ideas that need to go away

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:58 am

Maj wrote:If I accept what you are saying, King Arthur (signature weapon) can't exist

There's no reason it couldn't be 'the axe in the stone', or 'the spear in the stone...

But I suppose there is a point to be made that the system needs to support people having/getting items that are significant in some way that supercedes 'level-appropriate-ness'

Ice9 · Post by **Ice9** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:05 am

Lago Paranoia wrote:How pathetic of a character do you have to be that your character concept is totally derailed by you wielding an axe that's on fire? If you had real abilities and weren't some kind of weaksauce VAH/DMF you would hardly even notice the handicap. A real badass could still assassinate someone without them ever noticing even the badass WERE holding a huge flaming axe.

How pathetic of a character do you have to be that you need an axe that's on fire? If you had real abilities and weren't some kind of weaksauce VAH/DMF, you wouldn't need a magic weapon at all. A real badass could still assassinate someone with a crappy wooden shiv.

Basically, we have three options:
1) The character totally trumps the items - In which case, you could wield a flaming screaming axe just fine, but why would you even need to? You'll do perfectly well with a non-magic bread knife.
2) The character and the items are in balance - So yes, you definitely want a magic weapon, but you want one remotely suited to how your character fights.
3) The item completely trumps the character. If you're playing a wizard, and you get a vorpal sword, better drop that spellbook shit and come fight on the front line.

My opinion is that option #3 is a pile of crap, and as an idea it can not only "go away", but "die in a fire".

Daztur · Post by **Daztur** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:09 am

If a player wants a magical rapier they can engage with the world and figure out where magical rapiers are and then go get one, not just wait for the GM to fucking hand them one. Too often in a lot of games information is something that the GM is blathering on about so that the players will go do what he wants, not something that the players are intently going after in order to get what they want.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:12 am

RadiantPhoenix wrote:
shadzar wrote:Grab a copy of Marvel RPG and convert from DC to Marvel?
On further contemplation, I think the answer is to play a [Force] user and say have the ring be like Dumbo's magic feather.

then play star war? D&D doesnt have midichlorians....

Maj wrote:
shadzar wrote:THAT is the problem.
In your own words, you play "Britain" and "Camelot."

If I accept what you are saying, King Arthur (signature weapon) can't exist, Robin Hood (signature type of weapon) can't exist, and any character who picks up a magical longsword or a longbow is a copycat incapable of having personality. Hell, by your logic, your whole world is devoid of personality because it copies something else and has a signature type of magic, type of technology, and type of political turmoil.

Thus, I can only conclude that you - with your own words - have admitted that you are a munchkin who can't actually roleplay.

You've painted yourself into a corner. Shut up and get out.

oooh lets play the hyperbole game and cloud the point to try to make ourselves feel better about our insecurities...

you picked a stupid weapon and if you get left behind in the game because of it is your own damn fault for building a character around a stupid weapon.

sorry. swords and bows and clubs are par for the course. Arthur had two weapons, both longswords. Excalibur and the sword in the stone. While Robih Hood is honored as being the best with a longbow, he was very capable with a sword (unlike Russel Crowe).

so try as you like to twist things around, but as i mentioned Camelot and Robin Hood, as for the age and location of medieval, not the mythical people in them.

Next time since Camelot was mentioned and you want to attack someone like you failed to do me, you might try using Merlin and claiming anyone wanting to be a wizard is being a copycat... but as obvious that is you missed it the same as it being obvious that building a character concept around a weapon is stupid and a VERY poor concept.

guess what. Luke wasnt built around a lightsabre...but a daddy-didnt-love-me plot.

the weapons used by a people do not define them, but are defined by the people and what they need to survive. i can see farmers having lots of rapiers for hunting and cutting down trees instead of axes...as Judy Tanuta would say "THAT COULD HAPP'N".

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:16 am

shadzar wrote:
RadiantPhoenix wrote:On further contemplation, I think the answer is to play a [Force] user and say have the ring be like Dumbo's magic feather.
then play star war? D&D doesnt have midichlorians....

I meant someone who uses force-element spells. [Force] is the tag used in 3e to indicate that.

