Forums of the Megaverse®

So one of my players (who is new to Rifts) asked if there was something like a Bag of Holding in R8fts and I said no but there is the Temporal Spells: Dimensional Pocket and Dimensional Envelope. Then it hit me a little later that you could create something like the Bag with Techno-Wizardry and those spells. Unfortunately my Rifts-Fu is lacking when it comes to TW. So I was wondering, how would you make such a Bag? Would you be able to find them for sale? If so, how much?

If you want to get technical there is no need for a TW device in this case. Dimensional Pocket (per BoM pg247) does state you can purchase such an enchanted item, Dimensional Envelope lacks such a thing AFAIK.

It should be noted you can alter the device level, or gem quality, or add other spells that might be deemed necessary. All of which is variable as the TW "rules" are very flexible.

Still a basic no frills TW version:
TW-Dimensional Pocket (box, mobile will last 5yr)
Device Level: 10
Spell Chain: Energy Bolt (to activate, may not really need), Dimensional Pocket-long Term (primary spell)
Gems: Primary (Tourmaline (black): 10ct), Secondary (Zircon (red) 1ct)
PPE Construction Cost: 1,450 PPE
Activation Cost: 72.5 PPE (more if you want Ley Line powered aspects)
Construction Time: 14.5hrs
Device Cost: 148,200cr (includes gems)

TW-Dimensional Envelope (room, fixed will last 240yr)
Device Level: 12
Spell Chain: Energy Bolt (to activate, may not really need), Dimensional Envelope-long Term (primary spell)
Gems: Primary (Tourmaline (black): 10ct), Secondary (Zircon (red) 1ct)
PPE Construction Cost: 4,620 PPE
Activation Cost: 231 PPE (more if you want Ley Line powered aspects, truthfully given the fixed nature LL powered is certainly an option)
Construction Time: 38.5hrs
Device Cost: 557,600cr (includes gems)

ShadowLogan wrote:If you want to get technical there is no need for a TW device in this case. Dimensional Pocket (per BoM pg247) does state you can purchase such an enchanted item, Dimensional Envelope lacks such a thing AFAIK.

It should be noted you can alter the device level, or gem quality, or add other spells that might be deemed necessary. All of which is variable as the TW "rules" are very flexible.

Still a basic no frills TW version:
TW-Dimensional Pocket (box, mobile will last 5yr)
Device Level: 10
Spell Chain: Energy Bolt (to activate, may not really need), Dimensional Pocket-long Term (primary spell)
Gems: Primary (Tourmaline (black): 10ct), Secondary (Zircon (red) 1ct)
PPE Construction Cost: 1,450 PPE
Activation Cost: 72.5 PPE (more if you want Ley Line powered aspects)
Construction Time: 14.5hrs
Device Cost: 148,200cr (includes gems)

TW-Dimensional Envelope (room, fixed will last 240yr)
Device Level: 12
Spell Chain: Energy Bolt (to activate, may not really need), Dimensional Envelope-long Term (primary spell)
Gems: Primary (Tourmaline (black): 10ct), Secondary (Zircon (red) 1ct)
PPE Construction Cost: 4,620 PPE
Activation Cost: 231 PPE (more if you want Ley Line powered aspects, truthfully given the fixed nature LL powered is certainly an option)
Construction Time: 38.5hrs
Device Cost: 557,600cr (includes gems)

Thanks, Shadowlogan! This is helpful!

If he can find a way to do it, the Silver Chest Tattoo is probably the single best extra dimensional storage you can get

As ShadowLogan pointed out Dimensional Pockets has a long duration (6 months / level) but is a Temporal Spell so might not be easy to find. The books lists the sale price 90K to 1M cr.

It is worth noting Rifter #3 has the Spatial Mage. They get Dimensional Pockets as a 2nd level spell at half the PPE cost and double duration. One year per level lasts quite a long time.

Best extra dimensional storage? Create your own dimensional realm - sure costs permanent PPE but you can create a HUGE realm.

Note dimensional pocket is only 30lbs, so really limited. But no reason you cannot have one bag with multiple pockets.

@Rifter11
You're welcome. I will point out that non-wizard invocations in RUE can use 2 gem types, though some of them are bland in the sense that they "quartz" for example, but the gem list has "quartz [insert color here]". I did use the more expensive option partly due to the ambiguity of the second gem type and that it had a dimensional spell from the Wizard Invocation list (D-Step), so theoretically it could be made cheaper. IINM there might be other ways to fine tune this to make it cheaper OR more expensive.

Another variation on it might also be the use of the short term version of the spell.

Spell chain interactions might also exist that provide alternate ways to achieve the same effect. Though how spells interact in a spell chain are subject to the GM and they could vary from GM to GM.

The reliance so many people have on techno-wizardry for magical items was always odd to me.

Techno-wizardry is a particular type of magic. It's limitations and oddities are its own. Sure, characters like the Mystic Kunya and Ruhr Dwarves use similar rules, but those rules aren't the only means of producing magic items in the megaverse. Else there wouldn't be all the other things you can find in the Book of Magic alone.

It's one thing if the aforementioned player wanted to make one, in which case bending over backwards to use the TW rules is perfectly reasonable. But that's not what the original question was.

There's absolutely nothing stopping a GM from introducing a Bag of Holding that works just like its D&D counterpart. It doesn't have to be a TW item. It doesn't have to follow those overly strict and odd rules. Someone, somewhere, just came up with a process to produce one, and with it out in the world, it's almost definitely going to become a hot item that's going to earn them buckoo credits. Or it could just be one of a small number that were produced sometime long ago on a rifted world far, far away that's going to be a hot commodity that leads to crazy adventures and other scenarios as everyone tries to get their hands on one.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:The reliance so many people have on techno-wizardry for magical items was always odd to me.

Even Palladium Author/Editors uses it as a default go-to for the setting as it appears in multiple WB/SBss where most other magic types don't get a revist (and certainly NOT to the extent TW has been done*). So it is understandable why TW is the go-to solution given it is the same one the Author/Editors use.

*TW appears in WB1/2/3/6/7/8/12/14/16/26 off the top of my head. And several additional DBs and SBs. No other class of magic-item is that prolific AFAIK in the Rifts setting (avoiding cut-paste for convivence reprints).

Crimson Dynamo wrote:It's one thing if the aforementioned player wanted to make one, in which case bending over backwards to use the TW rules is perfectly reasonable. But that's not what the original question was.

That is in fact what the OP (Rifter11) called for "Unfortunately my Rifts-Fu is lacking when it comes to TW. So I was wondering, how would you make such a Bag? Would you be able to find them for sale? If so, how much?"

Now if you ignore the first sentence I put in the quote you could read it as a blanket query, but the included sentence adds context that he/she was looking for a TW solution because they don't know how to make one. This can be further supported by the actual text in "Dimensional Pocket" that discusses such an item on the market which renders the entire question moot.

Now should you be able to find them for sale, well that's going to come down a highly subjective GM thing, but in terms of cost/construction by the rules that can be done.

Thanks for all the input!

