, however, I was dismayed that a 1st level POP (an item capable of recalling a 1st level spell) cost only 1,000 GP, just like most +1 wondrous items that could easily be crafted by much lesser spell casters. The huge 17th level requirement for even making such items didn't seem at all reflected in the item's price, and I think that was a pretty big mistake, given the power of the item. Realistically, since they take a 17th level spell caster to make them, they should cost more, and since I feel they are more powerful than one might initially discern, I also thought they should cost more for that reason, too. Obviously, the minimum level of the spell caster, as well as the level of the spells required to manufacture an item, need to be included in the cost formula since they are apparently missing. But again, I digress.

Pete said the powers that be in that environment (some inner circle from on high) had considered it unrealistic that it took the same requirements to make a 1st level POP as it did to make a 9th level POP, or any POP in between. Personally, I don't think that's unrealistic at all if making such an item takes a minimal requirement and this requirement is huge, like a powerful spell, such as a "strong transmutation." But they didn't like it, so they changed it, and that's fine. They made it a function of the caster's level, so one could start making such items much quicker. All it took, IIRC, was the feat, craft wondrous item, and a level equal to the POP's level, times 2, plus 3. For example, 1st level POPs could be made by (1x2+3=5) 5th level spell casters, and 2nd level POPs could be made by (2x2+3=7) 7th level spell casters, while a 3rd level POP would take (3x2+3=9) a 9th level spell caster, etc. Even POPs for cantrips or orisons (0th level POPs for 0th level spells) could be made using this formula, so a 0th level POP could be made by a (0x2+3) 3rd level spell caster (but if the GM didn't like this, they should still allow them to make a 0th level POP at 5th level, and for about 250 GP). Of course, it seems to have become harder to make 8th or 9th level POPs, since they would require spell casters higher than 17th level, but the problems of inordinately high level spell casters rarely concern me since they are so exceedingly rare as to be almost nonexistent, or at least not very common such that one would think there are a whole LOT of them running around. But I digress.

Pete insisted making POPs at much lower levels than 17th level was a good thing, despite my reservations. As I began to outline many of my concerns, he'd typically counter with the notion one could use multiple scrolls just as easily, if not even easier, and for about 40 times less expense of making a POP, or they could always just buy them instead of making them, so none of my "fears" made any real sense to him.

But what were my problems with these POPs? Well, first and foremost, they are what I call a "broken" item. That is, they give too much power for too little effort. 40 scrolls, though comparable in cost to a POP, hardly compare since a POP may be used forever, way past 40 times, and each time one uses a scroll, it's gone, and the gold, time, and XP used to make it are totally spent. POPs don't have that problem. You don't even have to use a POP 40 times to make it worthwhile, since even once will do. You can always sell the item later, and for double the gold you paid to make it. In the meantime, each use of the POP makes you that much further ahead of the game in time, XP, and gold saved. Furthermore, a scroll has one and only one specific use - determined by which spell the caster has penned ahead of time - while a POP runs the entire spectrum of any spells that caster happens to have and be using. Thus, one POP is much more versatile than one scroll. But more on this versatility advantage later.

I even outlined the annual potential savings in gold, XP, and time, for one who could use a POP everyday, as opposed to using a scroll every day. Granted, this may seem hard to actually find a use for a POP EVERY day, but it's actually not that hard. For example, the simple spells of Phantom Steed or Mage Armor, and more than few other spells, are quite handy to have on hand for many hours each day. A Phantom Steed, for instance, gives the caster tremendous advantages, yet none of the drawbacks of a normal steed, such as having to pay to feed it or stable it, or worrying about abandoning it or losing it or having it stolen or killed, etc., or perhaps even not having to endure the normal limitations of not being able to traverse water or open air over a chasm, for example. As you might guess, there are other spells that are also extraordinarily convenient to have on hand for a significant portion of the day, as well, and casting them once each day, for what is virtually free, is quite a boost in power. But I needn't recount each possibility, even if I could, for such uses are often only limited by one's imagination. Once again, I digress.

