artifact vs unique magic item?

[freyar]

Here's a question for the designers and deep thinkers out there, since it's been bugging me a little: Where do you draw the line between a unique or named magic item and a minor artifact? I find myself asking this question specifically for named weapons, for some reason.

Let me illustrate with an example: From Magic of Faerun, which I'm rereading for kicks, we have Arbane's Sword of Agility. Without quoting the (copyrighted) text, we'll say that there are at least a dozen. It's properties: +2 longsword of speed, can cast jump 1/day, can negate darkness as if using a daylight spell 1/day, bearer is protected by continual freedom of movement effect and immunity to illusion (pattern) effects when the sword is drawn. Just looking at that, would you choose (almost-)unique, albeit powerful, weapon or minor artifact? (answer below)
















This sword is classified as a minor artifact. But why no creation guidelines? The only nonstandard or non-spell-effect property of these swords is the immunity to patterns, but there are wondrous items in the same book that provide resistance bonuses to patterns, so doesn't seem like a good distinction entirely. Is this just a flavor choice? I'm curious to hear what EN World has to say.

 

[howandwhy99]

Potions, wands, and scrolls are repeatable as they are spell-based. Everything else is unique.

Artifacts and Relics are about how commoners regard them. As game labels they historically mean magic items beyond what the PCs will ever be capable of.

 

[Umbran]

The basic guideline I use between artifact and normal magic item is exactly that - if they cannot be made by the campaign's current spellcasters (at least in theory), then it is an artifact.

An artifact need not be powerful at all - it merely needs to be unreproducible.

 

[Shroomy]

In 3.x edition? If I can't figure out the cost based on the DMG formulas (which I hate, hate, hate), I handwave it and call it an artifact.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I figured that in 3.x, the cost guidelines are the marker.

IMO, artifacts should be powerful and not powerups. The Illithid artifact that can darken the sky (effectively creating eternal night) is amazingly powerful, but the only in-game combat effect is fighting at night (something a typical adventuring party would have faced before).

Arbane's Sword of Agility is too wimpy to be an artifact (IMO) and you could ballpark the cost anyway.

 

[fuindordm]

I agree with Umbran--an artifact needs to do something that the rules do not normally allow.

For example, consider the Hammer of Thunderbolts. Among other things, it allows enhancement bonuses to strength to stack. (At least in my 3.0 DMG, I never bothered to get 3.5.) While I think it specifically calls out only the gauntlets and girdle, I would allow a Bull's strength spell to beef up the wielder further.

The Deck of Many Things is just swimming in unique abilities.

The Staff of the Magi can recharge itself by absorbing spells (or at least it could...is that still true?)

...and so on.

Ben