The problem with your answers is that a Dimensional Pocket isn't a Bag of Holding. It's a tiny, pathetic, insignificant thing good for smuggling a small item or two. A Bag of Holding is a completely different beast for completely different purposes, and it's something that TW is ill-equipped to produce "by the rules."

TW items are also only a tiny, miniscule part of the magic items presented for Rifts alone, let alone other settings in the Megaverse. The vast majority of magic items in the Book of Magic alone, again, dwarves the pitiful contribution of items techno-wizardry has provided the setting.

Since TW isn't able to make the item, and it's the GM who's looking to introduce something more akin to an actual Bag of Holding into their game, then the answer has been had. Just introduce them. Their introduction could even lead to some fascinating adventures depending on what route is taken with them, two of which were mentioned in my previous post.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:A Bag of Holding is a completely different beast for completely different purposes, and it's something that TW is ill-equipped to produce "by the rules."

Not only can TW duplicate it, but it can exceed it with the right spell chain. The spell chain is the key since it allows spells effects to be "tweaked" (RUE gives an example of reducing the strength of a Carpet of Adhesion for longer duration on a set of tires to give better traction, and how the spells interact to allow a Firebolt spell to create a blade in the TW Flaming Sword). What that spell chain would look like is another matter off hand, and one that could vary from person to person.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:TW items are also only a tiny, miniscule part of the magic items presented for Rifts alone, let alone other settings in the Megaverse. The vast majority of magic items in the Book of Magic alone, again, dwarves the pitiful contribution of items techno-wizardry has provided the setting.

No TW makes up the vast majority of items/hardware in the Book of Magic. Starting from page 255 in the Magic Weapons and Devices Section of the Book:
-Biomancer (from WB6) runs pg255-6 (2 pages)
-Bio-Wizard pg256-67 (11pages)
-Rune Weapons pg267-74 (7 pages and some of this is BIY info)
-Magic Restraints pg274-9 (5 pages various types mundane, Bio-Wizard, TW, cyber)
-Herb Magic pg279-87 (8 pages)
-Millennium Tree pg288-94 (6 pages, includes corrupted)
-Japanese Magic Items pg294-301 (7pages, including Rune, a few TW items, and unique Tattoo magic)
-Shamanistic pg301-311 (10 pages, this includes Native American Fetish, African, and Inuit stuff)
-Techno-Wizardry pg312-347 (35 pages, keep in mind too that some of the TW stuff is abridged to save space, and it's even noted they LEFT OUT TW stuff due to space limitations, though I do have to admit some stuff in this area has been re-classified as TW like FoM's Automotauns)

Technically Categorization of magic does yield up items from the invocation section not in the item section, but aside from the Wizard-category none are even close to 35 pages of material (Necromancy was the longest and it doesn't even get 1/2 the page count), and it is safe to say that the magic item invocations are a minority of the list.

Nor does this include the various World Books, Source Books that have come out post SoT series, or any of the Dimension Books (including those that predate BoM). There is stuff that BoM missed (for space reasons, really BoM should have been two books, Invocation/Classes and Items), like products via the Tarno Crystal (SB3) or made with magically shaped Korralyte (WB7, sp?) or the Horune (WB7). Probably more stuff I'm not thinking of or don't have exposure to (not a book I have access to), but it seems pretty clear that in the Rifts Setting Techno-Wizardry is the default magic item creation, other types exist for sure but nowhere near as prolific).

To get mundane items you have to go to other lines. Palladium Fantasy is the likely line to choose from.

I'm pretty sure 56 pages is more than 35 pages, but I could be mistaking. And like you pointed out, the Book of Magic doesn't include everything. That includes non-TW items, too. It also ignores all the other magic items from other settings within the Megaverse, of which Rifts is particularly linked to. You know, given the name of the game and all.

I must also be missing something about Dimension Pocket if you claim a TW items can be created with it that exceeds 250 cubic feet of space and a 1,500 lb. limit that is also permanent.

Regardless, my actual point was this: Techno-Wizard is the only set of "magic item creation rules" the game really has. Hence why other classes and races capable of crafting items simply have the developers reference those rules in the vast majority of cases. But this isn't really a case of a player asking to make one. The GM doesn't have to use them or follow their guidelines, and there's hoards upon hoards of examples of other magic items in the game that don't. Considering the simplicity of what a Bag of Holding is, it doesn't even require a ton of rocket science to convert to Palladium's rules. The only challenging part is coming up with a price tag for it, and that depends entirely upon how the GM wants to introduce them into their game. They could be priceless artifacts due to being a lost art, or cheap as dirt due to the simplicity of their crafting courtesy of new discoveries, or anything in between.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:I'm pretty sure 56 pages is more than 35 pages, but I could be mistaking.

It is more, however you are getting to the ~56pages by combining different types and branches of magic sourcing for the magic items. Those 35pages are all Techno-Wizardry, in order for you to get to the 56 pages you had to combine six separate branches of magic items and one regional (Japanese) that is a mix of types along with restraints that pulled various methods. It is the equivalent of saying the Magic Items section has only 2 main sub sections: Technowizardry and Otherstuff, when in fact it has a total of 10 (and there is stuff in the spell invocation section that were not duplicated here) with it being further sub-divided.

Are there other sources of magic items. Yes. However, I am not lumping them into a single generic heading of Non-TW but also considering the branch of magic (Rune, Bio-Wizardry, Necromancy, Wizard Invocation, etc) that gave rise to them. From that POV, Techno-Wizardry IS king of the magic items in the Rifts line.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:I must also be missing something about Dimension Pocket if you claim a TW items can be created with it that exceeds 250 cubic feet of space and a 1,500 lb. limit that is also permanent.

1. Who says you have to use Dimensional Pocket as the Primary Spell to create the TW Item? For example you could use Dimensional Envelope exceeds the volume (10x10x6=600ft^3) easily and places no weight limit, you would need another spell in the spell chain to make it mobile (Dimensional Pocket as a secondary?). Or combine Astral Hole and Astral Projection to access the Astral Plane to store stuff, in which case you can toss out volume and weight restrictions.

2. Spell Chains are very powerful, they allow one to alter the effect parameters of the primary spell. For example, if the earlier spell chain (initial post I made) is modified to include Superhuman Strength (PS 30), and D-Shift: 2D (weight/mass are reduced to 1/16th of real world) are combined to modify the carry capacity of Dimensional Pocket the capacity would jump to 48,000lbs (= SN PS 30 *50 for carry @that PS *2 for lift *16 for DS2D), you could reduce that by 1/2 if you want to use the PS Carrying instead of PS Lifting value to determine the new capacity of the TW DP, but 24,000lbs is still 16x more weight than your presented BoH. Technically speaking Dimensional Pocket has no restrictions on the volume of the object (still has to fit the opening), so I am not even going to bother with the Volume.

EDIT: I initially used normal PS of 30 for Superhuman Spell derived calculations, when it should be Super Natural PS of 30. I corrected it. END EDIT.