So in a way, out of 365 days in a year, even if we accepted the 40-spell mark (though I have no idea why one would) that's a savings of about 325 spells each year. The cost saved in time, gold, and XP each year for that one item is staggering. Just multiply the cost of a 1st level scroll by 325 (or even 365) and see for yourself how much you can save each year. If one can't find a way to use a POP each day, that's more a comment on them than on the diversity of the POP, IMHO (In My Honest Opinion), but even so, each time you use it is a savings, even if that's only a few times for some, since one always retains the option to sell the POP, unlike scrolls, which, once used, are totally spent and gone forever and retain no value (aside from possibly being soft and thoroughly absorbent for - ahem - certain duties in the field).

But are POPs really so easy to use? Pete didn't think so. He insisted, in fact, they were less powerful than scrolls since you could use virtually an unlimited number of scrolls in combat, but it took twice as long to use a POP in combat.

First off, this isn't quite true. I doubt it's that easy to use scrolls in combat, unless GMs don't care how much hundreds of scrolls weigh, how long it realistically takes to find the one you need, or similar matters.

Granted, it takes a move equivalent actions to use a POP, but since it's a use-activated device and you don't even have to get it out or hold it (you merely have to posses it) one could frequently use the item while moving and recall most any spell you had used earlier that day, even in combat. You couldn't cast the spell in the same round, true, but recalling a spell didn't really force one to sit around and waste time, either. One often can't cast a spell every round, anyway. Any round one wishes to attack with missile weapons or melee weapons, for example, one could use a POP during that round as well as physically attack.

NOTE: In fact, though I agree one should be limited to how many magic items they can use in a round, or what other things they can do in addition to using a magic item, some items, like mentally activate (use activated) POPs could almost be considered a free action, except for the fact one couldn't use several of them, or other magic items, or cast a spell, etc. in the same round. However, it would be no trouble, IMHO, to activate a POP while drawing an arrow or a sword and combining that with a move action, like walking 30 feet. But then a POP is more an exception since you need only posses it and don't need to actually get it out to use it.

But more to the point, you often don't need to use a POP directly in combat to make it useful for combat. Very frequently, one has multiple encounters per day, and it takes scant seconds outside of combat to recall a meaningful compliment of spells using several POPs, and these can all be used in combat later, so POPs really do help one in combat - if not always directly for the first combat of the day, then indirectly for any subsequent combats that day. Hit and Run tactics, in particular, could be used to soften up a party at a distance, then run, with plenty of ways to escape pursuit. And with a fair number of POPs, the attackers could come back for a second wave in a few minutes at full strength, or maybe a few hours - typically long after the foolish ambushed party's combat spells, which they cast in anticipation of a fight there and then in response to the first hit, wore out (but long before they could rest and regain spells, unless they also had a lot of POPs, of course).

H&R tactics are one good way to make a party waste limited spells, or entice them into traps should they blindly give chase over ground they haven't thoroughly checked out. But I won't get into the niceties of H&R tactics here, or the exceedingly and potentially lethal consequences of foolishly chasing opponents at break neck speeds over unfamiliar ground or into unknown areas. Suffice it to say, they are kick ass. A few examples of that will soon teach any who survive just how incredibly stupid it is to rush after opponents over unfamiliar ground where lethal traps of all types, or superior hidden forces, may lay in wait. Pete, of course, felt such tactics never work in D&D for reasons I never fully understood, so my POP examples were meaningless as far as he was concerned. I, on the other hand, feel that says more about the lack of realism in the games where Pete plays than it says about D&D. H&R tactics do actually work in D&D, despite Pete's claims, just as they do in real life, so anything less would tend to be an unrealistic portrayal of combat. But I digress.

Apart from combat, however, the real power of a POP shines through once one realizes they can cast many extra spells each day for what is effectively free. In fact, if one doesn't use a POP in any given day, that's almost a waste, so finding a use for it is something most spell casters will do (actually, this is quite easy if you try it). Without owning a POP, however, one is often quite reluctant to cast a spell or use a scroll since they have to replace those spells or scrolls, or walk around the remainder of that day less armed and less powerful (due to spell depletion). With POPs, however, they can get many of these spells back immediately, and thus using a spell doesn't so seriously deplete one's reserves of power or cut down on one's potential diversity. In fact, it tends to increase one's power since one more often uses a long-lasting - essentially free - spell and has that power (offensive or defensive) at the ready.