Mage Armor, Wall of Force, Resilient Sphere, Telekinetic Sphere, Magic ICBM...

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:21 am

RadiantPhoenix wrote:
shadzar wrote:
RadiantPhoenix wrote:On further contemplation, I think the answer is to play a [Force] user and say have the ring be like Dumbo's magic feather.
then play star wars? D&D doesnt have midichlorians....
I meant someone who uses force-element spells. [Force] is the tag used in 3e to indicate that.

Mage Armor, Wall of Force, Resilient Sphere, Telekinetic Sphere, Magic ICBM...

oh....remember the little bit about 3.x editions i know, i would have preferred to never been exposed to.

so if it works that way in 3rd, then i guess go for it? but would every spell glow with a green aura? i guess that would require a custom researched and built magic items that makes every spell cast green to emulate GL...but doesnt translate into his ability TO manipulate green things exactly.

was there some sort of specialist wizard in 3rd that used specific element keywords as opposed to schools of magic? if so, then that was something missing from prior editions...

Seerow · Post by **Seerow** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:21 am

Daztur wrote:If a player wants a magical rapier they can engage with the world and figure out where magical rapiers are and then go get one, not just wait for the GM to fucking hand them one. Too often in a lot of games information is something that the GM is blathering on about so that the players will go do what he wants, not something that the players are intently going after in order to get what they want.

I can agree with this as long as "go out and find a magical rapier" is a one time quest, and not a quest that has to be done every 2-4 levels to keep your weapon up to date with where you are expected to be. (This is why I typically favor a magic item system where the weapon/item will grow in power with you as opposed to the frequent random drops some on this forum prefer).

I also however agree that there are different weapons for different tasks, and occasionally that random warhammer your DM rolled may be the better tool for the job than the magic rapier you went looking for. While you use your magic rapier 90% of the time, having that warhammer around shouldn't be looked at as a waste of loot, or something that should be sold as soon as possible for 10-20% of what it's worth, so the party can after getting rid of a few 'trash drops' can buy something they actually want. Any magic item the party finds should be meaningful and interesting in some fashion.

Post by **fbmf** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:36 am

Maj wrote:
Winnah wrote:The concept of 'magical as represented by numeric bonuses' needs to go. The concept is outdated.
Yes.

shadzar wrote:THAT is the problem.
In your own words, you play "Britain" and "Camelot."

If I accept what you are saying, King Arthur (signature weapon) can't exist, Robin Hood (signature type of weapon) can't exist, and any character who picks up a magical longsword or a longbow is a copycat incapable of having personality. Hell, by your logic, your whole world is devoid of personality because it copies something else and has a signature type of magic, type of technology, and type of political turmoil.

Thus, I can only conclude that you - with your own words - have admitted that you are a munchkin who can't actually roleplay.

You've painted yourself into a corner. Shut up and get out.

Placed.

Game On,
fbmf

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 2:07 am

Fuchs wrote:I am so glad I am not playing with asshats who deride others for wanting to wield a certain weapon.

Yeah, as for me and the other asshats I play with, we're much more creative in finding ways to deride each other

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 2:28 am

King Arthur throws the sword back into the lake: Fuck you, lady, I use a battleaxe!

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 2:34 am

RadiantPhoenix wrote: Silent, Invisible Bards don't care if their weapon is screaming and on fire, and they only need to be 5th level.

Great, so what does the Rogue do? The Jester? The Thief Acrobat?

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 3:04 am

I'll have to disagree with Shadzar and Lago on this, there's nothing overly narrow about focusing on a particular weapon, It's a fine part of character identity. Some people will care more than others and it varies from concept to concept.

To go down a slippery slope, it's like if the Super Stat Boosting Super Thing was also a gender changer. "Well your character concept was too reliant on gender, so that's just being shallow"

So unless you're willing to be a woman with a flaming great axe, you really aren't playing Zorro right.

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 3:13 am

Chamomile wrote:Great, so what does the Rogue do? The Jester? The Thief Acrobat?

Get abilities that let them ignore those problems too.