3. How do you define permanency? Technically speaking you can reactivate the TW device every so often, so as long as the device exists it would still work (what happens to stuff in the pocket if it expires is subject to the GM, it could get lost forever, it could get kicked out, it could just be inaccessible). You might also be able to get a Permanency Rune (PF2E Diabolist) to influence the enchantment (GM approval). You could also make it Ley Line Powered (restricts where it can go, though there are probably ways around this restriction).

Criimson Dynamo wrote:Regardless, my actual point was this: Techno-Wizard is the only set of "magic item creation rules" the game really has.

Actually No. There are rules that allow flexible creation of Rune Weapons, Wizard Scrolls and Talismans, Wizard Enchant Weapon: Minor that come to mind (and there might be more out there, I know PF2E and HU2E main books have magic items that can be custom created).

Just FYI:

The "Enchanted Bags" are described in Palladium Fantasy (p258) "Cost: This varies, depending on the size of bag and its maximum weight allowance. Small pouch, purse or bag: 5 lb (2.3 kg) maximum weight, costs 2000 gold; medium-sized handbag, purse, or sack with a 15 lb (6.8 kg) weight limit costs 6000 gold; while a large sack, backpack or saddlebags with a 30 lb maximum weight limit costs 15,000 gold."

Note this is a "bag of holding-like" item. No, they don't have the same capacity as DnD; but that wasn't what was asked.

How would you make such a Bag? - Yes, a TW can make something "like" what you are looking for; if they have the right spells. (see ShadowLogan's guide to TW) Note, there are other OCCs that can make magic items.

Would you be able to find them for sale? - Yes, actually since the book specifically mentions them for sale; I think they would be moderately available in any reasonable magic supplier.

If so, how much? - 90K to 1M for the "spell" bag. 148,200cr cost to make a TW device. 15K gold (75K cr) in palladium fantasy - you can figure a conversion rate by looking at other items.

(simple holy weapon ... costs 100,000-800,000 gold / simple holy weapon ... cost 500,000 to five million credits - roughly 1 gold = 5 credits. No I am not comparing what a gold piece would cost in credits - comparing the cost of items listed both in PF and Rifts. And this is a VERY rough estimate)

Unasked follow-up question: Can you make a bigger one? - Yeah there are several TW options and of course you are free to expand on the magic items available.

Edit: Can I make a backpack with 8 pockets each capable of having Dimensional Pockets cast on them? Yeah, I don't see why not. Cargo pants of holding.

ShadowLogan wrote:It is more, however you are getting to the ~56pages by combining different types and branches of magic sourcing for the magic items.

Yeah. "Non-TW items" vs. "TW items."

I have no idea how you're misreading or misinterpreting that, man.

3. How do you define permanency? Technically speaking you can reactivate the TW device every so often, so as long as the device exists it would still work (what happens to stuff in the pocket if it expires is subject to the GM, it could get lost forever, it could get kicked out, it could just be inaccessible).

Not like that.

Actually No. There are rules that allow flexible creation of Rune Weapons, Wizard Scrolls and Talismans, Wizard Enchant Weapon: Minor that come to mind (and there might be more out there, I know PF2E and HU2E main books have magic items that can be custom created).

Insert the world's most massive eye roll emoji here.

hup7 wrote:Note this is a "bag of holding-like" item. No, they don't have the same capacity as DnD; but that wasn't what was asked.

I agree here. It should also be noted that there are different performance levels for a "Bag of Holding" in D&D AFAIK (CD's stats for a BoH are larger than what is available elsewhere online for the "common" one, and I don't have any D&D books the last time I played D&D it was 2E and I used the DMs books to handle character creation).

Crimson Dynamo wrote:Yeah. "Non-TW items" vs. "TW items."

I have no idea how you're misreading or misinterpreting that, man.

Because that is being disingenuous to lump all the Non-TW items together like that. The availability of some of those magic items in those 56pages is not as widespread in terms of availability. Herb magic for instance is really restricted to England (maybe more broadly Europe), Bio-Wizardry to Atlantis, and Biomancy to single kingdom in SA (Lemurians not being a thing when BoM was written), and I lumped Shaman stuff from different regions together, or Millennium Trees (only in Europe and Japan), but you can go to any one of those regions and find TW items originating from them or near them (per entry in BoM) though not every TW example is available everywhere but the basic philosophy (ie practitioner) is.

ShadowLogan wrote:Because that is being disingenuous to lump all the Non-TW items together like that.

I don't know what conversation you think you're taking part in, but it isn't this one.

The availability of some of those magic items in those 56pages is not as widespread in terms of availability. Herb magic for instance is really restricted to England (maybe more broadly Europe), Bio-Wizardry to Atlantis, and Biomancy to single kingdom in SA (Lemurians not being a thing when BoM was written), and I lumped Shaman stuff from different regions together, or Millennium Trees (only in Europe and Japan), but you can go to any one of those regions and find TW items originating from them or near them (per entry in BoM) though not every TW example is available everywhere but the basic philosophy (ie practitioner) is.

What does "availability" have to do wit... what are you talking abo... just... Jesus Christ, man. See above.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:Yeah. "Non-TW items" vs. "TW items."

A TW can pretty much create anything, so "Non TW" items are also TW Items. Why be so hostile to one particular way of creation?

Aermas wrote:

Crimson Dynamo wrote:Yeah. "Non-TW items" vs. "TW items."

A TW can pretty much create anything, so "Non TW" items are also TW Items. Why be so hostile to one particular way of creation?

TW is suppose to be a combination of technology and magic. Things that should not be TW classified as TW something that bugs me.(smacks of lazy writting, or poor creativity.)

Why the TW can recreate most affects, that does not mean weather or not it is tw is pointless. Non-TW items typically do not require PPE from the user to work. TW items have a default restriction on who can use them. So a magic bag of holding made by an alchemist and a bag of holding made by a TW would be different items with different properties even with the same end result. Just like even though a E-vehicle and gas vehicle both get you where are going their are important differences between the two.

Blue_Lion wrote:

Aermas wrote:

Crimson Dynamo wrote:Yeah. "Non-TW items" vs. "TW items."

A TW can pretty much create anything, so "Non TW" items are also TW Items. Why be so hostile to one particular way of creation?

TW is suppose to be a combination of technology and magic. Things that should not be TW classified as TW something that bugs me.(smacks of lazy writting, or poor creativity.)

Why the TW can recreate most affects, that does not mean weather or not it is tw is pointless. Non-TW items typically do not require PPE from the user to work. TW items have a default restriction on who can use them. So a magic bag of holding made by an alchemist and a bag of holding made by a TW would be different items with different properties even with the same end result. Just like even though a E-vehicle and gas vehicle both get you where are going their are important differences between the two.

to use a simple example of the way I think of it.

using the expanded storage container:
a bag of holding typically a cloth or leather "bag" that has spells modifying it
technowizard a box or trunk with gems, circuitry and similar that set and hold a magical effect that is essentially the same as the magical version but works somewhat differently.
Tech "bent space" pocket works through purely technological methods to distort the "fabric" of space and time to achieve the same or similar effects but without using "magic"

undefined: "hammerspace" an anime trope where some characters example being chars in the anime Rama 1/2 where characters can pull hammers and or other items out of "nowhere"

Aermas wrote:Why be so hostile to one particular way of creation?