Now, a common tactic for a spell caster is to write many scrolls, of course. They can only prepare so many spells a day, and usually can't hope to have the exact spells prepared that they need for a variety of unforeseen situations without using scrolls, so it helps to have one's entire repertoire of spells on scrolls - perhaps even multiple copies of many of the spells. Seldom-used spells, therefore, need not be prepared and take up valuable and limited room in one's head when one can easily carry around a few dozen scrolls in one's backpack.

This scroll tactic is still employed, even when using POPs, but with POPs, one can take fewer multiple copies of the same spell and prepare a wider variety of spells, and use POPs in many more diverse situations instead of scrolls. If you guessed wrong which spells you'd need prepared that day, you'll have to replace a scroll or two, but you still won't go without the required spell since you do have a copy or two on scroll somewhere. But if you guess right which spells you'll need that day, you'll soon discover you are using POPs more often, and having to replace fewer and fewer scrolls. This is a tremendous savings in XP, gold, and time - time to find the materials, time to find a decent place to write the scrolls, time to write the scrolls, and time to prepare one's spells again (you could easily skip this last 15 to 60 minute long process on many days, since POPs take care of it in seconds). In fact, if one were ever separated from their spell book, one could conceivably use POPs to effectively give them more breathing room as they attempted to recover their book.

Soon, you'll discover yourself using many more spells much more freely since they are kind of free, and that's a huge advantage in power and diversity - and not just for combat, but for outside of combat, too. Many spells are well suited for things other than battle, after all. How often might you Detect Magic or use countless other spells if you could do it for free? You just don't do that when it cost you something. In fact, this rather gets players thinking more about how to use many more spells in many different ways, and I think that's a good thing, too. Without that, they are often forced to carry a much less diverse selection of spells, and what they end up carrying are mostly combat spells, and they won't try to think of many non-combat uses for their spells. Pete, unfortunately, tended to couch most things in terms of combat and combat only, and looked at game balance only in terms of combat, often ignoring other possibilities or aspects of the game. That's too bad - in the better games I've played in (and this is just my opinion so don't complain to me if you disagree) there is so much more to these games than just combat, and POPs open up many additional avenues with their power and diversity.

Many magic items make less sense to make, too, if POPs are so easy to make. A couple of POPs and a Mage Armor spell can protect you all day, while bracers cost much, much more. A POP and a Feather Fall spell are much better than a ring of FF in many ways. A Tongues spell item is cool, but can only be used for that function, while a POP and a Tongues spell will do as well, and better, since you frequently don't need that spell, but need another, and a POP is always diverse and ready to go with any spell you have, while a magic item is often constrained to one function (that might rarely be needed). If you guess wrong, you usually have a scroll backup, anyway.

Sure, it's often wise to make permanently functioning magical protection items first, but POPs will be made second, and in far greater quantities. Even low-level POPs can be used with deadly effect. A gang of six 9th level wizards, each armed with a few 1st level POPs, can, for example, each cast Magic Missile on the target of choice for that round. Effectively, since this spell rarely fails to work, has no save, and always hits, this group of wizards can deliver almost unfailingly 5 missiles each, or about 30 Magic Missiles per round to the target of choice, for an average of 105 HPs of damage each round! Ouch!!! This is deadly, incredibly surgical and precise, and these are just 1st level POPs and mid level casters. Yes, they can do that without POPs, but they can do it a LOT more with them, and use more tactics, besides, since those POPs can be used for other spells, as well. In general, spell casters can do a lot of things a level or two sooner with a fistful of POPs than without them, and the savings in XP will get them to higher levels quicker, to boot.

Anyway, Pete most often didn't agree with me or apparently share any my concerns, and it's not really my intent to give dozens of examples here. I can succinctly explain my reservations about this item and why I feel it's broken, especially if allowed to be manufactured much sooner than 17th level.