CapnTthePirateG · Post by **CapnTthePirateG** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 4:22 am

Maj wrote:
Winnah wrote:The concept of 'magical as represented by numeric bonuses' needs to go. The concept is outdated.
Yes.

shadzar wrote:THAT is the problem.
In your own words, you play "Britain" and "Camelot."

If I accept what you are saying, King Arthur (signature weapon) can't exist, Robin Hood (signature type of weapon) can't exist, and any character who picks up a magical longsword or a longbow is a copycat incapable of having personality. Hell, by your logic, your whole world is devoid of personality because it copies something else and has a signature type of magic, type of technology, and type of political turmoil.

Thus, I can only conclude that you - with your own words - have admitted that you are a munchkin who can't actually roleplay.

You've painted yourself into a corner. Shut up and get out.

Maj, you just fucking won. At life.

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 5:46 am

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Regardless you want to wean people off of that crap as soon as possible. Meaning that it's best just not to give them the magical items tailored to their specifications in the first place. If you roll up a +4 warhammer at level 1 and it fits your vision, then awesome. If it doesn't, then you need to make a change to how you see your character or throw it in the bin. Better luck next time.

Why don't you play all the PCs too then, if you know best what is fun for everyone?

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 6:02 am

Salamanders have magical flaming spears. Bearded Devils have magical wounding glaives. I sympathize with your desire to have a poison bow, but if you're fighting Salamanders or Bearded Devils, you get a magical fucking polearm.

-Username17

Daztur · Post by **Daztur** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 6:15 am

Seerow wrote:
Daztur wrote:If a player wants a magical rapier they can engage with the world and figure out where magical rapiers are and then go get one, not just wait for the GM to fucking hand them one. Too often in a lot of games information is something that the GM is blathering on about so that the players will go do what he wants, not something that the players are intently going after in order to get what they want.
I can agree with this as long as "go out and find a magical rapier" is a one time quest, and not a quest that has to be done every 2-4 levels to keep your weapon up to date with where you are expected to be. (This is why I typically favor a magic item system where the weapon/item will grow in power with you as opposed to the frequent random drops some on this forum prefer).

Well I tend to like games with flatter power curves (or just slower level gain) so there wouldn't be as much need to go on quests constantly just to keep your gear up to date.

Swordslinger · Post by **Swordslinger** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 6:26 am

RadiantPhoenix wrote:
Maj wrote:If I accept what you are saying, King Arthur (signature weapon) can't exist
There's no reason it couldn't be 'the axe in the stone', or 'the spear in the stone...

Right. You shouldn't be making a character based solely on being a clone of an existing character. Play your own story. If the lady of the Lake had given him a magic axe or a mace, he'd have used that instead of a sword.

People shouldn't come in with a premade legend for their character. The purpose of the game is to write that legend. You're not King Arthur, Conan or Drizz't, you're a unique character in a fantasy world, and your story should be distinctly different.

Winnah · Post by **Winnah** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:31 am

Derivative tales are especially common in the fantasy/sci fi genre. I can't remember reading a truely unique fantasy story in the last 5 years, probably longer.

Aiming to make a campaign unique is an admirable goal, but the reality is that it requires the efforts of every player and the DM to make that happen. Doing that while playing a game that enforces rigid class roles is that much harder. Try playing a 'Knight in Shining Armour' type paladin without referencing Arthurian legend or Charlemagne or other icons or tropes of chivalry. It's fucking unpossible. That is as much a fault of the game system (paladins are designed that way) as it is the expectations of the genre.

Also, giving people the freedom to create a character, but not allowing them to recreate fantasy icons is a bullshit expectation. Not every player is going to have the wherewithal to create something truley unique. In my experience, players new to gaming feel more comfortable creating a character they can relate to, whether it is a computer game character, a character from a story, or a funny charicature of the local Italian milkman.

Xur · Post by **Xur** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:32 am

Daztur wrote:
Seerow wrote:
Daztur wrote:If a player wants a magical rapier they can engage with the world and figure out where magical rapiers are and then go get one, not just wait for the GM to fucking hand them one. Too often in a lot of games information is something that the GM is blathering on about so that the players will go do what he wants, not something that the players are intently going after in order to get what they want.
I can agree with this as long as "go out and find a magical rapier" is a one time quest, and not a quest that has to be done every 2-4 levels to keep your weapon up to date with where you are expected to be. (This is why I typically favor a magic item system where the weapon/item will grow in power with you as opposed to the frequent random drops some on this forum prefer).
Well I tend to like games with flatter power curves (or just slower level gain) so there wouldn't be as much need to go on quests constantly just to keep your gear up to date.