Because I wasn't.

I simply said there's more examples of non-TW magic items in the game than there are of TW items. TW is just the only "system" for players to craft their own unique magic items, and that's the system the game keeps pushing even for characters who aren't Techno-Wizards like Nuhr Dwarves and Mystic Kunya.

And the point of saying that is that a GM doesn't have to use that system in order to add magic items to the game. They can just add it and use any number of the plethora other forms of magic items available in the game with it, rather than having to bend over backwards to kinda-sorta-but-not-really duplicate a Bag of Holding using the TW system.

But there aren't more. TWs can do it all

FFS...

Crimson Dynamo wrote: simply said there's more examples of non-TW magic items in the game than there are of TW items.

That is being disengenous in terms of classification as it creates a false impression. What you advocate is like saying that just because the LA Dodgers have 107 wins this season to date (best in National League) doesn't make them the team with the most wins because everyone else in the National League has a combined total of 1,057wins. That is why the non-magic items need to be broken down into their various disciplines (or in the case baseball standing, by individual team) because lumping them together doesn't give a true representation of their standing in the game world.

That 56 pages vs 35 pages of material does not tell the entire story either for several reasons:
1. some of the techno-wizard items are presented in a condensed form. for example, the TW Wing-Blade Iron Juggernaut (found in SoT 6) in BoM is ~1/2 a page (~ 1 full colum spread across 2 pages), but in SoT6 the stat text covers 1 full page easily and extends on to a 2nd, this ignores the background fluff text (1 plus page). The Millipeade IJ is even worse, it gets the same amount of space as the Wing-Blade IJ in BoM, but its stats are basically 2pages in SoT6, again ignoreing the background fluff (~1/2 a page). The Glittermount TW Horse from NW is ~1page in WB14, but does't even reach 1/2 a page in the BoM. The WB16 (original version, not sure about the revised) has TW vehicles that get at least ~1/2 a page each, but in BoM each gets ~1/4-1/3 at best. The South American TW PA (and 'bot) from 2WBs is condensed to 1 page in the BoM in total, but is ~5x that between WB6 and WB9, and the TW Cyborg from WB6 entry in the BoM is basically enough to say it exists (not even ~1/8 of a page in BoM but gets 1x page easily in WB6) and to see the appropriate book. The Xiticix are in the same boat as the TW Cybrog from WB6 (in WB23 they get ~1page) The TW Frigate from SB4 is ~1page in SB4 but reduced down to ~1/2 page in BoM. These examples I cite would add 12+pages to the TW total if they were not condensed and there are other examples I did not (and in some cases cannot) cross-check that likely also received the "cliff-note" version that would add to that.
2. This condensed format seen used in the TW sections does not appear to be used AFAIK with the other magic item categories, from what I am familiar with they appear to be basically Copy-Pasted from the book they are sourced from unlike the TW.
3. the text flat out says this is not all the TW items in WB/SB/DBs to date as some had to be left out for space reasons. Which for a compilation book certainly indicates that 35 pages for TW stuff is on the low side and this is ignoring the condensed cliff-note version that is in use on at least some TW items in that section. Now I will add this does apply to both sides, though where some of the missing stuff might be placed, I'm not sure given some items in the TW area seem to be reclassified as TW (F.o.M's Automotauns and some stuff that I thought would be Bio-Wizard coming from Atlantis giving the Eye of Eylor components involved).
4. there is material in the 56pages of non-TW magic items that do not belong there (to be fair the same is true of the TW section) as we have examples of TW in at least 2x places (which IINM some are duplicated in the actual TW section), there are also non-magical items in there (Anti-Magic Containment is ~2.5 pages alone and is basically the CS approach so is unlikely to be magical), and even a variation on Tattoo Magic presented (Japanese section, reality is it shouldn't be here as its closer to Nazca Line or Tattoo magic both of which are in the Spell/Ritual Section), and South American Magical Trees (~1 page) do not actually produce a magic item. Non-TW stuff also has a full-page art-picture, something not duplicated in the TW section (which one loses more page area to pictures I'm not sure so the more "regular" size pics I'm not saying should be adjusted for).
5. Not all of the non-TW items are reproducible by PCs in game, they are handled by NPCs exclusively (ex. Bio-Wizardry and Rune).
6. Given some of the examples in the TW section (the Tokeen's IJs and Eye of Eylor hardware), Bio-Wizardry (and by extension Rune) might be closer to Techno-Wizardry than other types like Shaman/Herbalist stuff.

The result is that in actual practice you should have >=47 pages of TW stuff if you would "decompress" the TW stuff and <=51 pages of non-TW stuff taking out the non-magic item aspects (along w/the TW material). Now because there is the fact the TW stuff needs to be decompressed in the BoM and I didn't get everything (other SoT IJs for example), and material exists that was skipped that is TW that would add to the page count (and being fair the non-TW stuff) I do not think one can actually claim the B.o.M establishes that non-TW stuff is the majority, even though the non-TW stuff should be broken down into its various sub-categories to avoid a niche categories over contributing (examples. CS Anti-Magic Containment, not exactly magic items).

ShadowLogan wrote:

Crimson Dynamo wrote: simply said there's more examples of non-TW magic items in the game than there are of TW items.

That is being disengenous in terms of classification as it creates a false impression.

No, it isn't. Not even remotely.

I don't know why you and that other guy don't understand the conversation you're taking part in, but the problem is on your end. You're the ones who have no idea what you're replying to. It's completely going over your heads. Absolutely no one--myself included--has said "omg u guyz, there's more biomancer items than TW items!!!11one"

My only advise at this point is to maybe consider going back and reading what's actually written rather than whatever it is your imaginations are conjuring out of thin air.

In essence, this is the conversation.
Me: "There's more letters in the alphabet than just A."
You: "That's disingenuous! There's just as many B's, C's, and D's in the alphabet!"
Me: "... wat?"

i think you'd more likely find a conventional enchntment for an item like that. T-W work is usually for limited charge stuff. but it wouldn't be hard to dummy one up (someone already did in the thread).

Rifts is one of those games which allows GMs to modify the rules in nearly any way they can imagine. I've found rules contradicting rules contradicting rules.

I think if a player wants an item enchanted with D-Pockets or D-Envelope, you should use the duration of the spell as listed but max out the available space to double the actual volume.

I've had CQB rifle barrels enchanted so their effective range was quadrupled. And magazines go from a max capacity of 30 to 300. We had to modify the feed system inside the magazine, a spring just didn't work.

Remember spells cast within a given range of certain kinds of Ley Lines will exponentially increase the duration of the spells; so, your spell could last decades.

ShadowLogan wrote:

Crimson Dynamo wrote: simply said there's more examples of non-TW magic items in the game than there are of TW items.