First: It's essentially stackable. There is no practical limit on how many you and your party can use in a day. Compared to a +1 sword or a +1 cloak, most can only use one such item, and even then, only in one very specific manner and often precluding other items that can't be used in combination with them. One character can't, for example, realistically use a dozen different +1 swords or a dozen +1 cloaks in the same way they can use a dozen POPs. Also, with plus cloaks or plus weapons, when you find a better one, the lesser one become superfluous and often useless to you, while lower-level POPs remain as useful as ever, even when you now have higher-level POPs in your arsenal as well.

Second: It's diverse, and potentially offensive as well as defensive, as needed. Any spell you have can be used to good effect with a POP of the appropriate level, and what you use it for today doesn't fix or limit what you can use it for tomorrow. Its diversity isn't even limited to your own spell repertoire so much as your entire party's repertoire. Furthermore, a lot of magic items are defensive, and that's often not too unbalancing, but POPs can be as offensive as a spell caster can make them using their offensive combat spells. POPs are great, therefore, on offense as well as defense, and that's just for combat. They work in myriad ways outside of combat, too. Normally, you understand, when one makes a magic item, it's either offensive or defensive, good for combat but not outside it, or vice-versa, and that tends to limit its power, but POPs are either, as the occasion may demand, and switching back and forth like that is effectively twice the power for the same investment. That's the power of diversity.

Third: It's transferable. If made by a wizard or a cleric, it doesn't matter. Just hand it to a spell caster who prepares spells ahead of time, and they can use it. You don't even have to be a spell caster to make this item a useful possession for you. If you're a fighter, for example, owning your own POP, you can ask your party wizard or party cleric to cast a spell for you - one they have prepared, anyway, sure, but you can use a lot of the same spells they like to have handy for themselves - and they'd be hard pressed to refuse you. It's not like you are asking them to waste their limited resources, after all. You like being Healed, fine, you want to Fly, fine; as long as one of your party spell casters typically carries a spell you like, if you own a POP of that level, you can essentially get that spell cast on you once a day for free. Sure, this isn't quite as handy as an item, like a Fly spell item, but it's more diverse, as you can fly, or heal, or speak in tongues, or whatever, and you're never limited to just one function like most magic items are.

Fourth: It's a tradable commodity. Not only are they apparently easy to make (the manufacture of magic items in 3e is almost as simple as bookkeeping, as long as you have the money) but also there's little point in not making them. Even if you wanted to save your money for a more expensive item later, why do that when you can make POPs now, use them now, and easily carry them now, compared to lugging around hundreds of pounds of gold, or dozens of mundane gems or pieces of jewelry, which never help in combat or non-combat situations, apart from those of a purely economic nature? You can use the POPs now, and you can always sell the POPs later, if not to some NPCs, probably to a fellow PC (even a non-spell caster).

Fifth: It often makes more sense to make POPs instead of scrolls, and it becomes wildly unrealistic if a world's NPCs aren't making them, too. By that I mean, it's wrong for a NPC to be manufactured with the intention and care of a "one use item." GMs are writing badly if they often feel NPCs, who ought to expect to live dozens of years, if not dozens of decades, aren't making POPs to use again and again, but instead just give them scrolls to use once as they fight the PCs and probably die in the process, almost just as if the NPC was planning to die that way and they had no other purpose in life, and they certainly didn't want to leave anything of value behind for those who killed them. Far better to be more powerful and better equipped and avoid death and achieve victory, but if they tend toward just scrolls and no POPs, they aren't very realistic characters. GMs may not like giving away many POPs, but without a good IC reason, most spell casting NPCs will tend to make them just as surely as most spell casting PCs will make them. Thus, if this isn't happening, there is something smelly about that world's realism, or that prefab's realism - or lack, thereof.