This really isn't a problem in standard 3rd edition, because at higher levels you should have enough cash to buy you some enchantments on your weapons in a city big enough to host some potent spellcasters. How exactly this plays out is of course highly dependant on your specific game, but options for keeping your beloved +1 magic rapier up to date at 13th level are there.

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 8:11 am

Sometimes it's much better to copy something good than to create something bad.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:58 pm

Ice9 wrote:How pathetic of a character do you have to be that you need an axe that's on fire? If you had real abilities and weren't some kind of weaksauce VAH/DMF, you wouldn't need a magic weapon at all. A real badass could still assassinate someone with a crappy wooden shiv.

Uh, yeah, that's my fucking point. Magical items shouldn't be necessary at all. If you're doing okay in your character concept without them but you come across one that derails your concept you can either pick it up and accept a schtick change--a schtick change that will be less drastic as you gain levels--or discard it and continue to fight at old level appropriateness.

Look, if Harry Potter comes across a lightsaber or Excalibur as a 1st-year then I expect him to actually use it in a way that preserves the saber-ness. And if the weapon is sufficiently badass enough he'll become 'preteen that can kick ass with a sword'. Harry Potter just reforging a lightsaber or Excalibur into a wand is lamesauce. He didn't need a super-special wand (among the one he already uses of course) in the first place so letting him do that lets him miss out on an opportunity to explore a new schtick avenue. But if Dr. Strange picks up a lightsaber (or something even better) he'll hardly even notice the power bump even though fighting with a sword isn't something he normally does.

Fuchs wrote:Why don't you play all the PCs too then, if you know best what is fun for everyone?

The same reason why we don't let people play gelatinous cubes, space rangers, tiny talking toys, non-magical horses, and frost giants. A game has to exclude certain concepts either for balance or thematic reasons. And I think 'person who will only use one type of weapon' is one of those concepts that need to die after a certain point in the game--and because because are risk adverse and intellectually lazy, it's best just not to put that crap in the game to begin with.

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 2:29 pm

Well, you're wrong. If "guy with sword" is ok in a campaign then "guy with a longsword" is perfectly acceptable as well.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Fuchs wrote:Well, you're wrong. If "guy with sword" is ok in a campaign then "guy with a longsword" is perfectly acceptable as well.

Salamanders have flaming spears. You go fight a salamander, you get a fucking flaming spear. It's right there. It exists. If you want to play a game where the flaming spears on salamanders don't drop and you keep using a sword your whole life, go play some fucking World of Warcraft.

In D&D, the enemies have actual equipment and some of it is awesome. And the things you wear and use in battle tell a story about the places you've been and the things you've done. Because the weapons of war used by your opponents are actual objects that you can and will pick up and use when they are defeated. There is a version of D&D that doesn't do that: it's called 4th edition and it fucking sucks.

-Username17

Seerow · Post by **Seerow** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 3:09 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:
Fuchs wrote:Well, you're wrong. If "guy with sword" is ok in a campaign then "guy with a longsword" is perfectly acceptable as well.
Salamanders have flaming spears. You go fight a salamander, you get a fucking flaming spear. It's right there. It exists. If you want to play a game where the flaming spears on salamanders don't drop and you keep using a sword your whole life, go play some fucking World of Warcraft.

In D&D, the enemies have actual equipment and some of it is awesome. And the things you wear and use in battle tell a story about the places you've been and the things you've done. Because the weapons of war used by your opponents are actual objects that you can and will pick up and use when they are defeated. There is a version of D&D that doesn't do that: it's called 4th edition and it fucking sucks.

-Username17

Doesn't 3.5 also have stupid shit like enchanted weapons that aren't enchanted when the monster isn't holding it, so no you don't get that Balor's flaming vorpal sword or some shit?

Just sayin' it isn't a 4e only phenomenon.