That is being disengenous in terms of classification as it creates a false impression. What you advocate is like saying that just because the LA Dodgers have 107 wins this season to date (best in National League) doesn't make them the team with the most wins because everyone else in the National League has a combined total of 1,057wins. That is why the non-magic items need to be broken down into their various disciplines (or in the case baseball standing, by individual team) because lumping them together doesn't give a true representation of their standing in the game world.

That 56 pages vs 35 pages of material does not tell the entire story either for several reasons:
1. some of the techno-wizard items are presented in a condensed form. for example, the TW Wing-Blade Iron Juggernaut (found in SoT 6) in BoM is ~1/2 a page (~ 1 full colum spread across 2 pages), but in SoT6 the stat text covers 1 full page easily and extends on to a 2nd, this ignores the background fluff text (1 plus page). The Millipeade IJ is even worse, it gets the same amount of space as the Wing-Blade IJ in BoM, but its stats are basically 2pages in SoT6, again ignoreing the background fluff (~1/2 a page). The Glittermount TW Horse from NW is ~1page in WB14, but does't even reach 1/2 a page in the BoM. The WB16 (original version, not sure about the revised) has TW vehicles that get at least ~1/2 a page each, but in BoM each gets ~1/4-1/3 at best. The South American TW PA (and 'bot) from 2WBs is condensed to 1 page in the BoM in total, but is ~5x that between WB6 and WB9, and the TW Cyborg from WB6 entry in the BoM is basically enough to say it exists (not even ~1/8 of a page in BoM but gets 1x page easily in WB6) and to see the appropriate book. The Xiticix are in the same boat as the TW Cybrog from WB6 (in WB23 they get ~1page) The TW Frigate from SB4 is ~1page in SB4 but reduced down to ~1/2 page in BoM. These examples I cite would add 12+pages to the TW total if they were not condensed and there are other examples I did not (and in some cases cannot) cross-check that likely also received the "cliff-note" version that would add to that.
2. This condensed format seen used in the TW sections does not appear to be used AFAIK with the other magic item categories, from what I am familiar with they appear to be basically Copy-Pasted from the book they are sourced from unlike the TW.
3. the text flat out says this is not all the TW items in WB/SB/DBs to date as some had to be left out for space reasons. Which for a compilation book certainly indicates that 35 pages for TW stuff is on the low side and this is ignoring the condensed cliff-note version that is in use on at least some TW items in that section. Now I will add this does apply to both sides, though where some of the missing stuff might be placed, I'm not sure given some items in the TW area seem to be reclassified as TW (F.o.M's Automotauns and some stuff that I thought would be Bio-Wizard coming from Atlantis giving the Eye of Eylor components involved).
4. there is material in the 56pages of non-TW magic items that do not belong there (to be fair the same is true of the TW section) as we have examples of TW in at least 2x places (which IINM some are duplicated in the actual TW section), there are also non-magical items in there (Anti-Magic Containment is ~2.5 pages alone and is basically the CS approach so is unlikely to be magical), and even a variation on Tattoo Magic presented (Japanese section, reality is it shouldn't be here as its closer to Nazca Line or Tattoo magic both of which are in the Spell/Ritual Section), and South American Magical Trees (~1 page) do not actually produce a magic item. Non-TW stuff also has a full-page art-picture, something not duplicated in the TW section (which one loses more page area to pictures I'm not sure so the more "regular" size pics I'm not saying should be adjusted for).
5. Not all of the non-TW items are reproducible by PCs in game, they are handled by NPCs exclusively (ex. Bio-Wizardry and Rune).
6. Given some of the examples in the TW section (the Tokeen's IJs and Eye of Eylor hardware), Bio-Wizardry (and by extension Rune) might be closer to Techno-Wizardry than other types like Shaman/Herbalist stuff.

The result is that in actual practice you should have >=47 pages of TW stuff if you would "decompress" the TW stuff and <=51 pages of non-TW stuff taking out the non-magic item aspects (along w/the TW material). Now because there is the fact the TW stuff needs to be decompressed in the BoM and I didn't get everything (other SoT IJs for example), and material exists that was skipped that is TW that would add to the page count (and being fair the non-TW stuff) I do not think one can actually claim the B.o.M establishes that non-TW stuff is the majority, even though the non-TW stuff should be broken down into its various sub-categories to avoid a niche categories over contributing (examples. CS Anti-Magic Containment, not exactly magic items).

Honestly this seams like a tilting at windmill attack.
It does not matter and seams a poor choice to attack this windmill.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:

ShadowLogan wrote:

Crimson Dynamo wrote: simply said there's more examples of non-TW magic items in the game than there are of TW items.

That is being disengenous in terms of classification as it creates a false impression.

No, it isn't. Not even remotely.

I don't know why you and that other guy don't understand the conversation you're taking part in, but the problem is on your end. You're the ones who have no idea what you're replying to. It's completely going over your heads. Absolutely no one--myself included--has said "omg u guyz, there's more biomancer items than TW items!!!11one"

My only advise at this point is to maybe consider going back and reading what's actually written rather than whatever it is your imaginations are conjuring out of thin air.

In essence, this is the conversation.
Me: "There's more letters in the alphabet than just A."
You: "That's disingenuous! There's just as many B's, C's, and D's in the alphabet!"
Me: "... wat?"

Honestly this seams like a bit unproductive, and could go into a personal attack. Despite what is written people can interpret it differently. Saying it is their fault for not seeing it the same as you is making it about the poster and not the post. If it can't be talked about in a productive manner, chalk it up to philosophical differences and move on. But a dismissive attack is not productive.

No, them intentionally and willfully misinterpreting what I've said--even after multiple clarifications--and then writing walls of text to "prove" how wrong I was is what's unproductive. There's nothing philosophical about it. They straight-up lied about what was being said and then ranted about it incessantly and repeatedly. There was little more to say about it other than "you're wrong" and "go back and actually read what's written." Which I did.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:No, them intentionally and willfully misinterpreting what I've said--even after multiple clarifications--and then writing walls of text to "prove" how wrong I was is what's unproductive. There's nothing philosophical about it. They straight-up lied about what was being said and then ranted about it incessantly and repeatedly. There was little more to say about it other than "you're wrong" and "go back and actually read what's written." Which I did.

I don't see that at all. I see different points of view. I have totally missed you being called a liar, though there was a different point of view put forward on the balance of magic items. You seem to be really bent out of shape over something that is so minor that the rest of us aren't even seeing it. There is no right or wrong here, just more than one way of looking at magic items in the system.

I've been stating objective facts.

1.) GMs don't have to use the Techno-Wizardry rules to add a magic item to their game.
2.) There are more than just Techno-Wizardry items in the game.
3.) There are more examples of non-Techno-Wizard items in the game than TW items, especially if you consider the whole Megaverse.

ShadowLogan and Aermas have claimed I've been saying completely different things--hence calling me a liar, especially after I clarified the point for them multiple times.

According to them, there's apparently only two types of magic items in the game: TW items and non-TW items. But, as a wonderful twist, you can't actually compile them all into those two camps either, because that's "disingenuous" apparently. No, instead, you have to simultaneously say that there's more TW items than there are Biomancer items. And that there's more TW items than there are Bio-Wizardry items. And that there's more TW items than there are Rune Weapons. And so on and so forth.