And, naturally, since a lot of these items are being made, they will turn up in treasure troves very frequently - you'll find them either on defeated NPC spell casters, or monsters who typically fight humanoids and collect their treasure, or have a lair. POPs will practically litter the entire world environment. True, such small items may often go unnoticed on the ground, but a Detect Magic spell, frequently cast for free through a POP, will make any POPs laying around shine out like beacons in the night (even through layers of dirt and debris, under water, concealed behind wood, stone, or relatively thin sheets of metal, since the Detect Magic spell can see through such things) . PCs and NPCs alike don't even have to make these items by the bushel to have handfuls of them; they will likely find quite a few in addition to making quite a few. If this isn't happening on such a world, or in such a prefab, the realism seems quite lacking to me.

Also, if POPs tend to allow PC parties to stay fully healed more often than not, GMs have to start tossing more unrealistic and higher, more improbable encounters at them to compensate for the extra power just to challenge these PCs. This tends to escalate and makes the world less realistic each time it happens. I think this is bad, but you be the judge.

Of course, if it takes a 17th level spell caster to even make such an item, these problems don't arise since such high-level casters are quite rare (probably) and they aren't making POPs by the bushel. However, if spell casters as low as 5th level can make them, you'd expect to see dozens of these items, with all the commonality of a +1 dagger, magic arrows, or other minor magic items, if not more so. And unlike running across more +1 daggers or +1 swords, once you already have a few of those and don't need to buy them, when running across more 1st level POPs, since they are stackable, you should always be able to find a new daily use for those, and thus, they will be purchased. True, lower-level POPs will be far more prevalent than higher-level ones, but that's to be expected, too.

Pete said this would take too much money to make all those POPs, and the Living Greyhawk environment has tight control over the amount of available money so this would never happen, but I wholeheartedly disagree. His own 9th level character had apparently made 9 POPs himself, so I suspect NPC spell casters ought to be doing just as well in that environment. Regardless, realistically the world should be filthy with such items, due to the ease of their manufacture, their inexpensive nature, and their stackable, diverse, and transferable power, as well as being one of the most easily negotiable items around.

For other environments, where gold is a bit more plentiful, this becomes even worse. Too bad. There are a LOT of neat things PCs can do with surplus money, especially in environments where they can't easily buy magic or make magic. For example, set up shops or businesses, buy ships or invest in shipping, or invest in mines, taverns or inns, gambling establishments, etc. Or perhaps help the poor, help the community, run for office, build a mansion or a keep, etc. The mind boggles. But if magic is so easy to make, it's far more likely such surplus cash will be dumped into that endeavor during the PCs' adventuring career. And why not? They can always sell most items later when they retire. Sadly, gone are many story options that rely on surplus cash in an environment where it is harder to manufacture magic items. It becomes almost foolish not to invest in easily made magic items, particularly when they are so incredibly useful, and can always be sold later to nearly any adventurer of most any class or level.

Sixth: POPs tend to shift the power balance toward spell casters who prepare their spells ahead of time, too. If you think that's fine, OK, but I'm not sure I think that's fair for the non-spell casting classes, or even fair for the spontaneous spell casting classes. While I can see a clear increase in the power of most non-spontaneous spell casters, and can't see a commensurate shift in power for the non-spell caster or even the spontaneous spell casters, Pete didn't think there was much of a change at all in what he called "real" games - as if the games I played in were somehow "fake." No matter. Why he feels the ability for his 9th level character (with 9 POPs) to cast 9 extra spells each day is only a trivial addition to his character's power is beyond me - it seems quite a boost to one's innate power, IMHO. Not only that, but the ability to choose exactly which of the many spells used earlier to recall adds a type of spontaneity to the standard spell caster, sort of adding the ability of spontaneous spell casters to non-spontaneous spell casters, while sorcerers and other spontaneous spell casters get nothing similar in return. It's just another reason to avoid those classes, as they are less and less attractive when standard spell casters gain some of the advantages ostensibly reserved for spontaneous casters. Oh well; I wasn't the one who invented the sorcerer class.