But apparently I'm the one being "disingenuous" in the argument. Even though neither I nor literally anyone else in the thread made either of those absurd claims other than them.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:ShadowLogan and Aermas have claimed I've been saying completely different things--hence calling me a liar, especially after I clarified the point for them multiple times.

That seems to be quite the exaggeration to me. I have seen them presenting a different point of view. TW items are the largest individual group of magic items, with some of the others being really limited by geographic origin, the source of their creation, or whatever. That may not be the point of view you prefer, but it is just another way of looking at the setting. TW items can be made to do just about anything, so some would rather use the in-setting tools to make items rather than just insert something from another setting. That may not be the point of view you prefer, but it is just another way of looking at the setting.

I don't "have a dog in this fight", so I think I will end my participation here. I do think that you are taking things much more personally than the posts you are responding to warrant.

No, you're absolutely right.

GMs can only use the rules for Techno-Wizardry items to add new magic items to their games. And the reason for that is because there's more Techno-Wizardry items than there are Millennium Tree items.

The logic is flawless. Thank you for correcting me. Ignorant, BS opinions and bewildering and irrelevant points of view are far superior to actual objective facts. What was I thinking?

Don't let them troll you, CD. You're right on both counts and I don't understand what they're trying to prove other than the trolling.

GM's also have the other rule IE gm FIAT if the GM wants to create new magic items with arbitrary stats they always have that option

to use an example in a campaign the GM gave my character an "item" because they goofed up.
I had a character that had a "camouflaged" monst Rex mount, by appearance it was either a tiger, or a husky but all other stats wise it was a monst rex right out of the book.
I told the gm I was putting things into the storage compartment, and waiting for him to tell me it was full
I had a survival backpack
several jump suits
several suits of clothing
several spare weapons, both melee and guns
numerous clips, and bulk ammo boxes,
a bunch of money etc. in the compartment
when we figured it out, I had something like a 10ft (on a side) cube worth of stuff packed into a 12inch by 4inch by 6inch storage compartment but it was all written down as being in the compartment.

in order to move on the gm decided that I had the 10ft on a side "hammerspace" storage compartment and we moved on. later the character figured out how to expand it, and the last time we played with that character the storage was ~the size of the solar system out to and or including the Ort belt

Crimson Dynamo wrote:I've been stating objective facts.

1.) GMs don't have to use the Techno-Wizardry rules to add a magic item to their game.
2.) There are more than just Techno-Wizardry items in the game.
3.) There are more examples of non-Techno-Wizard items in the game than TW items, especially if you consider the whole Megaverse.

ShadowLogan and Aermas have claimed I've been saying completely different things--hence calling me a liar, especially after I clarified the point for them multiple times.

According to them, there's apparently only two types of magic items in the game: TW items and non-TW items. But, as a wonderful twist, you can't actually compile them all into those two camps either, because that's "disingenuous" apparently. No, instead, you have to simultaneously say that there's more TW items than there are Biomancer items. And that there's more TW items than there are Bio-Wizardry items. And that there's more TW items than there are Rune Weapons. And so on and so forth.

But apparently I'm the one being "disingenuous" in the argument. Even though neither I nor literally anyone else in the thread made either of those absurd claims other than them.

1-3 seams irreverent as they do not address the point made by the other side. (You are restating your stance while not addressing the validity of their points)
3 is a theory that has not had proper support provided, as well is an example of moving the goal post. -Including content from non rifts books is up to the GM. A GM has to allow items from other settings to be converted to rifts. -Your original stance was based off page count in BoM.
There counter is that no 1 catagory sub category of magic items has as many examples as TW not that TW has more examples than all non TW items combined.

Your stance as you put it there are more X than Y.
One stance is misleading because X includes rare groups of A, B, C, and D.
Another stance is that page count may not mean that there is more of X than Y. (To counter this you would need to count how many TW and non-TW items there are.)
Note I did a quick count of magic items in BoM, My count was 230 TW to 219 Non--So BoM appears to have more TW items than non-Tw to me. (and I know there are lots of TW items that are not in the BoM)
That does seam to indicate that page count is a poor way to determine what has more.


So they at no point claimed you said something other than X > Y, they just disagree with with clumping A, B, C and D into a group X as a standard and the accuracy of X >Y.
Address what they said not them. You attacked without addressing valid points they brought up.

Basically because they find objection with lumping a bunch of groups together as being an honest representative. It is a ideological difference that you have not addressed, but you keep making these dismissive personal attacks at them.

Sorry if this seams as a personal attack at you, but your post make it appear you are not addressing their points but attacking them personally.



Take a step back look at what point people are trying to make is, and if you can't address the point they made in a constructive way, move on.

Conversation: "There's more than JUST (emphasis mine) Techno-Wizardry items in the game, and there's more magic items (emphasis again, and note the collective term) in the game that aren't Techno-Wizardry items as demonstrated by the Book of Magic alone. A GM doesn't have to use the TW rules to add a magic item to the game."

Out of Left Field: "NUH UH!!!!!!!!!!!! There's more TW items than there are Millenium Tree items!!!!1111one It has moar pages than MT items!!! omg!!!!1"

Whatever you two three say.

Blue_Lion wrote:Take a step back look at what point people are trying to make is, and if you can't address the point they made in a constructive way, move on.

Pay attention to the conversation you're taking part in, not random inane comments by people pulling things out of their nether regions.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:Conversation: "There's more than JUST (emphasis mine) Techno-Wizardry items in the game, and there's more magic items in the game that AREN'T (again) Techno-Wizardry items as demonstrated by the Book of Magic alone. A GM doesn't have to use the TW rules to add a magic item to the game."

Out of Left Field: "NUH UH!!!!!!!!!!!! There's more TW items than there are Millenium Tree items!!!!1111one It has moar pages than MT items!!! omg!!!!1"

Whatever you two three say.

Blue_Lion wrote:Take a step back look at what point people are trying to make is, and if you can't address the point they made in a constructive way, move on.

Pay attention to the conversation you're taking part in, not random inane comments by people pulling things out of their nether regions.

There stance is clearly that it is not correct/honest to lump all non-TW into one group.

Honestly at this point it is clear you have no intention of addressing points made by others.

I did pay attention to the conversation, and I summed up the whole debate, not just some random quote.
Before you can reply to a person side in a debate you have to see what they are saying and address that, and not just go on the attack because your point is your baby.

ultimately, OP was incorrect in their statement. bags of holding would exist in rifts, since alchemists can create permenent enchanted items so they'd just be making the dimensional pocket like that. of course, we're talking hundreds of thousands of credits for the bag, probably a couple mil if they spring for it to be indestructable or otherwise magically reinforced.

that said, how many alchemists are on rifts earth, and how many people have asked to commission them a magic bag? the answer "in theory but the odds are ridiculous an alchemist made on here" when they don't know alchemists exist. on the other hand there's ley lines everyone with huge PPE reserves to tap so it'd be more common for wizards to make the long-term ones....i can't imagine the effort to built a TW-version of it would be worth it, since you'd need to build a pretty sizable chunk of TW greeble onto the side of a bag...

maybe they can put it on a lunchbox instead?