Oddly enough, I doubt one of the things Pete said they were consistently using POPs for would even work. He said they typically used them as an extra set of healing spells each night. Now I can't be sure they were using them incorrectly, but Pete did clearly fail to understand that POPs couldn't really be used to recall spells that are "spontaneously" cast. I even wrote Wizards of the Coast and asked, and they agreed with me. POPs won't work for spontaneous spell casters, like bards or sorcerers, but only for those who "prepare" their spells ahead of time. Furthermore, any spell prepared, but then spontaneously cast for something else, like a cleric might for a healing spell, cannot be recalled via a POP since the item requires one both prepare AND cast THAT spell in order for the item to work. Thus, if a cleric prepared a Prayer spell, but instead used it to spontaneously cast Cure Serious Wounds, the POP would not recall the CSW, or the Prayer. That spell will have to be replaced as normal.

I was happy to discover during this discourse with Pete, a reason to actually prepare healing spells again ahead of time. I had mistakenly thought all this while there was absolutely no point in ever preparing spells like Cure Serious Wounds again in 3e games since a cleric could always spontaneously cast such spells for any other 3rd level spell, or any spell of the appropriate level for a similarly leveled heal type spell. But this isn't true, I now see, since if they did prepare a Cure Serious Wounds spell, for example, and used it, as normal, they could use a 3rd level POP to recall that spell and cast it again that day. The only prohibition on POP use is against spontaneously cast spells, and if one actually prepares a few healing spells, with POPs on hand, there is once again a point to doing this, as long as you (or some fellow party members) have a POP of the appropriate level for each healing spell your cleric prepares ahead of time. Otherwise, they'd still be better off taking something else and spontaneously casting healing spells, as needed, for the sake of greater diversity.

Still, I think it's extremely ill advised to blow off the 17th level requirements to manufacture POPs. I'd even call it shortsighted, and I wonder about the wisdom of this so-called inner circle. Not only would I keep that requirement in place, but also I'd increase the price of POPs to reflect this greater requirement, as well as their relative power, and I might also optionally limit POPs in other manners.

For example, I might require they be class specific (so if a wizard makes it, only another wizard can use that, while if a cleric makes it, only a cleric may use that). Or I may require one possess the POP for at least 24 hours before it starts to work for them, too. Thus, the item cannot be so freely passed around, and in particular, it hardly benefits a non-spell caster to own them - though they could still technically own them, but simply allow the spell casting friend to carry and use them on their behalf. At least that takes a level of trust, cooperation, and friendship and loyalty between party members to work together like that, and GMs should never wish to curtail such practices, and should, in fact, foster them to enrich the gaming experience - but, for the last time in this article, I digress.

It's not that I dislike magic or magic items, or even power, but I would prefer some limitations to such power, and I simply felt POPs broke too many of these normal limitations all at once, and if also allowed to be manufactured at much lower levels, well, that was a bridge too far. Pete tells me it's not, and he even feel certain 4th edition will incorporate these lax requirements on POP manufacture, too. I hope he's wrong. But if he isn't, I'd still likely not use those guidelines, but substitute ones that better reflect my own sensibilities, as most GMs ought to do when a standard rule offends their sensibilities, IMHO. That's why all those rules are only guidelines, after all, and not dogmatic decrees enforced from on high. Alas, that's another weakness of prefabs, or even gaming environments, that try to enforce one person's, or one group's, vision on the whole environment - GMs are forced to accept it, no matter how ill-conceived they may think it, lest it not count or be officially sanctioned. Oh well.

If POPs had many more of these built-in limitations, they wouldn't be such a broken magic item, and thus the 17th level requirement wouldn't be so important to keep. But they are broken without further limitations on them. Thus, simply lowering the 17th level requirement but not increasing their price, or limiting POPs in any other way, was a bad move, IMHO. Heck, even keeping the 17th level requirement but still not raising the price to reflect this greater difficulty in their manufacture is a bad move in and of itself. I just think adding insult to injury is NOT a wise move, and I still feel, in the absence of anyone finding fault with my reasoning and own gaming experiences, making it easier to make a POP is even shortsighted and foolish. But you be the judge.

I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on the matter, if you have one, so drop me a letter sometime. Thanks.

Email Jim Your Comments (Send Praises, Critiques, Complaints, Suggestions, Ideas, or Submissions).

In the meantime, Happy Gaming ;-)