Orin J. wrote:ultimately, OP was incorrect in their statement. bags of holding would exist in rifts, since alchemists can create permenent enchanted items so they'd just be making the dimensional pocket like that. of course, we're talking hundreds of thousands of credits for the bag, probably a couple mil if they spring for it to be indestructable or otherwise magically reinforced.

that said, how many alchemists are on rifts earth, and how many people have asked to commission them a magic bag? the answer "in theory but the odds are ridiculous an alchemist made on here" when they don't know alchemists exist. on the other hand there's ley lines everyone with huge PPE reserves to tap so it'd be more common for wizards to make the long-term ones....i can't imagine the effort to built a TW-version of it would be worth it, since you'd need to build a pretty sizable chunk of TW greeble onto the side of a bag...

maybe they can put it on a lunchbox instead?

I would think a device the TW over a hundred thousand to make would be sold for hundreds of thousands of credits if not millions.

Blue_Lion wrote:There stance is clearly that it is not correct/honest to lump all non-TW into one group.

It doesn't matter what their opinion is. It's the whole point of the conversation. There are more than JUST Techno-Wizard Items in the game. That includes literally every magic item that isn't a Techno-Wizard Item. That means all of them. Not only Biomancer weapons. Not only Millennium Tree items. Not only Rune Weapons. ALL OTHER magic items. It IS a lump.

Why are they all lumped together? Because--and I cannot emphasize this enough apparently--a GM doesn't have to use the rules for TW items to add a magic item to the game. Because there's so many f'ing examples of non-TW items in the game they can model it after, and those examples even collectively (you know, as a "lump") outnumber the examples OF TW items in the game. The latter point is admittedly a minor one and not entirely germane, but it IS accurate.

Honestly at this point it is clear you have no intention of addressing points made by others.

No, I addressed it multiple times. You three are the ones who don't understand or "have any intention of addressing" it other than to throw out nonsensical and completely irrelevant rebuttals. You literally don't even understand what you're debating, no matter how many times a moderator wants to seem to claim you do.

Before you can reply to a person side in a debate you have to see what they are saying and address that

Exactly. You have to know what you're talking about before you jump into a debate and start throwing random comments around that have literally nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter that there's more examples of TW items than there are Shamanistic items. It's completely irrelevant to anything, because no one claimed there were more Shamanistic items than TW items, or that that somehow diminishes the existence of TW items. That's some other conversion in some other thread that likely doesn't even exist.

I mean, the guy who started this even went through the trouble of listing every type of item in the Book of Magic and even included page numbers, and it still went flying over his head what was being discussed. Even after it was clarified, repeatedly and ad infinitum. I mean, he was even wrong in both ways; the number of TYPES of magic items, and the sheer number OF magic items outnumber TW items in that book alone. For some reason you guys seem to think it matters that there's more TW items than one particular type of other magic item, but who cares? No one's saying otherwise. It has no relevance to anything being talked about in this thread, other than by you three, and to no effect or point.

This whole "my opinion is greater than your facts" belief that's infecting the world is absurd.

No one disputed that, there is more than just TW in the game. What they objected to is lumping all non-TW together as a fair/honest standard.


You never proved that non-TW items outnumber TW, the only number I seen provided was page count, and when I went through and counted items in the BoM there was more TW than non TW. So your claim that was more non-TW than TW in BoM alone is false.

Basically they where not arguing against your main point but, the honestly of lumping together. So your main point was never in question just a disagreement with how you where creating your evidence.


I would think a better statement that shows that there is more than TW in the game as you state your point while removing the philosophical objection would be , "There are over 6 known canonical types/sources of non-TW magical items so a GM does not have to rely on just TW to add items to the game." (make it about the types of magic items and not a comparison of number of items then they can not object on how you are counting items.) Because really what matters to your point is not how many non TW items there are but that there are many non-tw sources of magic items there are.


The object they are raising really is not about TW but about clasifing items as TW or non-TW.

A debate requires addressing the points of the other side, not throwing around insults, let me ask you this how many of your address why you feel it is important to lump all TW together? You seam to be trying to force a conversation about what you want to talk about and not what people say.

run down of posts I seen on this issue.
Your post
shadowlogons post starting to address his point of view
you addressed what is said about non TW
his post addressing what you said but not what you want to talk about
you dismissed/insulted
Shaowlogon clear statement about it being a disingenuous in terms of clarification and break down on pages.
you dismissive/insult.
me saying your posts was unproductive dismissive.
You -playing a victim card while making a personal attack
you making false statements about other posters.
Kraynic saying you what he saw was different points of views.
you personal attack
Me analysis your statement
You personal attack -while implying that what people can only talk about what you want.
Me attempting to help you see what they are talking about
You willfully ignoring what they are talking about, while requiring people only address what you want to talk about. and making a border line personal attack.
This post.
***That is not an example of a debate, that is talking to peple not with them.

Basically Shadow logon moved the conversation away from your original point(something that happens allot here), your post appear that you took it as a personal offense and when in defensive mode making it personal resulting in non.


At no time was is any one saying that a GM has to use TW to add new items. That has never been in question, what was questioned was lumping all non-TW items together and issues of how common non TW items are.
Honestly part of my goal was to keep you out of trouble, but that is hard to do when some one insists on making it personal.
(honestly shadowlogan was addressing your claim that TW is just a small amount of what is out there, not that GMs could not add other sources. That is why he brought up things like how common other sources where and was making a point about types of items. TW is likely the most common encountered type of item, do to having a more common source.)


No it is not that you have to know what you are talking about you have to know what the other poster is talking about to debate.

What matters to your point is not the number of non-Tw items but the existence of multiple sources of magic items other than TW. If anything making it about the number of sources would strengthen your original point that GMs do not need to rely on just TW to add items to a game. (so shadowlogons point actually can be used to strengthen your own.)

*****
Honestly this feels more like you are trying to keep an argument alive then a debate.
How about a compromise every one can agree on.
***There are many sources of non-TW items in the game, so a GM does not have to just use TW to add things to a game.

Can we all agree on that point?

Sources of non-TW magic items.
Any spell caster with high level invocation spells.
Biowizardy
Japan sword master/smith
Druids in england
fairy
any one that can make a pyramid
alchemist
Rune smiths (who ever makes rune weapons.)

I am sure I am missing allot.
(what fallows is my opinion and not a provable fact. And is not a new opinion but one I have had since for over 20 years.)
Given so many sources a GM does not have to just use TW to add new magical items to the game.
TW is often used as a crutch when GM/writers do not want to explain where a new magical items came from.
GM/writers need to be more comfortable with having stuff from other sources.

Blue_Lion wrote:What they objected to is lumping all non-TW together as a fair/honest standard.

And they are wrong as far as this conversation is concerned.

"There's more than just TW items in the game." "Nuh uh, that's disingenuous and not a fair/honest standard!"
"There's more letters in the alphabet than just A." "Nuh uh, that's disingenuous and not a fair/honest standard!"
"There's more than one way to bake a cake." "Nuh uh, that's disingenuous and not a fair/honest standard!"
"There are more countries in the world than just Canada." "Nuh uh, that's disingenuous and not a fair/honest standard!"
"There's more than just Caucasian people in the world." "Nuh uh, that's disingenuous and not a fair/honest standard!"

All five of those are equally absurd rebuttals to the original fact.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:What they objected to is lumping all non-TW together as a fair/honest standard.

And they are wrong as far as this conversation is concerned.

"There's more than just TW items in the game." "Nuh uh, that's disingenuous and not a fair/honest standard!"
"There's more letters in the alphabet than just A." "Nuh uh, that's disingenuous and not a fair/honest standard!"
"There's more than one way to bake a cake." "Nuh uh, that's disingenuous and not a fair/honest standard!"
"There are more countries in the world than just Canada." "Nuh uh, that's disingenuous and not a fair/honest standard!"
"There's more than just Caucasian people in the world." "Nuh uh, that's disingenuous and not a fair/honest standard!"

All five of those are equally absurd rebuttals to the original fact.

False, they where trying to hold a conversation while some one was talking at them not with them and keeps making personal attacks.

They where not rebutting That there's more than just TW items in the game.

Shadow logon started by explaining the reason for the reliance on TW, and then addressed your false claim -

Crimson Dynamo wrote: TW items are also only a tiny, miniscule part of the magic items presented for Rifts alone

So for what he was addressing, his focus on classification and how common something is was important.

Over half the magic items in the BoM alone are TW, that makes TW items the most common type of magic items presented. Being a tiny or minuscule part of magic items would require that their be insinficant level over all.

You do not get to decide what other posters can talk about. You do not get to decide how a conversation you start unfolds. Some one adressing something you said that is not your main point is valid and does lessen your main point.

So your examples are all false equivalency.
It more like-
X is just a tiny part of Y. Nuh hu X is the most common part of Y.

So as I said earlier in a debate you need to understand what the other side is talking about before you reply. It makes no sense if some one is talking about A to get made because you where talking about B. If what they are saying does not seam directly relevant to your main point look for what they are addressing and see if it needs discussed.

](I do not want to see you get perma ban, but you can't go around insulting people who disagree with you. If you can't address what they are talking about, then do not post about them.)

No, it's not false. It's fact.

Also, it's right there in black and white. Which you know since you selectively quoted from that very post. Talk about being disingenuous.

You're the one who's wrong, and the one who can't admit that they are. You're also the one who keeps bringing it up repeatedly. Either way, I'm done.

Blue_Lion wrote:Sources of non-TW magic items.
Any spell caster with high level invocation spells.
Biowizardy
Japan sword master/smith
Druids in england
fairy
any one that can make a pyramid
alchemist
Rune smiths (who ever makes rune weapons.)

Just adding to the list
-Biomancy (SA1 and Lumeria, I don't have the 2nd book so they might be different)
-Necromancy (added via Mystic Russia, mostly scepters or amulets IIRC)
-Shaman (Spirit West's Fetish hardware and Canada's Inuit Talisman/Amulets, the basic type is also available in Africa and South America)
-Temporal
-Elemental Magic (magical "robots" via spell chain using Air/Earth spells)
-Nazca Line Magic
-Millenium Tree
-Nuhr Dwarves have the Nuhr Rune Maker OCC (this might be a variant of Rune Magic, though the OCC is linked to the Mystic Kunzi for skills in WB30, SB4 suggests they use a cross between Diabolism and TWdry but that seems to be changed in WB30 to Kunzi's and a diluted form of Rune Magic.)
-Crystal Magic (Secrets of the Atlanteans, not sure how it relates to the Crystal Magic found in Palladium Fantasy Line's Island at the Edge of the World but that source does create magic items not sure about SotA version)
-Mystic Kunzi (don't have the book Mystic Russia, WB30 would seem to indicate this is a variant of Rune Magic based on the Nuhr Dwarves)
-MaxPray Shamblers (CB1r create enchanted item(s), there might be other species entries across the megaverse with unique magic items they create)

Some that blur the line IMHO (off-hand):
-Steel Tree products (pg78 WB26, suggests it might be magical though doesn't confirm it as in universe there appears to be some disagreement)
-Horune Pirates (Ship Dreamer OCC is responsible for the magic items, and some of them boarder on TW or Bio-Wizardry)
-Faerie Bot (Cananda/DBoNA) "They developed a science very similar to North America's own Techno-Wizard magic long ago" (WB30 pg77), they aren't the only race with similar TW (Amaki Gizmoteer class in SA2 and Vernulians in VKo gets a mention on pg71, but later dropped in WB30 writeup, Nuhr Dwarves as previously mentioned, Xiticix)
-Eco-Wizardry (Dinosaur Swamp, this might be considered a form of TW especially given the items are presented in a TW format)
-Naut'Yll Korallyte creations (substance is magically worked)
-Bio-Wizardry (due to TW creations doing the same thing, something you don't really see in other branches)

Blue_Lion wrote:Given so many sources a GM does not have to just use TW to add new magical items to the game.

I agree a GM/writer does not have to resort to TW for a new magical item in the game. For something that was originally said to be a North American invention way back in Rifts Main Book it certainly seems to be everywhere (even Phaseworld).

Saw an amusing joke that fits here: sell they players a gently used bag of holding. Works just like a normal bag, but everything comes out with a light coating of glitter.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:No, it's not false. It's fact.

Also, it's right there in black and white. Which you know since you selectively quoted from that very post. Talk about being disingenuous.

You're the one who's wrong, and the one who can't admit that they are. You're also the one who keeps bringing it up repeatedly. Either way, I'm done.

That link you put in shows that he acknowledge the other types exist just that TW is the most common.

So it was true the one who left the conversation was the one that still not understanding what he just linked. Because it is clear in black in white he was talking about the frequency of TW items to non TW items. And explains that the writers seam to default to TW for most items. -At no point does he challenge that there are other types of items or that GMs can add other types.

He tried to have a conversation but because you did not attempt to understand what he was saying, appear to have become offended and resorted to personal attacks and still are so caught up in your own mole hill that you can't see that you where upset over nothing.

Honestl, You left the conversation you started, when you did not understand what they where talking about and got offended.
The quote from that link shows a reply to you I quoted from your post to show you what they where addressing. (you just pointed out that you knew what they where addressing and chose to ignore it, to get upset about something different.)

Honestly you seam to be acting disingenuous as you know what they are addressing but still playing like you are being attacked. I reply to what you said because that is how conversations work.

Regardless of what the topic is behavior here matters that why there is a code of conduct. When a poster does not fallow the code of conduct and just launches personal attacks at people who disagree they come a crossed as a troll. That could lead to them being ignored and their input being missed in debates. -Your idea that GMs can use non-TW to add magical items is sound, as is his idea that most magical items created are TW. The two are not mutually exclusive.